Alright; I just am a sadist for groups I know virtually everyone is against. Watching the vulnerable suffer when virtually all of society is against them is fun for me.
If nobody responds, then assume everyone agrees with the statement and your purpose on this planet as a welfare-receiving pedophile doesn't exist. You are better off dead and I don't think my comment will get pulled down or even get responded to in a criticizing way because pretty much everyone agrees with it.
Like, you said you don't care if you live or die, so prove it.
->Thank you for clarifying some of the conduct of this website.
No problem.
->There is research on topics like this. If a topic comes up with no statistics for example, then it would fall on expert opinion and beyond that anything else is unclear and would remain a weak point probably only based off weak anecdotal evidence so I would hope voters recognize this.
https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/comparing-crime-rates-between-undocumented-immigrants-legal-immigrants-and makes the left wing case, (The undocumented are less harmful).
I have though seen articles claiming the opposite from sources I can't remember but at the time, I believed they were reliable; Wylted might reference these. Lets say these sources are as reliable as the one I listed. Whose cite is more reliable; this site, or a hypothetical pro Trump .edu site (which in my very distant memory, I remember seeing but I can't find the site)? I believe someone like Wylted may have these sites on file.
->hold on so making factual claims that non western folks have different cultural beliefs than westerners is racist? That is an odd thing to say
Claiming that Indians tend to have different cultural beliefs (like being Hindu vs Christain majority America) isn't racist because you can find data on it to back the claim up. Claiming that Hatians are voodoo is also not racist. Claiming that either ethnicity has a majority of their followers being anti free speech with no data to back it up is racist.
->Are you seriously saying it is a subjective opinion that cultures can vary?
No; the culture of California is different than the culture of Texas. But it would be stereotypical to assume that all Californians are democrats and all Texans are republcians.
->I will clarify in my first arguement what counts as derailed.
I understand that's kindof what you plausibly can do; but you should define this in your description so debators know what they are signing up for. If you make a climate change debate with someone and then you talk about abortion, they didn't sign up for an abortion debate; but a climate change debate.
-> I consider empirically false statements about race, sex, etc. to be derailed beliefs.
That sounds very straightforward until propaganda inevibtibly kicks in. If you ask 1 Fox News viewer and 1 CNN viewer, "Are undocumented immigrants more or less likely to commit rape as native born citizens?", the Fox viewer would say yes; the CNN viewer would say no. One of them is objectively wrong; you can even find reliable sources that contradict each other. The experts can't even agree on that, and many MAGA people argue the experts are part of the deep state and can't be trusted due to their alleged corruption by some boogey man globalist.
->If con were to bring such an argument forward I would simply refute it due to lack of evidence.
Honestly, with debates, you should refute ALL arguments your opponent brings up to the best of their ability. If they make the claim that the majority of black women got abortions and the majority of black men (except they call them hard r) are deadbeat dads, then if you are black, then you may find that offensive and even racist, but you still have to debunk it. But how debates can work (like the debate style you selected) is there are I think 7 points you can win. 3 are from arguments; 2 are from sources; one is for grammar; another is for conduct.
If someone calls you the N word in a debate if you are black, then you can expect to get the conduct point, since use of either N word veriety in a debate context is poor conduct. But if you get angry in retaliation, then you might actually lose the conduct point (or neither one of you would get it).
You are anti-Trump; lets say you debate someone pro Trump. The debate ends; one of the voters has a very strong pro Trump bias and votes against you. You have the ability to flag that vote and moderation will look at it and plausibly remove it (vice versa if a hardcore anti Trumper votes for you).
->Any extreme racist or sexist arguments will be completely disregarded and will not count towards the debate. If con makes these arguments I will not respond to them and anyone voting in this debate should ignore them as they violate the rules of the debate.
You want the voters to ignore bigoted arguments; but there is no guarantee they would; and there are arguments you would consider racist that your opponent wouldn't. Somebody saying they don't like the hood can be argued to be racist (even though I've met black democrats who agree with this statement).
You've literally called yourself racist here by not wanting black Hatians to move here (presumably because they are black and claiming large swaths of strangers don't believe in western values like free speech which you can't verify because you don't know every Hatian out there. Some are free speech absolutists; others want to ban hate speech; just like white people):
-> I am not looking to debate someone who just has completely derailed racist beliefs etc. but rather someone who may genuinely believe Trump is better suited for office.
The part where you exclude people with racist beliefs but still support Trump; that takes out a lot of your competition (hopefully not a majority, but people like Wylted are racist and many Trump supporters share his views).
Does not matter. We need to do a genocide on pedos. Just put them in a camp and let them be target practice for our soldiers. I hate pedos more than I love children.
Trust me, being a pedo is way worse than being straight. Pedos are objectively inferior to normal people; it's why they don't get hired; because them being pedos inheritely makes them inferior human beings. Their best purpose is being experimented on painkiller free to help out good non-pedophilles. Other than that, they have no use in society.
Pedos belong in concentration camps and we need to go death con 5 on them, like for real.
If you advocate changing our gun laws in any way, then be more specific. Yes, the NAW countries (Non-American West) tend to have lower homicide rates and stricter gun laws, but their homicide rate was very low even BEFORE their gun control laws were passed. If NZ's homicide rate is .5 deaths per 100K (8% that of the American homicide rate) after a gun control bill and their homicide rate is .5 per 100K before the gun control bill, then it's not fair to claim that NZ's gun laws made their nation safer.
->If you mean we live in a cooperative society and have to occasionally trust others to relay the science to us correctly then fine, but it is still up to you to weigh the pros and cons.
Ok, so then we are sheep either to doctors or to podcasters. I prefer to be a sheep to the people with PhDs.
->For example you could take 90k now or go for a 1 in 10 chance to win 1 million dollars. The mathematically correct choice is to take the million and yet most people will take the 90k as they have a different way to weigh the exact same pros and cons.
If all you value is the expected value of X(E(X), then you are correct. But what if it was $100 million or a .1% chance of $1 trillion? The 2nd option has the higher E(X), but if you pick the 2nd option, you almost certainly will get nothing. I would pick the 1st option because it has less risk / Standard deviation (S).
The Sharpe Ratio is the E(X)/S. It's why portfolios have stocks (higher E(X) than bonds and high S) and bonds (low E(X) and low S); it's because yes, E(X) should be high, but also S should be low. Me personally, I don't own any bonds; all of my stocks have high E(X) and a beta >1 (beta=1 is 1x as risky as the stock market), but even I diversify my portfolio to reduce S.
->Also FYI, Joe Rogan is not activax. It's not a big deal if he is, but that is literally a libtard narrative that is a lie because he has kept an open mind towards vaccine skeptics.
If Joe Rogan wants to have anti-vaxxers on, then fine. Just give them pushback if you have them on if you disagree.
->This just hot retarded. We were talking about what happens after an unplanned pregnancy not what strategies can be used to avoid one.
Prevention is the best cure.
->For example Double R has no clue the person advocating for a change in the status quo has the BOP and when I proved what was wrong with it he tried to shift the BOP to me by claiming it's possible to work without those problems so we should do it, without giving a realistic plan to achieve it the way he would like.
->"But back to the subject at hand; lets say you have less testosterone than at least 50% of men (which for you, is more plausible than you would like to admit". That's rude
It's not; it's merely being objective. You MIGHT have higher than median testosterone level. But it's not certain. That's true for me too. Facts don't care about feelings.
->No you don't you can weigh the pros and cons yourself
You can; but if you believe the cons (or pros) of the COVID shot, then you are inheritely following someone else's advice. I merely prefer to follow the doctors vs the podcasters. Rogan can go to medical school, then I will take him seriously (and I've met anti vax doctors before). A doctor tells me to not get the vax, I respect their opinion. A podcastor tells me not to do it; what does he know?
->I think the child should have some amount of bodily autonomy as well so there needs to be a balancing act.
The balancing act would be the dude getting the vasectomy, but men don't want to do that because, "their body, their choice".
->Neither of those things are true. I don't want her to get pregnant so I pull out and if she gets pregnant that is on God and I am okay with that.
Pull out game isn't 100% effective. You are sounding like hood gangsters; "Naw man; I'm gonna pull out; you feel me bro?!?!" You sound like uneducated deadbeat dads from the inner cities and the trailer parks.
->Are you so stupid as to not realize I am quite obviously arguing devil's advocate here
Then don't frame the debate as something you seemed to believe in. Like if I make the debate title, "Rape should be legal" and I pick pro (which I can play Devils Advocate for), that is off limits I think unless you clearly state that it's devils advocate (which you did not).
->Are you kidding me. The people who rejected the pressure from the white house, the media, their family, their jobs to avoid the jab are followers?
The unvaccinated aren't followers of the white house, but they are followers of Tucker Carlson and the anti vaxxers. The uncomfterable truth is you have to follow someone wrt the COVID vaccine. I trust the doctors and their degrees over the podcasters and their vibes.
->Only if they in collaboration with their doctor decide that continuing the pregnancy would harm the life or health of the mother, if the baby is going to be severely handicapped or the child is unlikely to survive the pregnancy. Also children should be allowed abortions as well. Those are the only exceptions I support
So not unconditionally for consensual sex, presumably because you believe the right to not get murdered outweighs the right to bodily autonomy.
->No I am not. If I don't want her to get pregnant I will just stop fucking her.
This means one of the 2 things are true:
1. You are fucking her and you want her to be pregnant. So fine; you want to reproduce.
2. You don't want her to be pregnant, so you aren't having sex with your wife, ie you will get a vasectomy before you have recreational sex again (defined as sex without the intention to reproduce).
You said you don't want a vasectomy, so if you want to conceive, then fine. I'm willing to wait until marriage. However, most people don't wait until marriage.
->If she didn't than she would take birth control and I would wear condoms and if it still happened anyway then we would just raise another child.
->Besides she wants another baby anyway. If she didn't than she would take birth control and I would wear condoms and if it still happened anyway then we would just raise another child.
Then it looks like you can't have sex with your wife unless it's for reproduction.
But back to the subject at hand; lets say you have less testosterone than at least 50% of men (which for you, is more plausible than you would like to admit; I'm not saying it's certain or that it's even an over 50% chance; but it's certainly plausible). Are you willing to surgically transition and be the trans woman in your kid's life and would your wife be fine with that?
->"Why? Is it because it's what the conservative camp tried to do?" Yes
That's just following the pack; it's not really alpha male. An alpha male thinks about if they should back a policy before they do. They don't just accept party narraitves like a beta does.
->"Are you transgender or something? Because no cisgender dude would make a statement like that." I actually no what straight men like because i am not a faggot so fucking straight men should cum easy
Your answer was a dodge. Are you transgender? There is nothing wrong with being transgender if you are upfront about it. You can be trans while also knowing what straight men like. You actually have an easier time because you used to (or still do) have a penis.
You didn't address my abortion take. I don't inherently believe you are misogynistic, but I also got to call a spade a spade.
1. Do you support the right of a woman to get an abortion?
2. Are you willing to get a vasectomy before you have sex again to prevent your girlfriend/wife from needing an abortion if you can store pre vasectomy sperm in a hospital freezer if you ever want kids again?
If both answers are yes, that's fine. Same thing if there is only one yes. 2 No's is misogyny. I have 2 yes answers (although I occasionally have #1 be a No answer).
-> Refusing the test after mandates is enough to be considered high test
Why? Is it because it's what the conservative camp tried to do?
->I would make a very fuckable woman
Are you transgender or something? Because no cisgender dude would make a statement like that.
->Women love misogynistic men, they just don't give a shit about politics unless they are a leftard. And even leftard women's pussy gets wet when seeing a masculine male such as myself
Masculine man /=/ misogynistic man. A masculine man that is not misogynistic goes to the gym and does 500 pushups in an hour while either being pro choice or getting a vasectomy before they have sex because they at least care more about 9 months of a woman's bodily autonomy than 3 days of their own. They don't judge women for having high body counts if the man has a higher body count (I think it's ok to require a virgin on your wedding day as long as you aren't a hypocrite here). They want a woman that is either a trad wife and therefore accepts them being a gold digger, or doesn't want a gold digger, and therefore doesn't want a TRAD wife. They may care about their woman looking good, but only if they try and look good as well.
A misogynistic man that is not masculine is very overweight, wants to force women to be in 9 months of pregnancy pain while unwilling to endure 3 days of vasectomy pain because, "my body, my choice", complains about women being 304s while prude shaming them for refusing to have sex with him, claims that men are providers while complaining about women being gold diggers, and so on. They are overweight while wanting their women to be very good looking.
Clevelandclinic says that you need blood work done. If you can't convince 30% of the country to get vaccinated because, "my body, my choice", then how are you going to convince everyone to corporate with a blood test? I would also argue testosterone levels change.
->Then I will embrace my destiny as a woman
And who would fuck you? Most straight dudes are unwilling to fuck transwomen.
->you are willing to have sex with men as indicated by your statement in this thread admitting it so
The closest thing I said here was I would be cool with dating transwomen. But to be honest, you said that you want to date transwomen too (otherwise what's the point of 50% of dudes transitioning)? The difference is I believe they are women (so by my standards, I'm not gay) but you believe they are men (so by YOUR standards, you are gay).
->you are also a democrat and higher testosterone is associated with conservatism https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/155441/version/V1/view
I would admit I've become more left wing as time has gone on, but Lebron James endorsed Biden(https://www.cleveland.com/election/2020/11/lebron-james-officially-endorses-joe-biden-for-president.html). So do you believe a professional basketball player has low testosterone or what?
But the article states, "When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party fell by 12% (p=.01) and they reported 45% warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president (p < 0.001). ". In other words, far left democrats have lower testosterone levels than center left democrats. If I became a democrat tomorrow (I'm registered republican), then I certainly would not be the most left wing in the party. I don't like Affirmitive Action; I want to expand gun rights. I think murderers and rapists should be killed. I like nuclear energy. To claim I'm an ideological clone of Jill Stein is crazy; I'm more like Kyle Kulinski or Bill Clinton.
It's possible that center left people have more testosterone than far left people while also center right people have more testosterone than far right people. If you think Christain Walker in 2022 had high testosterone levels, then I don't know what to tell you.
I can do one arm pushups with ease and I can do 500 pushups in an hour reliably. To claim that I'm weak because I have some left wing beliefs and to claim I have less testosterone than the median man is loony.
But there was this dating site for conservative men. Men had to pay; women didn't. The site got virtually no women on there. This is because young women (due to their emotional minds) are prone to stereotypes that many conservative men are misogynistic due to their strong support for entities like Andrew Tate. Even most women that are Trump supporters hate Andrew Tate (I read something that said 40% of women back Trump and 6% of women back Andrew Tate). Women don't want emotional men; and any conservative man a woman dates will assume, "He's one of the conservative men that don't like Tate". Once she finds out you do like Tate, either she will change your mind (at least what you say to her face) or she will break up with you.
->Bruh you seen my videos. I am a little fat, its an issue that needs dealt with but I am not starring on 600 pound life any time soon
Virtually nobody weighs 600 lbs. How much do you weigh and how tall are you? We will see if you are fat or not.
@WyIted
->It doesn't matter. I don't feel like waking up early for work, but I do it because it's my duty
Most men and women do this if needed.
->The ones we pick to trans will obviously be picked based on levels of testosterone.
How can you tell testosterone levels? And what if you are in the bottom 50%? Be honest; do you think my testosterone levels are in the top or bottom 50% for men? Please provide evidence. What makes you think you are in the top 50%? You are fat; high T men are in good shape.
-> I am trying to be reasonable here
Nothing says you are being reasonable than forcing half the population to cut their dicks off. Wasn't like you saying 2 years ago or so if a kid wants to get their dick cut off, then they shouldn't be allowed to because of possible regret? Now, you are saying even if the guy doesn't want to lose their dick, FORCE them to do genital mutilation? That's one of the least reasonable things I have ever read in my life.
I believe it is worse to force a dude to get his dick chopped off than is for a woman to get raped. You can recover from a rape to at least some level; a forced bloke is unhealable.
According to the left, a woman and man is anyone that identifies as a woman/man. According to the right, it's based on chromosomes. If a man with XY chromosomes loses their dick, then they will still identity as men; so you having sex with them would be gay (because both of their chromosomes and how they identify).
Your belief here is just stupid, and coming from me; that's a lot. Someone says abortion from rape should be punished with death/life imprisonment, that's not stupid to me; it's fringe and unrealistic; but not stupid. Someone saying women should be housewives, that's not stupid to me. Saying 50% of dudes should be forced to have their dicks removed so you could have sex with them; that's in a category by its self.
Hey look; you are trans; that’s out of your control but 8% if dudes don’t care. Look better, pass better, if you ask 30 straight dudes out in person if they don’t have a girlfriend, then there is an 8% chance they all turn you down.
Then you would no longer be a pedophille which would cause society to view you better.
How did people find out you were a pedophille anyways?
As one of the few dudes who is fine with dating transwomen, I don’t believe in premarital sex. The transwoman also have to be extremely passable, which I’m not sure if you are. Post op, they have to sound like a girl. Stuff like that.
-> I’m just saying that this isn’t a debate about proving anything.
Then what's the point in having the debate? If I felt like debating about guns, then I would do my debate with the intention of proving why my position on guns is better than my opponent's (I'm very republican on guns, but I digress).
I understand you want to claim the new territory for your team similar to what the North and South did with slavery legalization; the South wanted more slave states and the North wanted more free states.
I'm just here to let you know that in this political climate (especially online on a place like DART), there is very little unclaimed land available. Virtually every piece of land is either a slave state or a free state. Virtually every person on here has their mind made up on this issue. The left wingers are going to back what electorally helps their party; the right wingers will do the same. There are no neutral people on this topic that will read your debate. Everyone on this site is claimed on this issue.
There are even very few unclaimed people outside of DART.
->The goal is to persuade some hypothetical person who is neutral on the topic, not to prove anything.
Neutral people won't take your debate.
But the hidden reason the left wants to get rid of the electoral college is the same reason the right wants to keep it; from 2000 to 2020, 3/6 of the POTUS elections were won by Republicans with our electoral college. If the popular vote was how the US ran it's elections, then the democrats would have won 5/6 of these elections (which would have made America much more left-wing in terms of the Overton window). With the electoral college, our supreme court is 5 Republicans, 1 libertarian, and 3 democrats. Without the electoral college, Trump's 3 judges would have been Clinton's 3 judges (we can assume they are all would be democrats). This is 2 Republicans, 1 Libertarian, and 6 Democrats. Roe V Wade would still be the law, you probably would have many other left wing pieces of legislation (maybe every place being a sanctuary city by law). The one time the GOP won the popular vote, it was a very small majority. The democrat would have had incumbent advantage and more immigrant votes (immigrants lean left), leading to the democrat winning in even 2004 possibly, leading to Bush'es 2 judges not getting appointed by him. That would mean 1 republican judge and 8 left judges.
If you are a democrat, then you think this is a tremendous thing. If you are a republican, then you think this is a horrible thing.
If you want the electoral college gone, then you are going to have to give the right some electoral advantage in return (like making the federal voting age 21 or 25) so they know you are acting in good faith. Otherwise, it's a way for democrats to gain power and hold it.
1. There will be hundreds of iterations of text in the sky saying, "Islam is real", "Christianity is real" or whichever religion happens to be correct.
2. No such iterations will happen in the sky (so either god is fake or god doesn't care if he is worshipped).
Whichever happens tomorrow is the religion I will subscribe to. All other forms of evidence can be argued to be mere coincidences. Like, "If the flying spaghetti monster wasn't real, then how come DNA is shaped like Pasta?"
There are 2 types of debators; the one who can make a really good argument with over 10 pages of text (you) and the one who can be much more to the point and condense their arguments. The 2nd will be more successful in changing other people's minds because normal people (even most DARTers) won't just read 10 pages of text for fun.
If you want to convert consenting individuals to Islam, then find out a way to condense all of your points into something simpler for people to understand, because very few people have a reading SAT score of 800 regardless of their religious beliefs.
It depends on if they are immigrants or colonizers. If the former, then no and their technology would be useful for humanity to advance our species. If the ladder, then yes (but it would be pointless since humanity would lose in that civil war against alien technology).
->Denying the right to abortion is not forcing pregnancy.
It is forcing pregnancy for those already pregnant.
->So, my rebuttal to that argument if people present that to me is, "Women don't need to have sex." It's as simple as that.
Really, you are making the argument, "If you don't want kids, then don't have sex." Really, the only people that can make this argument are those that are waiting until marriage to have sex (which I'm willing to, but only 3% of the US population actually is willing to do).
The claim that, "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" is a claim that those wanting to ban abortion agree with and those wanting to legalize it disagree with.
I am confused as to which side I take on this debate.
Really with all activities you can do that are dangerous, you can say, “If you don’t want the risk, then don’t do the activity”. But with all of these activities (except for sex), if things go south, then you can legally get treatment in all 50 states since you aren’t harming anyone by getting treatment for the vast majority of activities (you aren’t harming anyone significantly if you put ice on your hand after a burn from matches).
Find some situation that meets all of the following criteria:
1. Feels very good to do on a natural and instinctive level.
2. Has plausible risk to it if things go very south.
3. Treatment would harm some other entity significantly
And one bullet point from the following criteria:
4. Therefore, you should not be allowed to get the treatment due to the significant harm it would cause to others.
5. Despite this, you should be allowed to get the treatment despite the significant harm it would do to others.
It’s easy for me to think of many situations where 1 and 2 are met. It’s much harder for me to complete 1-3 and then get 4 or 5. Your answer for 4 or 5 should be something pretty much everyone agrees with.
If you want to establish the belief, "If you don't want pregnancy, then don't have sex" then you must find some situation that means bullets 1-3 and 4 while also acknowledging that if you get a situation that meets 1-3 and 5, then you should become pro choice.
-> There’s more crime, more debt, more wars, worse economy, worse inflation, what he did with Taliban is a disgrace, he is senile and he is a puppet for the DSP.
The crime rate has gone up under Biden (and Trump). I know the moment Trump became POTUS, the rape rate went up like 60%. But the annual odds of dying from homicide in the US pretty much range from .004% to .012%. Homicide is extremely rare no matter which POTUS is in charge.
Define economy. The unemployment rate went down under both POTUS'es. The GDP per capita is an all time high under Biden (but it usually goes up regardless of who is in charge). The stock market is high under Biden this year, but the stock market went up about 8% a year under Biden and 12% under Trump. Trump did better on the market; but it's only a slight advantage. He should get credit for this though.
Inflation is a product of the federal reserve, not any sitting president.
I was satisfied with at least the war with the Taliban being over even if the withdrawal was imperfect. I don't see Trump doing a better job.
I don't know what DSP is.
-> I’d love to debate you in it btw. I really want to learn about the presidency stuff.
I prefer Fourm debates; formal debates like this one are too stressful and I don't like doing them because both sides try and prove their points instead of being willing to change their own minds. I'll give Trump credit where it's due on right wing policies; I agree with getting rid of Roe V Wade. But I do think he wants to do some crazy things like Project 2025 (which would ban porn and make him a dictator; leading to the loss of our free and fair elections). He is a convicted felon of crimes like adultery (which I think if you do adultery while over 25, then you should be banned from federal office as politicians should have good moral character).
The 13th amendment outlaws slavery. Pro-choice advocates argue that forced pregnancy is slavery.
The 14th amendment says one group of people that are Citizens. Pro choices argue this means that only those born in the US are Citizens and that it's ok to murder someone if they are not a Citizen.
I don't agree with these arguments, but if you want a good rebuttal to them, then look at comment 7.
I wonder if you would argue that a deadbeat dad being forced to pay child support without his consent is slavery since some of his work gets unrewarded since the kids get the money.
14th amendment: States one group of people who is a US citizen (those born here)
This amendment is not exclusionary. It doesn't say, "Only those born here are Citizens". It says, "Those born here are Citizens". But lets say we claim that an unborn kid isn't a Citizen. Fine. You know who also isn't Citizens? Tourists in the US. So unless you believe it's ok to murder tourists because they aren't Citizens, then I recommend you drop this amendment as a reason to justify legalized abortion.
If we had Rank Choice voting out of those 3, then I would put RFK first. He hasn't had a chance to rack up the US debt like Biden and Trump did (paying off the US debt is a big issue for me). Biden would be 2nd (Trump is Mr. Project 2025). Trump would be 3rd.
I don't like any of them. RFK preaches, "anti war" but not for Israel. I'm America First for Ukraine and Israel's wars.
I'm most in line with Jill Stein and Chase Oliver. They are both anti-war and are pro Rank Choice voting. I agree with a universal jobs guarantee to help people get off of welfare, so it's why I prefer Jill Stein to Chase Oliver.
I think Cornell West shouldn't be running and should drop out and endorse Jill Stein unless there is at least one policy disagreement he has with Jill Stein (if there is at least one policy disagreement, then he should state it). Cornell West is on less ballots than Jill Stein. If he refuses to back Biden because of Palestine, then fine. But Cornell west is on less ballots and he refuses to state why he prefers himself over Jill Stein. To me, that's having an ego too big.
All conservative speech can be argued to be hate speech and it should all be legal.
What is your response to Islam vs Atheism?
Saying Allah is real because the Quran says so is like saying Posiden and Hades are real because this book says so:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/176457190299?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-213727-13078-0&mkcid=2&itemid=176457190299&targetid=4580909053911840&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=&poi=&campaignid=603247654&mkgroupid=1236951625700523&rlsatarget=pla-4580909053911840&abcId=9316139&merchantid=51291&msclkid=201baeb050ae1f998fe9c81e9bf1770f.
You are correct; the desire to live forever IS selfish.
Buying a house for it and refusing to let homeless people stay with you rent free is ALSO selfish.
Refusing to adopt starving children because you would rather spread your own genes is selfish.
In many contexts, there is nothing wrong with being selfish.
Alright; I just am a sadist for groups I know virtually everyone is against. Watching the vulnerable suffer when virtually all of society is against them is fun for me.
->It sucks that people cant choose to simply stop existing.
They can; all it takes is a bullet to the head.
->Can you give me more arguments to use in this debate?
Talk about how ugly you are and how bad they treated you in prison.
Break the cycle.
If nobody responds, then assume everyone agrees with the statement and your purpose on this planet as a welfare-receiving pedophile doesn't exist. You are better off dead and I don't think my comment will get pulled down or even get responded to in a criticizing way because pretty much everyone agrees with it.
Like, you said you don't care if you live or die, so prove it.
P1: Murderers are losers.
P2: You are a pedophille.
P3: Pedophilles are treated worse than murderers.
C1: You are a bigger loser than murderers.
I think in Canada or the UK; it's 16. I lean more towards freedom, so I prefer the lower number.
10 seems too young; but I'm on board with 16.
->Thank you for clarifying some of the conduct of this website.
No problem.
->There is research on topics like this. If a topic comes up with no statistics for example, then it would fall on expert opinion and beyond that anything else is unclear and would remain a weak point probably only based off weak anecdotal evidence so I would hope voters recognize this.
https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/comparing-crime-rates-between-undocumented-immigrants-legal-immigrants-and makes the left wing case, (The undocumented are less harmful).
I have though seen articles claiming the opposite from sources I can't remember but at the time, I believed they were reliable; Wylted might reference these. Lets say these sources are as reliable as the one I listed. Whose cite is more reliable; this site, or a hypothetical pro Trump .edu site (which in my very distant memory, I remember seeing but I can't find the site)? I believe someone like Wylted may have these sites on file.
@wylted
->hold on so making factual claims that non western folks have different cultural beliefs than westerners is racist? That is an odd thing to say
Claiming that Indians tend to have different cultural beliefs (like being Hindu vs Christain majority America) isn't racist because you can find data on it to back the claim up. Claiming that Hatians are voodoo is also not racist. Claiming that either ethnicity has a majority of their followers being anti free speech with no data to back it up is racist.
->Are you seriously saying it is a subjective opinion that cultures can vary?
No; the culture of California is different than the culture of Texas. But it would be stereotypical to assume that all Californians are democrats and all Texans are republcians.
->I will clarify in my first arguement what counts as derailed.
I understand that's kindof what you plausibly can do; but you should define this in your description so debators know what they are signing up for. If you make a climate change debate with someone and then you talk about abortion, they didn't sign up for an abortion debate; but a climate change debate.
-> I consider empirically false statements about race, sex, etc. to be derailed beliefs.
That sounds very straightforward until propaganda inevibtibly kicks in. If you ask 1 Fox News viewer and 1 CNN viewer, "Are undocumented immigrants more or less likely to commit rape as native born citizens?", the Fox viewer would say yes; the CNN viewer would say no. One of them is objectively wrong; you can even find reliable sources that contradict each other. The experts can't even agree on that, and many MAGA people argue the experts are part of the deep state and can't be trusted due to their alleged corruption by some boogey man globalist.
->If con were to bring such an argument forward I would simply refute it due to lack of evidence.
Honestly, with debates, you should refute ALL arguments your opponent brings up to the best of their ability. If they make the claim that the majority of black women got abortions and the majority of black men (except they call them hard r) are deadbeat dads, then if you are black, then you may find that offensive and even racist, but you still have to debunk it. But how debates can work (like the debate style you selected) is there are I think 7 points you can win. 3 are from arguments; 2 are from sources; one is for grammar; another is for conduct.
If someone calls you the N word in a debate if you are black, then you can expect to get the conduct point, since use of either N word veriety in a debate context is poor conduct. But if you get angry in retaliation, then you might actually lose the conduct point (or neither one of you would get it).
You are anti-Trump; lets say you debate someone pro Trump. The debate ends; one of the voters has a very strong pro Trump bias and votes against you. You have the ability to flag that vote and moderation will look at it and plausibly remove it (vice versa if a hardcore anti Trumper votes for you).
->Any extreme racist or sexist arguments will be completely disregarded and will not count towards the debate. If con makes these arguments I will not respond to them and anyone voting in this debate should ignore them as they violate the rules of the debate.
You want the voters to ignore bigoted arguments; but there is no guarantee they would; and there are arguments you would consider racist that your opponent wouldn't. Somebody saying they don't like the hood can be argued to be racist (even though I've met black democrats who agree with this statement).
@WyIted
You've literally called yourself racist here by not wanting black Hatians to move here (presumably because they are black and claiming large swaths of strangers don't believe in western values like free speech which you can't verify because you don't know every Hatian out there. Some are free speech absolutists; others want to ban hate speech; just like white people):
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11373-meep-proposal-ban-stochastic-terrorism?page=3&post_number=74
-> I am not looking to debate someone who just has completely derailed racist beliefs etc. but rather someone who may genuinely believe Trump is better suited for office.
The part where you exclude people with racist beliefs but still support Trump; that takes out a lot of your competition (hopefully not a majority, but people like Wylted are racist and many Trump supporters share his views).
What are you (out of the straight, gay, bi, ace quadchotomy)?
That pill shouldn't exist as there is nothing wrong with being straight.
->Straight sex is responsible for creating pedophiles, so if you hate pedophiles, you also have to hate straight sex which produces pedophiles.
I would only hate the ejaculations that produce kids that turn out to be pedos, but you can't predict the future.
Alright; well you don't punish parents for the murder (or pedophilia) done by their sons, so what's your point?
Not true; many crimes are done by non-straights. Most crimes will be done by straights because most people are straight.
Does not matter. We need to do a genocide on pedos. Just put them in a camp and let them be target practice for our soldiers. I hate pedos more than I love children.
Trust me, being a pedo is way worse than being straight. Pedos are objectively inferior to normal people; it's why they don't get hired; because them being pedos inheritely makes them inferior human beings. Their best purpose is being experimented on painkiller free to help out good non-pedophilles. Other than that, they have no use in society.
Pedos belong in concentration camps and we need to go death con 5 on them, like for real.
This doesn't justify banning a sexuality 95% or so of the population has.
What would be your penalty for being straight?
Who would produce the foster kids if it's illegal to be straight?
How would people reproduce if straight couples are banned?
If you advocate changing our gun laws in any way, then be more specific. Yes, the NAW countries (Non-American West) tend to have lower homicide rates and stricter gun laws, but their homicide rate was very low even BEFORE their gun control laws were passed. If NZ's homicide rate is .5 deaths per 100K (8% that of the American homicide rate) after a gun control bill and their homicide rate is .5 per 100K before the gun control bill, then it's not fair to claim that NZ's gun laws made their nation safer.
@wylted
->If you mean we live in a cooperative society and have to occasionally trust others to relay the science to us correctly then fine, but it is still up to you to weigh the pros and cons.
Ok, so then we are sheep either to doctors or to podcasters. I prefer to be a sheep to the people with PhDs.
->For example you could take 90k now or go for a 1 in 10 chance to win 1 million dollars. The mathematically correct choice is to take the million and yet most people will take the 90k as they have a different way to weigh the exact same pros and cons.
If all you value is the expected value of X(E(X), then you are correct. But what if it was $100 million or a .1% chance of $1 trillion? The 2nd option has the higher E(X), but if you pick the 2nd option, you almost certainly will get nothing. I would pick the 1st option because it has less risk / Standard deviation (S).
The Sharpe Ratio is the E(X)/S. It's why portfolios have stocks (higher E(X) than bonds and high S) and bonds (low E(X) and low S); it's because yes, E(X) should be high, but also S should be low. Me personally, I don't own any bonds; all of my stocks have high E(X) and a beta >1 (beta=1 is 1x as risky as the stock market), but even I diversify my portfolio to reduce S.
->Also FYI, Joe Rogan is not activax. It's not a big deal if he is, but that is literally a libtard narrative that is a lie because he has kept an open mind towards vaccine skeptics.
If Joe Rogan wants to have anti-vaxxers on, then fine. Just give them pushback if you have them on if you disagree.
->This just hot retarded. We were talking about what happens after an unplanned pregnancy not what strategies can be used to avoid one.
Prevention is the best cure.
->For example Double R has no clue the person advocating for a change in the status quo has the BOP and when I proved what was wrong with it he tried to shift the BOP to me by claiming it's possible to work without those problems so we should do it, without giving a realistic plan to achieve it the way he would like.
Keep the RCV opinions on a RCV thread.
->"But back to the subject at hand; lets say you have less testosterone than at least 50% of men (which for you, is more plausible than you would like to admit". That's rude
It's not; it's merely being objective. You MIGHT have higher than median testosterone level. But it's not certain. That's true for me too. Facts don't care about feelings.
->No you don't you can weigh the pros and cons yourself
You can; but if you believe the cons (or pros) of the COVID shot, then you are inheritely following someone else's advice. I merely prefer to follow the doctors vs the podcasters. Rogan can go to medical school, then I will take him seriously (and I've met anti vax doctors before). A doctor tells me to not get the vax, I respect their opinion. A podcastor tells me not to do it; what does he know?
->I think the child should have some amount of bodily autonomy as well so there needs to be a balancing act.
The balancing act would be the dude getting the vasectomy, but men don't want to do that because, "their body, their choice".
->Neither of those things are true. I don't want her to get pregnant so I pull out and if she gets pregnant that is on God and I am okay with that.
Pull out game isn't 100% effective. You are sounding like hood gangsters; "Naw man; I'm gonna pull out; you feel me bro?!?!" You sound like uneducated deadbeat dads from the inner cities and the trailer parks.
->Are you so stupid as to not realize I am quite obviously arguing devil's advocate here
Then don't frame the debate as something you seemed to believe in. Like if I make the debate title, "Rape should be legal" and I pick pro (which I can play Devils Advocate for), that is off limits I think unless you clearly state that it's devils advocate (which you did not).
@wylted
->Are you kidding me. The people who rejected the pressure from the white house, the media, their family, their jobs to avoid the jab are followers?
The unvaccinated aren't followers of the white house, but they are followers of Tucker Carlson and the anti vaxxers. The uncomfterable truth is you have to follow someone wrt the COVID vaccine. I trust the doctors and their degrees over the podcasters and their vibes.
->Only if they in collaboration with their doctor decide that continuing the pregnancy would harm the life or health of the mother, if the baby is going to be severely handicapped or the child is unlikely to survive the pregnancy. Also children should be allowed abortions as well. Those are the only exceptions I support
So not unconditionally for consensual sex, presumably because you believe the right to not get murdered outweighs the right to bodily autonomy.
->No I am not. If I don't want her to get pregnant I will just stop fucking her.
This means one of the 2 things are true:
1. You are fucking her and you want her to be pregnant. So fine; you want to reproduce.
2. You don't want her to be pregnant, so you aren't having sex with your wife, ie you will get a vasectomy before you have recreational sex again (defined as sex without the intention to reproduce).
You said you don't want a vasectomy, so if you want to conceive, then fine. I'm willing to wait until marriage. However, most people don't wait until marriage.
->If she didn't than she would take birth control and I would wear condoms and if it still happened anyway then we would just raise another child.
->Besides she wants another baby anyway. If she didn't than she would take birth control and I would wear condoms and if it still happened anyway then we would just raise another child.
Then it looks like you can't have sex with your wife unless it's for reproduction.
But back to the subject at hand; lets say you have less testosterone than at least 50% of men (which for you, is more plausible than you would like to admit; I'm not saying it's certain or that it's even an over 50% chance; but it's certainly plausible). Are you willing to surgically transition and be the trans woman in your kid's life and would your wife be fine with that?
@wylted
->"Why? Is it because it's what the conservative camp tried to do?" Yes
That's just following the pack; it's not really alpha male. An alpha male thinks about if they should back a policy before they do. They don't just accept party narraitves like a beta does.
->"Are you transgender or something? Because no cisgender dude would make a statement like that." I actually no what straight men like because i am not a faggot so fucking straight men should cum easy
Your answer was a dodge. Are you transgender? There is nothing wrong with being transgender if you are upfront about it. You can be trans while also knowing what straight men like. You actually have an easier time because you used to (or still do) have a penis.
You didn't address my abortion take. I don't inherently believe you are misogynistic, but I also got to call a spade a spade.
1. Do you support the right of a woman to get an abortion?
2. Are you willing to get a vasectomy before you have sex again to prevent your girlfriend/wife from needing an abortion if you can store pre vasectomy sperm in a hospital freezer if you ever want kids again?
If both answers are yes, that's fine. Same thing if there is only one yes. 2 No's is misogyny. I have 2 yes answers (although I occasionally have #1 be a No answer).
@wylted
-> Refusing the test after mandates is enough to be considered high test
Why? Is it because it's what the conservative camp tried to do?
->I would make a very fuckable woman
Are you transgender or something? Because no cisgender dude would make a statement like that.
->Women love misogynistic men, they just don't give a shit about politics unless they are a leftard. And even leftard women's pussy gets wet when seeing a masculine male such as myself
Masculine man /=/ misogynistic man. A masculine man that is not misogynistic goes to the gym and does 500 pushups in an hour while either being pro choice or getting a vasectomy before they have sex because they at least care more about 9 months of a woman's bodily autonomy than 3 days of their own. They don't judge women for having high body counts if the man has a higher body count (I think it's ok to require a virgin on your wedding day as long as you aren't a hypocrite here). They want a woman that is either a trad wife and therefore accepts them being a gold digger, or doesn't want a gold digger, and therefore doesn't want a TRAD wife. They may care about their woman looking good, but only if they try and look good as well.
A misogynistic man that is not masculine is very overweight, wants to force women to be in 9 months of pregnancy pain while unwilling to endure 3 days of vasectomy pain because, "my body, my choice", complains about women being 304s while prude shaming them for refusing to have sex with him, claims that men are providers while complaining about women being gold diggers, and so on. They are overweight while wanting their women to be very good looking.
Women like the 1st man; not the 2nd.
@ WyIted
Clevelandclinic says that you need blood work done. If you can't convince 30% of the country to get vaccinated because, "my body, my choice", then how are you going to convince everyone to corporate with a blood test? I would also argue testosterone levels change.
->Then I will embrace my destiny as a woman
And who would fuck you? Most straight dudes are unwilling to fuck transwomen.
->you are willing to have sex with men as indicated by your statement in this thread admitting it so
The closest thing I said here was I would be cool with dating transwomen. But to be honest, you said that you want to date transwomen too (otherwise what's the point of 50% of dudes transitioning)? The difference is I believe they are women (so by my standards, I'm not gay) but you believe they are men (so by YOUR standards, you are gay).
->you are also a democrat and higher testosterone is associated with conservatism https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/155441/version/V1/view
I would admit I've become more left wing as time has gone on, but Lebron James endorsed Biden(https://www.cleveland.com/election/2020/11/lebron-james-officially-endorses-joe-biden-for-president.html). So do you believe a professional basketball player has low testosterone or what?
But the article states, "When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party fell by 12% (p=.01) and they reported 45% warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president (p < 0.001). ". In other words, far left democrats have lower testosterone levels than center left democrats. If I became a democrat tomorrow (I'm registered republican), then I certainly would not be the most left wing in the party. I don't like Affirmitive Action; I want to expand gun rights. I think murderers and rapists should be killed. I like nuclear energy. To claim I'm an ideological clone of Jill Stein is crazy; I'm more like Kyle Kulinski or Bill Clinton.
It's possible that center left people have more testosterone than far left people while also center right people have more testosterone than far right people. If you think Christain Walker in 2022 had high testosterone levels, then I don't know what to tell you.
I can do one arm pushups with ease and I can do 500 pushups in an hour reliably. To claim that I'm weak because I have some left wing beliefs and to claim I have less testosterone than the median man is loony.
But there was this dating site for conservative men. Men had to pay; women didn't. The site got virtually no women on there. This is because young women (due to their emotional minds) are prone to stereotypes that many conservative men are misogynistic due to their strong support for entities like Andrew Tate. Even most women that are Trump supporters hate Andrew Tate (I read something that said 40% of women back Trump and 6% of women back Andrew Tate). Women don't want emotional men; and any conservative man a woman dates will assume, "He's one of the conservative men that don't like Tate". Once she finds out you do like Tate, either she will change your mind (at least what you say to her face) or she will break up with you.
->Bruh you seen my videos. I am a little fat, its an issue that needs dealt with but I am not starring on 600 pound life any time soon
Virtually nobody weighs 600 lbs. How much do you weigh and how tall are you? We will see if you are fat or not.
@WyIted
->It doesn't matter. I don't feel like waking up early for work, but I do it because it's my duty
Most men and women do this if needed.
->The ones we pick to trans will obviously be picked based on levels of testosterone.
How can you tell testosterone levels? And what if you are in the bottom 50%? Be honest; do you think my testosterone levels are in the top or bottom 50% for men? Please provide evidence. What makes you think you are in the top 50%? You are fat; high T men are in good shape.
-> I am trying to be reasonable here
Nothing says you are being reasonable than forcing half the population to cut their dicks off. Wasn't like you saying 2 years ago or so if a kid wants to get their dick cut off, then they shouldn't be allowed to because of possible regret? Now, you are saying even if the guy doesn't want to lose their dick, FORCE them to do genital mutilation? That's one of the least reasonable things I have ever read in my life.
I believe it is worse to force a dude to get his dick chopped off than is for a woman to get raped. You can recover from a rape to at least some level; a forced bloke is unhealable.
According to the left, a woman and man is anyone that identifies as a woman/man. According to the right, it's based on chromosomes. If a man with XY chromosomes loses their dick, then they will still identity as men; so you having sex with them would be gay (because both of their chromosomes and how they identify).
Your belief here is just stupid, and coming from me; that's a lot. Someone says abortion from rape should be punished with death/life imprisonment, that's not stupid to me; it's fringe and unrealistic; but not stupid. Someone saying women should be housewives, that's not stupid to me. Saying 50% of dudes should be forced to have their dicks removed so you could have sex with them; that's in a category by its self.
Hey look; you are trans; that’s out of your control but 8% if dudes don’t care. Look better, pass better, if you ask 30 straight dudes out in person if they don’t have a girlfriend, then there is an 8% chance they all turn you down.
Then you would no longer be a pedophille which would cause society to view you better.
How did people find out you were a pedophille anyways?
As one of the few dudes who is fine with dating transwomen, I don’t believe in premarital sex. The transwoman also have to be extremely passable, which I’m not sure if you are. Post op, they have to sound like a girl. Stuff like that.
@wylted
Ask 100 dudes, "Hey; would you like to transition and lose your penis?" None of them would agree to that.
You want half of men to transition? You 1st.
I am not going to vote on this debate. I just figured I would do this so nobody else could. I wanted to make a joke. That’s it.
-> I’m just saying that this isn’t a debate about proving anything.
Then what's the point in having the debate? If I felt like debating about guns, then I would do my debate with the intention of proving why my position on guns is better than my opponent's (I'm very republican on guns, but I digress).
I understand you want to claim the new territory for your team similar to what the North and South did with slavery legalization; the South wanted more slave states and the North wanted more free states.
I'm just here to let you know that in this political climate (especially online on a place like DART), there is very little unclaimed land available. Virtually every piece of land is either a slave state or a free state. Virtually every person on here has their mind made up on this issue. The left wingers are going to back what electorally helps their party; the right wingers will do the same. There are no neutral people on this topic that will read your debate. Everyone on this site is claimed on this issue.
There are even very few unclaimed people outside of DART.
If you live in any of the yellow states:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Then you can contact your representative about joining the compact to make what you want a reality.
->The goal is to persuade some hypothetical person who is neutral on the topic, not to prove anything.
Neutral people won't take your debate.
But the hidden reason the left wants to get rid of the electoral college is the same reason the right wants to keep it; from 2000 to 2020, 3/6 of the POTUS elections were won by Republicans with our electoral college. If the popular vote was how the US ran it's elections, then the democrats would have won 5/6 of these elections (which would have made America much more left-wing in terms of the Overton window). With the electoral college, our supreme court is 5 Republicans, 1 libertarian, and 3 democrats. Without the electoral college, Trump's 3 judges would have been Clinton's 3 judges (we can assume they are all would be democrats). This is 2 Republicans, 1 Libertarian, and 6 Democrats. Roe V Wade would still be the law, you probably would have many other left wing pieces of legislation (maybe every place being a sanctuary city by law). The one time the GOP won the popular vote, it was a very small majority. The democrat would have had incumbent advantage and more immigrant votes (immigrants lean left), leading to the democrat winning in even 2004 possibly, leading to Bush'es 2 judges not getting appointed by him. That would mean 1 republican judge and 8 left judges.
If you are a democrat, then you think this is a tremendous thing. If you are a republican, then you think this is a horrible thing.
If you want the electoral college gone, then you are going to have to give the right some electoral advantage in return (like making the federal voting age 21 or 25) so they know you are acting in good faith. Otherwise, it's a way for democrats to gain power and hold it.
Tomorrow one of the 2 things will happen:
1. There will be hundreds of iterations of text in the sky saying, "Islam is real", "Christianity is real" or whichever religion happens to be correct.
2. No such iterations will happen in the sky (so either god is fake or god doesn't care if he is worshipped).
Whichever happens tomorrow is the religion I will subscribe to. All other forms of evidence can be argued to be mere coincidences. Like, "If the flying spaghetti monster wasn't real, then how come DNA is shaped like Pasta?"
There are 2 types of debators; the one who can make a really good argument with over 10 pages of text (you) and the one who can be much more to the point and condense their arguments. The 2nd will be more successful in changing other people's minds because normal people (even most DARTers) won't just read 10 pages of text for fun.
If you want to convert consenting individuals to Islam, then find out a way to condense all of your points into something simpler for people to understand, because very few people have a reading SAT score of 800 regardless of their religious beliefs.
Define "religion". I can argue consumerism is a religion.
I'm libertarian on this issue.
It depends on if they are immigrants or colonizers. If the former, then no and their technology would be useful for humanity to advance our species. If the ladder, then yes (but it would be pointless since humanity would lose in that civil war against alien technology).
->Denying the right to abortion is not forcing pregnancy.
It is forcing pregnancy for those already pregnant.
->So, my rebuttal to that argument if people present that to me is, "Women don't need to have sex." It's as simple as that.
Really, you are making the argument, "If you don't want kids, then don't have sex." Really, the only people that can make this argument are those that are waiting until marriage to have sex (which I'm willing to, but only 3% of the US population actually is willing to do).
The claim that, "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" is a claim that those wanting to ban abortion agree with and those wanting to legalize it disagree with.
I am confused as to which side I take on this debate.
Really with all activities you can do that are dangerous, you can say, “If you don’t want the risk, then don’t do the activity”. But with all of these activities (except for sex), if things go south, then you can legally get treatment in all 50 states since you aren’t harming anyone by getting treatment for the vast majority of activities (you aren’t harming anyone significantly if you put ice on your hand after a burn from matches).
Find some situation that meets all of the following criteria:
1. Feels very good to do on a natural and instinctive level.
2. Has plausible risk to it if things go very south.
3. Treatment would harm some other entity significantly
And one bullet point from the following criteria:
4. Therefore, you should not be allowed to get the treatment due to the significant harm it would cause to others.
5. Despite this, you should be allowed to get the treatment despite the significant harm it would do to others.
It’s easy for me to think of many situations where 1 and 2 are met. It’s much harder for me to complete 1-3 and then get 4 or 5. Your answer for 4 or 5 should be something pretty much everyone agrees with.
If you want to establish the belief, "If you don't want pregnancy, then don't have sex" then you must find some situation that means bullets 1-3 and 4 while also acknowledging that if you get a situation that meets 1-3 and 5, then you should become pro choice.
-> There’s more crime, more debt, more wars, worse economy, worse inflation, what he did with Taliban is a disgrace, he is senile and he is a puppet for the DSP.
The crime rate has gone up under Biden (and Trump). I know the moment Trump became POTUS, the rape rate went up like 60%. But the annual odds of dying from homicide in the US pretty much range from .004% to .012%. Homicide is extremely rare no matter which POTUS is in charge.
Define economy. The unemployment rate went down under both POTUS'es. The GDP per capita is an all time high under Biden (but it usually goes up regardless of who is in charge). The stock market is high under Biden this year, but the stock market went up about 8% a year under Biden and 12% under Trump. Trump did better on the market; but it's only a slight advantage. He should get credit for this though.
Inflation is a product of the federal reserve, not any sitting president.
I was satisfied with at least the war with the Taliban being over even if the withdrawal was imperfect. I don't see Trump doing a better job.
I don't know what DSP is.
-> I’d love to debate you in it btw. I really want to learn about the presidency stuff.
I prefer Fourm debates; formal debates like this one are too stressful and I don't like doing them because both sides try and prove their points instead of being willing to change their own minds. I'll give Trump credit where it's due on right wing policies; I agree with getting rid of Roe V Wade. But I do think he wants to do some crazy things like Project 2025 (which would ban porn and make him a dictator; leading to the loss of our free and fair elections). He is a convicted felon of crimes like adultery (which I think if you do adultery while over 25, then you should be banned from federal office as politicians should have good moral character).
The 13th amendment outlaws slavery. Pro-choice advocates argue that forced pregnancy is slavery.
The 14th amendment says one group of people that are Citizens. Pro choices argue this means that only those born in the US are Citizens and that it's ok to murder someone if they are not a Citizen.
I don't agree with these arguments, but if you want a good rebuttal to them, then look at comment 7.
13th amendment: Outlaws slavery
I wonder if you would argue that a deadbeat dad being forced to pay child support without his consent is slavery since some of his work gets unrewarded since the kids get the money.
14th amendment: States one group of people who is a US citizen (those born here)
This amendment is not exclusionary. It doesn't say, "Only those born here are Citizens". It says, "Those born here are Citizens". But lets say we claim that an unborn kid isn't a Citizen. Fine. You know who also isn't Citizens? Tourists in the US. So unless you believe it's ok to murder tourists because they aren't Citizens, then I recommend you drop this amendment as a reason to justify legalized abortion.
If we had Rank Choice voting out of those 3, then I would put RFK first. He hasn't had a chance to rack up the US debt like Biden and Trump did (paying off the US debt is a big issue for me). Biden would be 2nd (Trump is Mr. Project 2025). Trump would be 3rd.
I don't like any of them. RFK preaches, "anti war" but not for Israel. I'm America First for Ukraine and Israel's wars.
I'm most in line with Jill Stein and Chase Oliver. They are both anti-war and are pro Rank Choice voting. I agree with a universal jobs guarantee to help people get off of welfare, so it's why I prefer Jill Stein to Chase Oliver.
I think Cornell West shouldn't be running and should drop out and endorse Jill Stein unless there is at least one policy disagreement he has with Jill Stein (if there is at least one policy disagreement, then he should state it). Cornell West is on less ballots than Jill Stein. If he refuses to back Biden because of Palestine, then fine. But Cornell west is on less ballots and he refuses to state why he prefers himself over Jill Stein. To me, that's having an ego too big.