TheUnderdog

Politics: There are over 20 political issues, such as, "Should abortion be legal?",  "Should taxes be raised", "Should we have more gun control" etc.

Religion: There is only one issue: Does God exist?

How come there are more posts from this one singular issue (The existence of God) then there are from every single political issue COMBINED?  There are more posts on the religion forum than all the political issues on the political forum.  WHY?

If you ever saw someone else you knew was from DART, how did you react?

Trump supporters: The election is rigged.

Gays: The erection is licked.

I thought it was kind of funny.

I just thought it was weird.

@Everyone:

Anyone seeing this thread can vote on who should be president of DART.  Currently your options are:

1) TheUnderdog

2) Wylted

The reason why this is a thread is because Wylted's profile says, "Current president of Dart until I am challenged and a process is set up for an election."(Wylted (debateart.com))  He is being challenged and this is an election.

@Wylted

Your presidential spot is being challenged.

I agree with the GOP roughly 65% of the time, but when prominent republicans say shit like below, I got to call it out:

If slavery becomes political, I might have to switch party allegiance.

Suppose you ask 100 random people, "Do you prefer freedom or tyranny?"  Most people would say they prefer freedom.

Suppose you ask 100 different random people, "Do you prefer anarchy or law and order?"  Most people would say they prefer law and order.

But as someone who realizes this inconsistency, I discovered a euphemism for anarchy is freedom, and a euphemism for tyranny is law and order.

If you ask 100 random people, "Do you prefer anarchy or tyranny?" or, "Do you prefer freedom or law and order", most people (since people are stupid) will be unsure which they prefer.

I don't like it.  Can't politicians get rid of euphemism in their rhetoric and focus on policies?  If someone claims to be a libetarian, I could claim they support a moderate anarchy.  If someone wants law and order, I could claim they support tyranny.

Keep euphemisms consistent.  If you refer to small government as, "freedom", you should refer to big government as, "law and order" and the same is true for the negative connotations of the words, "freedom" and, "law and order".

Thoughts?

I think the following units of time should be totally and completely eliminated:

-Hours

-Minutes

-Weeks

-Months

And 1 second of time should be a different amount of time.  Currently, there are 86400 seconds in a day.  I think a second should be slightly shorter in length so there are 100,000 seconds in a day.  The unit of time are:

1 day = 10 decidays

1 deciday =10centidays

1 centiday = 10 milliday

1 milliday = 10 decaseconds

1 decasecond = 10 metric seconds

Then units of time will be much easier to convert.  This is after America goes completely metric in all other regards in 2 years.

Screen-Shot-2018-11-13-at-10.34.52-AM.png (1382×1092) (whyy.org) states that the single motherhood rates are basically at all time highs for all races.  This site also states that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up in single motherhood homes than whites.  This partially explains why blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up in prison and why they are more likely to end up in poverty than whites. 

This isn't due to a racist police force that has as many minorities as a proportion of its population as the US population.  The lurking variable that many of our left leaning friends and family members fail to realize is the single motherhood epidemic that effects blacks and Hispanics more than it does whites.  Why this is the case is anyone's guess, but deadbeat African American dads not honoring their parental responsibilities is certainly not due to the perceived racism of society.

So this brings us to the question, how to reduce single motherhood so less people go to jail and less kids grow up in poverty.  My idea is to punish deadbeat parents for abandoning their parental responsibilities.

This consists of deadbeat dads getting a mandatory vastectomy and deadbeat moms getting their tubes tied.  The funds for this are paid for by the government and intended to be a deterrence to people to not abandon their parental responsibilities in order to provide their kids with hopefully a better life than they had.  If you abandon your parenting responsibilities once, you easily could do it again. 

This idea and deterrence reduces the foster kid count in addition to reducing the poverty and incarceration rate in the long term as anyone unwilling to get a vastectomy or their tubes tied would suck up the parenting responsibilities that they owe to their kids.  If they have to set their kids up for adoption, this is fine if they get their tubes tied or a vastectomy before they set their kids up for adoption or decide to be a deadbeat parent.  Otherwise, you might make the same mistake again.  This also helps reduce overpopulation.

This idea also allows very horny people to get sterilized, and then have all the sex they want without the fear of becoming a parent.

I fail to see the problem with this idea.  It reduces long term poverty rates, incarceration rates, foster kid rates, it reduces overpopulation, it reduces the welfare state, and it allows horny players to get all the consensual sex they can get without fearing being a parent.

I personally wouldn’t be against it.  Our senators and representatives  could get more factual information than they could from random complaints done by people that are less factual than the people on DART.  Next time I see my representative, I want to tell him about DART.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lQfy1PQl2STiQ69vFs_ZJrR9gCW82WD3_I8qKCZohrA/edit.Page 1 starts out all the times God advocates the death penalty for a group that does not deserve it.

Many Christians say, “The New Testament erases the Old Testament”.

Page 10 of this document shows the New Testament stating that the Old Testament is still valid and as a result, the New Testament advocates the death penalty for all the times the Old Testament did.

Because of this, I say good riddance to Christianity.  Unfortunately God still exists, but I need to find a different religion other than Christianity.

I honestly don't know too much about this bill.

If you support the green new deal, you can tell me why I should support it.

If you oppose the green new deal, you can tell me why I should oppose it.

Lets say you do something morally neutral such as buy a red car.  Society is pro choice on owning red cars.  But society would cease to be pro choice on red cars if the government offered to give them for free to low income people.  If the government did that, the government would be picking a side and encouraging poor people to get red cars.

Similarly, pro choicers often want the government to stay out of the abortion business.  However, they appear to be inconsistent with this idea because the majority of pro choicers (including Biden) want the government to pick a side on the abortion debate by giving women free abortions that want them.  If you want a red car, you pay for it yourself, since the government doesn't have a stance on whether or not you get a red car.  With the same logic, if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.  The government should not be giving free abortions to people paid for by the taxpayers, many of whom oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds.  Just as I wouldn't force a Christian to fund a satanic temple (even though I think they should be allowed to exist), I wouldn't have a Christian who opposes abortion be forced to fund abortions, which they don't approve of.  I want the amount of things people are legally forced to fund be minimal.

The political compass test often looks like this:

My objections with this is it has 2 axises:

1) An economic scale (left vs right)

2) A social scale (libetarian vs authoritarian)

The economic scale is out of whack.  The economic scale should be measured in authoritarian vs libetarian.  Economically left is the same thing as economically authoritarian (people in this category tend to favor Medicare for all for instance, which is not a libetarian idea) and economically right is the same thing as economically libetarian (lower taxes).  

With this new definition, the following becomes true:

-Someone who is "libetarian left" is libetarian on social issues and authoritarian on economic issues.  They are therefore a leftist.

-Someone who is "libetarian right" is libetarian on social issues and libetarian on economic issues.  They are therefore a libetarian.

The 10 commandments of the bible are:

Thoughts?

I support the believe women movement because all genders (men and women) are significantly more likely to be raped than they are to be falsely accused of rape.

FactCheck: Men are more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape – Channel 4 News states the following about the subject:

And many conservatives don't support believe women out of the fear that some are innocent.  However, most conservatives also support the death penalty even though there is a chance that some convicts are innocent.  I am willing to take a little bit of risk to secure justice.

Arguments - 3 points

Sources - 2 points

Spelling and Grammer - 1 pt

Conduct - 1 pt

I think there should be a 5th category: Forfeited rounds and it's worth 1 to 2 points.

This is different from conduct because conduct should refer to ad hommein attacks.  Forfeited rounds would be seperate.  If both debaters finish all their rounds, it's a tie in this category.  If someone forfeits a round, this could have been due to lack of time, so they shouldn't lose a conduct point; people aren't future predictors.  Instead, they lose the points in Forfeited rounds.

Thoughts?

Does the following pro god argument stand up to scrutiny:?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sy63g5nN7_lv2ZyuIHvkuaq8MaF-ZwaFbTXF9NXAepQ/edit.

I think it would be good comic relief if he were to argue with someone like Brother D Thomas.  Then the rest of us get to relax.

Ron DeSantis: Mandatory covid passports are tyranny.  This is a violation of our freedom.

Also Ron DeSantis: Mandatory citizenship passports (forcing people to come with papers) is totally fine.  Freedom can be violated to ensure a false sense of safety.

Me: This guy is who the conservatives are wanting to run for president in 2024.  I want a principled president, not a president who is a partisan hack.

If a father gets his girlfriend pregnant, she births the kid, and he ditches his parenting responsibilities without the woman copying him, he is a deadbeat dad and society demands that he pay child support.

If a father gets his girlfriend pregnant, she births the kid, and both parents decide to ditch their parenting responsibilities by setting the kid up for adoption, neither parent is viewed as a deadbeat parent and society thinks this is okay and neither parent has to pay child support.

I'm thinking, it shouldn't matter if your wife decides to abandon her parenting responsibilities and her decision shouldn't impact whether or not you should pay child support.  Either you should be legally required to take care of your kids or you shouldn't. 

If your legally required to take care of your kids, then adoption would be prohibited as this would be both parents being "deadbeat parents", or it would only be allowed if both parents paid child support.  I don't think society wants to force parents who set their kids up for adoption to pay child support.

If your not legally required to take care of your kids, then why are we making deadbeat dads pay child support if they don't have to take care of their kids with child support or a parental presence?

I think Qualified Immunity should be repealed because I don't want state agents being allowed to kill you and get away with it.  But there are 2 sides to every coin, so I'm curious as to why the supporters of Qualified Immunity defend their position.

If I strawman here, it is an accident

Dialogue 1:

Far left Liberals: We want free healthcare

Far right Conservatives: Free healthcare is socialist.

Far left Liberals: Well, FINE; We'll be socialists.

I'm thinking, "imagine if conservatives did this with racism"

Dialogue 2:

Far right Conservatives: We believe in the all lives matter movement as opposed to the black lives matter

Far right Liberals: Anyone who supports all lives matter is a white supremist.

Far right Conservatives: Well, FINE; We'll be white supremists.

If conservatives in Dialogue 2 did what liberals did in dialogue 1, they would lose elections for the foreseeable future.  I guess far lefties get a pass to decide to be far left.  It makes no sense.

If I strawman here, it is accidental.

Ancoms: We want no government.  There should be no state to do anything.

Also Ancoms: We want the state to take everyone's money and distribute it to those who need it.  The state should do something here

Same ideology as communism, different names.

Space is extremely toxic for humans to live in.  You can't grow food on the surface of Mars because of the lack of atmosphere and the lack of water.  Colonizing space sounds more of a suicide mission than colonizing Antartica.  I think colonizing Antartica is easier than colonizing any planet or moon besides earth.

Antarctica has:

1) An atmosphere that humans can breathe.

2) Relatively mild temperatures.  The average temperature on Antarctica is 14 degrees Fareheight on the coast.  The average temperature on the surface of Mars is -80 degrees Farenheight (What is the Temperature on Mars? | Space).  Deviations from this temperature are also less on Antarctica than they are on Mars.

3) Proximity to the United States that Mars doesn't have

4) Ample supply of H20.  We can get as much water as we need form Antartica.  This is not true for Mars.

5) A supply of fish, penguins, and seals that can be used for food.  Mars doesn't have this.

Because of these reasons, humanity should colonize and develop Antartica and humanity should build cities in Antartica before Humanity is to colonize another planet.

I expect the percentage is pretty high given what we do on this site.  I don't want to be a lawyer though.

A wealth tax would destroy the stock market and the American economy.  Here is why:

Lets say you want to tax Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk at 8% of their wealth (what Bernie Sanders wants to do)(The Wealth Tax: Pros & Cons | taxlinked.net)

Most of their assets aren't in cash, but in stock.  Taking away 8% of their wealth probably involves taking roughly 8% of their stock as well.  If you do this, the government has a bunch of stock that they control.  The only way they can reasonably get money from this stock is if they sell the stock to the public in general.  If this happens, due to the supply to demand ratio of stock skyrocketing, this causes stock prices to plummet(since there is so much more supply for stock).

If the stock market ceases to go up, then people lose their incentive to invest.  If this happens, everyone is going to sell their stock all at once, and you've created a depression at this point and I don't see the depression ending anytime soon.  America does not deserve to be in a depression, and we would become a second or third world country at that point if the stock market gets destroyed because half the country owns stock and this half would lose pretty much all the value in your assets.  I would want to tell Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and any other advocate of the wealth tax that a wealth tax will make the rich less rich, but it will make every stock holder less rich as well, and it would cause the American economy to collapse if companies become worthless.

The wealth tax may have good intentions, but it leads to poor results.

Communism: Kills 71 million people in the USSR by starvation, and has oppressed billions of people in the past.

Mods: Being a communist is free speech and we won't ban any communists.

KKK: Lynches only 4000 black Americans(a quicker death than starvation), and has oppressed only millions of African Americans(still a large number, but only a fraction of the billions of people that communism has oppressed).

Mods: Anyone who supports the idea of racism and anyone who makes a racial slur that is pro KKK will get banned.

Me: Communism is the worse ideology, so why are the mods treating racism worse than communism?  If communists get free speech, shouldn't racists also get free speech?

Conservatives: We want small government.

Me: Then why are you pro life and anti open borders?

Democrats: We want big government.

Me: Then why are you pro choice and want less immigration restrictions?

Conservatives: We want the right to life.

Me: Then why do you oppose UHC?

Democrats: We want choice.  We are pro choice.

Me: Then why do you want to ban certain choices of firearms, like the AK47 and the AR15?

Conservatives: We want personal responsibility.  Right?  I mean, we want you to take responsibility for pregnencies, and we oppose welfare for the common person because they should take more personal responsibility.

Me: Then why do you want to give more welfare to corporations?  At least the poor person needs welfare to save their life.  The corporation is just using welfare to get richer.  I personally don't like either type of welfare.

Democrats: We wish to minimize pain.  Non consensual pregnency is painful and welfare minimizes pain.

Me: Then why are you guys applying cancel culture on many people?  That causes a lot of pain for people, and them getting cancelled causes more overall pain than people's feelings being hurt.  People's feelings last a few seconds, getting cancelled lasts much longer.

Libetarians: We want small government and we want more freedoms.  How are we inconsistent with this?

Me: Well, first off, you support nuclear energy, which is big government.  You claim the energy is safe, but that's a statist argument(they are the ones who want all these restrictions in the name of safety).  If nuclear energy was America's sole source of energy, it would cost taxpayers over $300 billion a year, which is 6x more than what conventional welfare costs the feds, and you think welfare is too much big government.  2nd off, you are against the death penalty, even though it is consistent pro choice ethic (being pro choice on abortion and letting the victims decide if they wish to execute their murderer).  You claim that the government shouldn't have the power to take someone's life.  However, the government doesn't have that power; the victims do, and the government merely executes the will of the victims onto the murderer (get the pun?).  There is the fear of executing someone that is innocent, however, there is a risk that an immigrant commits a murder and there is a risk that an AK 47 owner will commit a mass shooting.  However, you correctly point out that these risks are so rare, that they should not dictate national policy.

Conclusion: None of the 3 most common political parties are consistent and most of their members aren't either, not even the libetarians.  People should, "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" as instructed by the declaration of independence and think for themselves.

When Donald Trump was President, there was a time when he had the house and the senate.  Trump could have enacted a bunch of right wing legislation and the democrats couldn't stop them since they wouldn't have the votes.

Joe Biden is President now.  He now has the House and the Senate.  He can enact a bunch of left wing stuff.  He could ban AR 15s and AK 47s in the entire country.  He could enact his healthcare ideal right now.  I don't want him to do these things, but he has the votes.  Despite this, if he gets this done, it won't be for a long time.  This is like this in every country in the world.  Politicians are so slow.

Why are politicians so slow?

R2d598a0ab459c363b4e3b2a21f534b03 (800×611) (bing.com) shows that the spacetime fabric is below earth by approximately .4*the radius of earth (about 1500 km).  So this would mean that anything that is 1500 km below earth in the picture would cause a hole in the space time continuum.  This would mean that since the moon orbits earth at an 11 degree tilt, it means that anytime the moon goes below earth relative to the north pole would mean that the moon breaks a hole in the space time continuum.  It would also mean that if you launch a rocket from Antarctica and it gets a far enough distance away from earth, then that rocket would make a hole in the space time continuum.  If you launch a rocket from the north pole, you won't get this.

Democrats: We are so scared of blacks getting killed by the police, even though the odds of a black person dying from the police is .1% in their lifetime.

Me: You both are so scared of things that are so rare.  Can't we focus on bigger things like the US debt, which effects every American and will be solved easier with opening America's borders(since it quadruples America's population and therefore quadruples our GDP), or the single motherhood epidemic, which negatively impacts 70% of African American children and 40% of American children?  Lets not focus on super rare incidents and focus on things that impact significant portions of the country.  Make America Great Again(by great, I mean where we don't focus on rare but sensationalized events).

SJW Liberals: Hate speech should be banned.

Me: What do you think is hate speech?

SJW Liberals: Anything offensive to somebody and that hurts their feelings.  The KKK are offensive to black people, ban Klansmen.  The Nazis are offensive to Jews, ban Nazis.  People who misgender on ideological grounds are offensive to transgenders, ban misgenderers.

Me:

The Pro life movement is offensive to women who have had abortions because your dehumanizing them as murderers.  Should we ban pro lifers?

The Pro choice movement is offensive to unborn babies because your dehumanizing them.  Should we ban pro choicers?

The Anti gun control crowd is offensive to victims of school shootings because it doesn't care about their feelings.  Should we force people to support gun control?

The Pro gun control crowd is offensive to owners of AK 47s because they don't care about the feelings of AK 47 owners.  They want to ban these guns regardless.  Should the

US make it illegal to support gun control?

Back the Blue offends black people, should we ban the Back the Blue movement?

BLM offends police officers, should we ban BLM?

Kneeling for the national anthem is hating where America is right now.  Is this hate speech towards America?

Being a Republican entails being hateful towards AOC.  Being a democrat entails being hateful towards Ted Cruz.  Are political parties now hate speech towards politicians?

Very few democrats want to ban Pro lifers, being Anti gun control, Back the Blue supporters, or Republicans.

Very few republicans want to ban Pro choicers, being Pro gun control, BLM supporters, or Democrats.

With the exception of the popularity of an idea (which shouldn't be a justification for banning an idea) there is no principled difference between banning Klansmen (which you could argue is hate speech towards black people) and banning pro lifers or pro choicers (you could argue that pro lifers preach hate speech towards women since they call women who get abortions murderers)(you could also argue that pro choicers preach hate speech towards unborn babies since they dehumanize unborn babies).

We should legalize being pro life, we should legalize being pro choice, and we should legalize being in the KKK.  Legalize all the ideologies.

I think reparations for slavery would be a terrible idea.  Enslaving white people for hundreds of years because blacks were enslaved before violates the 8th and 13th amendment.  It also would cause the repeal of the 2nd amendment, since white Americans would fight their 2nd amendment rights being taken from them.

There are thousands of species on planet earth, probably millions.

Each species on Earth, according to evolution has a common ancestor.

But if every species on earth had a common ancestor, then all of the animals that existed at this time would have interbred with each other and as a result, there would either be only be one species on this planet, or no species on the planet if the species starved to death due to our distant ancestors interbreeding with the ancestors of every other species(which was the same species back then, so viable offspring would be produced)

This is what would happen if science’s view on the origin of life was true.

But we know millions of species exist on this planet.  The alternative to evolution is creationism:

With creationism, every species was distinctly made by a higher power.  This explains the millions of species we know exist today.  

If evolution is real, the animals of the distant past would have interbred into unification.  If creationism is real, it helps explain why different  species exist today.

In Europe and Canada, the conservatives support free college and UHC from what I have heard.  So what separates them from the liberals?  Why don’t they become liberals if they agree with the left on everything?

Atheists: Then why is there evil?

Me: Why does God have to be all knowing, all powerful, and all loving(referred to as the 3 All characteristics?  I mean, is there a possibility that God is none of those things?  Where in the Bible does it say that God meets the 3 All characteristics?  Even if it is said in the Bible that God meets the 3 All characteristics, could that just be a metaphor?  I mean, God uses metaphors a lot.

Would you rather shoot a starving African kid and give them the easy way out(assuming you could get away with it)  or do nothing and let them die of starvation (which is more painful than a shot in the back of the head).

You aren’t allowed in this would you rather to feed them, as people just don’t do that.

It is because of this that I would shoot them in the back of the head; to end their suffering.

Lets legalize everything that doesn't have a victim with the crime.  Make America Great Again.

If the Christian god didn't exist, how did the pope get into power?  The bible says Jesus promoted Saint Peter.  Science has yet to provide an alternative answer.

What do you guys think of this?

The 2nd amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed".  Bearing arms is open carry.  It therefore should be legal in all 50 states.  Make America armed again.

I think food stamps should be banned because they encourage dependence on taxpayers without their consent and there are other ways for poor people to get food like soup kitchens, which are fine with giving food out to poor people.

I say no.  They provide protection against the following:

- The biggest mass shooter in history; tyrannical governments.

- It sets a precedent to ban all guns in the nation once people get used to certain gun bans.  Canada for instance allows cities to ban hand guns now or Treadeau wants to get that done.

They are also responsible for very little crime.  When Bill Clinton banned these guns in 1994 for 10 years, it had very little impact on homicide.

I think they should support free contraception.  It reduces abortions by a huge amount.

I think it would be a good idea to annex Panama.  We get a canal that benefits the US economy and the locals get out of poverty.  Sounds like a win win.

I'd say I support legalizing abortion before 6 weeks.  After that, ban it.  Also, I want to focus on expanding contraception access to reduce abortions.

I don't see a zygote as human, but a fetus is human; their cells have already specialized.  This isin't the case for a zygote or an embryo.

Thoughts on this DARTers?

I'm not, but was wondering if anyone was a flat earther.  I heard RM was one.