Trent0405

Hello all,

I am in the middle of preparing my first argument for a foreign policy debate I want to post. However, I am weary about actually doing the debate for one reason, my sources. The vast majority of my sources come from books, which obviously aren't available for free on the internet, which sort of leaves me in a bind. I know it is poor form to cite something that is trapped behind a price tag, but I really like my sources and I do not want to scouer the internet to find something which makes the same claims as those contained in my books.

Could I take screenshots of the part of the book I am looking to source (they're all online copies) or does that remove too much context? Is there anything I can do?

I decided to try and decipher the best MMA heavyweights of all time using the long and rich 31-year history of Fight Matrix rankings.

For my points system, if a fighter was ranked in the top 10 in a quarterly ranking published by Fight Matrix, they would receive at least 1 point. The full points scheme is listed below...

1st place - 15 points

2nd place - 12 points

3rd place - 9 points

4th place - 7 points

5th place - 6 points

6th place - 5 points

7th place - 4 points

8th place - 3 points

9th place - 2 points

10th place - 1 point

The final results can be seen below...

1. Fedor Emelianenko - 514
2. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira - 418
3. Junior dos Santos - 372
4. Cain Velasquez - 368
5. Fabricio Werdum - 350
6. Stipe Miocic - 324
7. Josh Barnett - 259
8. Alistair Overeem - 233
9. Bas Rutten - 187
10. Randy Couture - 184
Semmy Schilt - 176
Daniel Cormier - 176
Brock Lesnar - 173
Francis Ngannou - 170
Mark Hunt - 165
Mirko Filipovic - 154
Frank Mir - 151
Yuki Kondo -137
Andrei Arlovski - 133
Mark Coleman - 130
Masakatsu Funaki - 113
Derrick Lewis - 91
Curtis Blaydes - 85
Tim Sylvia - 82
Antonio Silva - 80
Travis Browne - 63
Guy Mezger - 61
Jason DeLucia - 61
Alexander Volkov - 57
Ryan Bader - 51
Pedro Rizzo - 45
Kiuma Kunioku - 43
Kiyoshi Tamura - 41
Ricco Rodriguez - 41
Gilbert Yvel - 37
Dan Henderson - 36
Ben Rothwell - 34
Dan Severn - 33
Gabriel Gonzaga - 33
Shane Carwin - 32
Vitor Belfort - 31
Jairzinho Rozenstruik - 31
Ricardo Morais - 26
Gary Goodridge - 24
Kevin Randleman - 24
Ken Shamrock - 23
Igor Vovchanchyn - 23
Assuerio Silva - 23
Keiichiro Yamamiya - 22
Renato Sobral - 22
Ciryl Gane - 18
Valentijn Overeem - 17
Heath Herring - 15
Sergei Kharitonov - 14
Magomedkhan Gamzatkhanov - 13    (great name)
Jason Godsey - 13
Ryushi Yanagisawa - 13
Cheick Kongo - 13
Tariel Bitsadze - 12
Brett Rodgers - 12
Ron Waterman - 10
Evan Tanner - 9
Tsuyoshi Kosaka - 9
Frank Shamrock - 8
Vladimir Matyushenko - 8
Wanderlei Silva - 8
Maurice Smith - 7
Lyoto Machida - 7
Jeremy Horn - 6
Kazuhiro Nakamura - 6
Osami Shibuya - 4
Kazuyuki Fujita - 4
Akira Shoji - 3
Alexey Oleynik - 3
Manabu Yamada - 2
Vitaly Minakov - 2
Oleg Taktarov - 1
Vernon White - 1
Carlos Barreto - 1
Leon van Dijk - 1
Bob Stines - 1
Sanae Kikuta - 1
Brendan Schaub - 1
Roy Nelson - 1
Muhammed Lawal - 1
Matt Mitrione - 1
Marcin Tybura - 1

As crazy as this election has been, the memes are just too good to simply ignore.

What memes made you laugh? Also, please attempt to remain civil.

The Chicago Black Hawks are my favourite hockey team, and the former best team in the league. But now their trash...

However it looks like they're turning things around.

Why is this? What are your thoughts?

On a conceptual level a flat tax has always seemed rather inefficient. However, it seems like most studies show a positive impact. This one shows how a flat tax increases revenue by 25%, increases productivity by 5%, and decreases tax evasion by 10.5%.

What do you guys think?

I do not support a privatized system, but more privatization is popular amongst academics, so I would probably support that.

I eat meat, what do you guys have to say.

I will be supporting Biden over Trump, what do you think?

Bernie has pushed for rent controls, what are your thoughts?

I am against rent controls, and so are economists. 81% of economists say that rent controls failed to provide cheap and high quality housing in New York and San Francisco, while only 2 percent of economists said otherwise.

Moreover, several studies are against rent controls...

“a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”

"The abolition of the rent control regime, can not only shift the equilibrium out of this inferior outcome, but can also result in an across-the-board lowering of rents."

 I want to see what others have to say.

Steven Bonnel is a rational and intelligent liberal. Despite me disagreeing with him on a few issues, I think he's a good source if you want to hear arguments against social conservatism. He has (in my opinion) beaten conservatives like Nick Fuentes, Lauren Southern, James Allsup, and Andy Waraski.

Personally he's shifted me to left on social policy and a bit to the right on economic policy.

What do you guys think of him? : )

   On the whole I'm anti worker owned companies. I'm not an economist, nor do I have a great or decent understanding of economics. But I want to create a discussion on the topic anyway.

I am officially the greatest debater on the planet(if you flip the top 5 around...) seeing how you'll never truly understand somebody so smart and cool like me, I have abstained from making this. But, I think you've all have earned the privilege to ask me questions and attempt to comprehend my excellence.

Which measurement is superior when determining the size of an economy? I'd say GDP PPP is superior on the whole(unfortunately). GDP PPP does adjust for different cost of livings and such. The only criticism of PPP I've seen is that it's harder to measure.

Lets break it down--say a service costs 30USD in Chicago, but if that same service costs 15USD in Beijing because of the different cost of living, nominal actually adds 15 and 30 dollars to each economy,  but in PPP, they account for the different cost of livings. So why should the same service be counted differently?

This argument fascinates me because of the Indian, Chinese, and American economies. If we use GDP PPP America is behind China and a tad ahead of India, but if we use Nominal America is well ahead of both India and China by quite a wide margin.

Really I'm looking for a compelling argument in favour of Nominal GDP over GDP PPP. Can anybody more informed on this chime in, this topic has been bugging me for years, just a while ago I came to the conclusion that PPP was superior.

They are unbelievably annoying, a pedestrian's rights are the exact same for marked vs unmarked crosswalks. I can't imagine it would be expensive to paint 2 parallel lines. LIKE JEEZ.

For me it isn't even a question. Tales of Symphonia 1 and 2

I do quite enjoy Mike Tyson's Punch Out as well.

What are your favourites.

                                      

YEAAAAaaaahhh. No I ain't happy but it's to be expected, a massive plurality of people favour liberals in Canada, if the conservative and liberal candidates are equally good the Liberals will win. Liberals win so much that they've earned the title "the natural governing party." The Conservatives even gained 23 seats out of 338 though, so that's cool. 

I checked the COC and the extended policies Doc, doesn't define it.

I mean guys like David Pakman or Steven Crowder when I say "figures."

Guys I like----

-Ben Shapiro

-David Pakman

-Tim Pool

- Steven Crowder

I'm not quite sure, China has the population but doesn't produce as much oil, we thought Japan would pass America and that didn't work out, I guess we'll see.

There isn't enough evidence to prove either way in my opinion.

What do you think?

Jorge will domiNate Nate Diaz...…...get it

What are my fellow MMA fans thoughts. 

I have to use Microsoft Edge for this site because it doesn't work on IE, but IE is superior in everyway to Fire Fox, Chrome, and Edge. I've tried them all and nothing beats IE, I don't get why people hate it other than a ton of sites not being compatible with it.

0nce for me, My debate with Oro called "Germany is more powerful than France, As of now."

How bout you.

What are your thoughts on debates with only a few thousand characters a round, this is basically all of my debates but I'm wondering how it's perceived by everybody else.

I'm on the right, but these ridiculous conservatives embarrass the movement, this is a reason why I like Trump, he said we need to condemn these people completely, and he's correct.

The far right kills more people than radical leftwing Antifa dorks ever could. 

The champ is sticking around baby, now he's got to beat Tony Ferguson.

We can expect the masses to erupt into chaotic violence within the week.

Only Joey Diaz, Bert Kreicher and Joe Rogan can survive, as they will ascend into the heavens where they belongs, sippin' some cold beverages with Jesus.

What is your IQ, i'd assume the average on this site would be higher than the national average, if you aren't sure, what do you think it is.

Average nationally(Canada-America)=99

Genius=130

Me=114

Look I'm Canadian and I like seeing my countrymen on the site, but what makes us want to debate so much, is it the maple syrup or something.

Explain please, I'm so confused.

I haven't met a Canadian other than my dad that likes America. Both my friends and my teachers don't seem to understand my viewpoints, what do you think.

Plz help, finding data takes up about an hour for my 2000 character Debates.