Having just committed to reading the arguments and voting, I then read the Description, but no arguments, yet. Just by the description, I'm already concerned that a serious issue is enjoined with just two options and both concern doing some killing, allegedly to solve a problem; a problem that is not even defined, to wit, why do either the tribes' people or the tribal leaders need to be killed? I'm hoping that will come out in arguments.
This wasn't my debate as initiator, although, I did challenge something like it a few months ago. It died without acceptance. But, being a constitutional matter, I was easily hooked. I disagree about the weird. And I may just try proposing it, after giving this one a rest. And, who knows, maybe my opponent will rise to the occasion for the last round...
>>RM, you're right, of course. I am too used to Con not being the initiator, and was doubly thrown by your personal reference in a third -person syntax. I'll ask Ragnar if I can revise the vote. It may not be necessary, but I'll watch for about a week. Ragnar, please take note. Being an unrated debate, does that ever figure in to making voting correction?
I refuse to continue this discussion. To probe further than what I've said is to go beyond my RFD, and that is not to be had. You may take or leave my other advice, which has naught to do with this debate, but your debate style in general, which is appropriate comment territory, and which is available for all to see in your many challenges. What is the probability of your taking my advice? Why don't you make a debate challenge about it? I'll not engage it.
My rationale was clearly indicated in the text of my RFD: the story of St. Columbia and the slave girl, like most of your exemplary characters you use as evidentiary argument, miss justification of the Resolution. What, exactly, have they to do with the Loch Ness Monster other than explaining that there were people inhabiting both Ireland and Scotland [though not yet known by those names] when the Loch Ness monster first has mention in either historic or mythic text. You lose on relevance to the Resolution.
Further, I note that many of your challenges contain the verbiage "probably" or "likely," or other indefinite terms which are poor constructs of debate protocol, at least on this site. Either take a positive or negative stand, or don't bother. I also note that many of your challenges go wanting for opposition. I wonder why? You have a backbone, I presume. Use it. Take a stand and live with the results. "Probably" is a spineless worm, and Nessie never had that accusation.
>> RationalMadman [you have me blocked; unfairly in my book]
Yes, as soon as I posted, I realized I had not noted the Legibility correctly. It has been corrected. By the way, I disagree with Ragnar's assessment of the whole pedophile issue. I saw no purpose in Pro's mention of the issue - totally irrelevant to the debate, therefore, one must question Pro's motivation. I disagree with Ragnar's dismissal.
I did not realize until responding to your friend request that you are British. I recognize and revere the foundation of our Constitution on the great legal tradition of Great Britain. My own ancestry, though deeply American [my first ancestor to arrive in America was in 1625, to Boston, from Scotland] is rooted there, and then France before the 12th century.
Anyway, I look forward to our debate.
Failing to present? I am not debating you, obviously, so stop trying to illicit citable definitions. You earn no points in comments. Leave it for your arguments. Done.
We are just going round and round on OED [don't recognize OXD] and Lexicon. The two are NOT synonymous. And, all your date citations of post #3, 1945 - 2007, plus your P&S all designate gender as equivalent to female and male. You have no citation other than your own claim via APA [Description [B]] - which has a guilty bias for disagreeing with their definition from the 60s - before your time - to bring up your neuter gender. No one else you've cited in your #3 say so. Why not?
If the definition of "Gender," as a genetic and not a grammatical construct, includes a neutered sense [it does not by genetic definition in the OED, whereas the grammatical definition is consistent with the neutered addition - and all life is not grammatical, but genetic], why are human gametes only male and female, even in the instance of a resulting aneuploid rather than euploid condition?
It would be intriguing to vote on this debate, but as I am drawn into the debate based upon an earlier vote on a similar debate subject, which Pro believed was unfair, and regardless of who raised the official report on my vote, the Mod action was in favor of keeping the vote, so there it lies. This applies too much bias to present a vote in this debate. I was actually asked by Pro to be a participant, but I silently declined, and will decline to vote. Besides, it could be argued that Pro wins by default by forfeit. Let others decide...
Notice: As an effort to improve reader reference to my arguments in this and future rounds of this debate, and in subsequent debates, I am using a continuous running count of argument/rebuttal/defense sections by roman numerals from round to round, to wit: R1 contained arguments I, II. R2 commences with III, IV, and so on, through all succeeding rounds in order avoid repeating numbers in rounds. Formerly, I started each round with I, then II, etc. I'm hoping a continuous run of numbering will help keep consistency and flow of argument.
For 100% of people who practice abstinence 100% of the time, it works 100% of the time.
What other contraceptive has that record? None. Memes be damned.
Strictly speaking, yes, community service does not, in solid, though debatable terms, fit the legal description of indentured servitude, let alone slavery, but I wager Pro is unaware of the specific distinctions, though Pro may now look it it up in attempt to "chattal." No need; the debate is done and in the books. The time for that proof has passed without having made the effort when it counted.
"...if you knew anything about real history"
IF? I happen to have a PhD on the subject. Yes, some Native Americans were also slave owners. And?
And I know a good deal about constitutional law, such as that today, slavery, by strict definition, still exists as punishment for a specified duration for certain crimes. We've just changed the nomenclature: we call it "community service."
since when is religion a racial profile? Was slavery a racial profile? It was not, by the way, though BLM, nor 1619 Project will never admit that. They both ignorer that Native Americans were taken into slavery from the 17th century, as well. Can't paint history with your singular brush, no matter how wide it is.
Well, there is that. But, I lead the pack in no-vote ties compared to the number of debates I've engaged, and some of those were opponent forfeits. So, I'm grateful to avoid that stigma. I lobbied to correct that particular niche of debate results when the voting policy was renewed, i.e., no-vote ties of forfeits. but, it is not yet resolved.
Yeah? "Another white-domestic terrorist" who is named Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa? That may just be a huge coincidence by some Bob and Mary Jones out of Colorado Springs, who just happened to pick a non-white name for their 21-year-old son radicalized by ice cream and cake. But I doubt it. Try to keep up, my friend. "Right" is not what you are, neither in real time or space time, or even basil and thyme. A few examples picked out of a crowd, including this one, do not make a case. And this one clearly does not even fit your crowd pattern.
By the way, your "easily won" debates are actually all losers, so, perhaps your inbox messages are not as broadly observant as they should be. The same logic appears to escape your results in the last five debates as in this one. Dyslexia? Myopia? No diagnosis?
Correct. CANNOT, as said. Should not does not apply. Will not carries a similar, but not identical weight as cannot, but I chose cannot as the decisive alternative. Yes, I understand there is wiggle room between can and will, or the negation of same, but the wiggle room is not acceptable for this debate. PM for further explanation if you're interested in taking the debate.
It is sufficiently descriptive. Do you want that I give away my arguments? Sorry, no bite on that hook. I will allow that this is not politics, but law. As there is no categorical discretion dedicated to law, politics must serve as the basis of topical discussion.
There is no firm policy requiring the Description to contain such needs as definitions, but, I find the lack to be a major set-back to the initiator, whether
Pro or Con. To leave definitions to your opponent to offer is just sloppy, in my opinion. An initiator should always self-protect with as much description as necessary to set-up the debate and not offer the opposition the territory to claim for themselves.
Are you of a mind that if it is not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist? Just Article I, 8 describes the 17 [or 18] items of legislative purpose the Congress has to enact, that are not defined in the Constitution other than by naming the categories of legislation Congress is allowed to act upon. As for Senate or House "precedent," that concept belongs to the Court as it affects law, but if something is intended to be "precedent" in Congress, it had best be defined within their perspective rules of procedure, as the Constitution requires. One example: lthe Senate and the House have both adopted a principle that the sitting President cannot by indicted for a crime while in office. However, Congress has never passed a law stating that that. The concept is derived from a DoJ policy dating from AG John Mitchell [Nixon], who stated that as DOJ policy. But it is jus6 policy, and the proper reading of the Constitution in 18th century syntax clearly advises that no such interdiction of indictment exists. [Article I, section 3, clause 7] The keyword is "nevertheless," which, in the 18th century, had the connotation of saying "all the above notwithstanding," or, more simply stated, "except that..." And that is why the Constitution should be understood by originalist standards, not non-originalist. We cannot simply assume that its language is a leaf that floats with the whimsey of the wind.
Now, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that a Senate acquitting a former officer sets precedent. The vote in the Senate on the constitutionality of holding a trial was voted incorrectly. Again, Article II, 4 clearly stipulates their proper role: Only a current officer should be put on trial of impeachment. Even though the impeachment came during that officer's [in this case, the President] term, the proposed trial was not, merely by the constitutional declaration of the end of his term having occurred. A trial to remove him from office, should he have been found guilty, was, itself, unconstitutional, regardless of what the outcome of trial would be. In this instance, Nancy Pelosi might have had her heart's desire to see Trump convicted by the Senate before the end of his term, but she, herself, by her own mud-stuck stick, delayed delivery of the Article of Impeachment, which was, itself, as I explained, an unconstitutional act in the first place. The whole thing was a Pelosi charade, start to finish. Someday, some of these people are going to read, and comprehend, the Document they have sworn to uphold; they have failed to do so, so far.
No. The verbiage of the Constitution, Article II, 4, is quite clear in the provision that only a President, VP, or other officer of government can be impeached and convicted because anyone else is no longer such an officer. That we hang the moniker "former" on someone notwithstanding, since that officer is not longer a sitting officer, and since removal from office is the first of two potential punishments [and the second cannot be entertained without the first], is of no consequence. That a future Senate might do so [I acknowledge the possibility] would simply be acting unconstitutionally, Just as the House, in both Trump impeachments, acted unconstitutionally in their processes of impeachment. In that case, the violation is not specifically listed constitutionally, however, the Constitution does dictate that both houses shall determine their rules of procedure in regard to impeachment and trial, and the House was in violation of their own rules in both impeachments. To wit: in neither case is the House to initiate impeachment proceedings without first having a full House vote to initiate committee investigation, in the Judiciary Committee, by the way, and not Intel. Further, they are to consult witnesses in open committee, then present findings to the full House to vote whether to proceed with impeachment, and then eventually vote to impeach, or not. The entire House process, in both impeachments, did not follow their own rules. By the way, just for your edification, the Supreme Court has established at least two precedent findings that neither House or Senate can conduct investigations at all, regardless of subject, until their respective full chambers vote on the floor to initiate a committee investigation which must, first, have legislative purpose [as such, impeachment is a legislative function], and must show what that purpose is. In other words, some action other than simply finding malfeasance must be defined before any congressional committee can be launched. You do not even find the word "investigation" in the Constitution, yet, they do with abandon, and have violated this entire principle since 1793. No wonder pelple have such disregard for Congress. They are mostly employed in doing work properly reserved for the DOJ, and not doing the work of the people.
Shades of thought police. Who rightly bans thinking? Not that I favor the holocaust; I abhor it. But it is an historic fact. Thinking it is not is a perfectly legitimate thought, but having no justification in reality. That's cancel culture for you: generally useless, but a perfectly legitimate thought process, though an utter waste of thought process..
If a three-cubed canon is supposed to define the solar system design, why is it that the theory works only with the Sun, Earth, and Moon? There are other elements to the solar system [other planets, and their moons, plus an asteroid belt, comets, etc]. Why don't these other elements fit the paradigm?
The same interrupt of logic applies t the squared circle, for which other planets and their moons do not have the same ratio of size as Earth/Moon.
A far better design theory is the prevailing use of the golden ratio: 1:1.618, as demonstrated by Fra Luca de Pacioli, friend of Leo Da Vinci.
I will likely vote on this debate, as I have had three debates with Undefeatable, with results in a dead heat: 1 win, 1 loss, and a tie. Two of the three were on the same subject, resulting in a win and a tie. So, what's my assessment? Well, since I intend to vote, and since our results are so evenly distributed, I reserve judgment to be based entirely on the debate results, and not by personal experience, which is not a valid vote consequence anyway. Good luck to both, and to the subject of the debate.
Always welcome. You did superb job of proper interpretation of the Constitution in this debate. It takes a bit of understanding 18th century syntax, but not much.
Thank you, my friend, for accepting the debate. Here's hoping for a good, friendly competition. This is, after all, a head game. Play well and have fun.
I have modified the Resolution and Description to reflect "quality of life" instead of "living standards," making appropriate definition changes to match
Wasting time, again? Why do you keep hassling me? This is still obviously an active debate. You want a definition, ask Ragnar. Meanwhile, time's ticking...
Having just committed to reading the arguments and voting, I then read the Description, but no arguments, yet. Just by the description, I'm already concerned that a serious issue is enjoined with just two options and both concern doing some killing, allegedly to solve a problem; a problem that is not even defined, to wit, why do either the tribes' people or the tribal leaders need to be killed? I'm hoping that will come out in arguments.
There's plenty of time left, thank goodness. I commit to reading and voting.
This wasn't my debate as initiator, although, I did challenge something like it a few months ago. It died without acceptance. But, being a constitutional matter, I was easily hooked. I disagree about the weird. And I may just try proposing it, after giving this one a rest. And, who knows, maybe my opponent will rise to the occasion for the last round...
I fear for my opponent's abolished interest in this debate... any interest in somehow usurping it?
Ragnar, thoughts?
Just kidding to both of you. Just getting a little lonely out here. I'll plod on. One round to go.
>>RM, you're right, of course. I am too used to Con not being the initiator, and was doubly thrown by your personal reference in a third -person syntax. I'll ask Ragnar if I can revise the vote. It may not be necessary, but I'll watch for about a week. Ragnar, please take note. Being an unrated debate, does that ever figure in to making voting correction?
I've sent you a PM, where such discussion is more appropriate, but I've said my piece and will likely have nothing further to say about it.
I refuse to continue this discussion. To probe further than what I've said is to go beyond my RFD, and that is not to be had. You may take or leave my other advice, which has naught to do with this debate, but your debate style in general, which is appropriate comment territory, and which is available for all to see in your many challenges. What is the probability of your taking my advice? Why don't you make a debate challenge about it? I'll not engage it.
My rationale was clearly indicated in the text of my RFD: the story of St. Columbia and the slave girl, like most of your exemplary characters you use as evidentiary argument, miss justification of the Resolution. What, exactly, have they to do with the Loch Ness Monster other than explaining that there were people inhabiting both Ireland and Scotland [though not yet known by those names] when the Loch Ness monster first has mention in either historic or mythic text. You lose on relevance to the Resolution.
Further, I note that many of your challenges contain the verbiage "probably" or "likely," or other indefinite terms which are poor constructs of debate protocol, at least on this site. Either take a positive or negative stand, or don't bother. I also note that many of your challenges go wanting for opposition. I wonder why? You have a backbone, I presume. Use it. Take a stand and live with the results. "Probably" is a spineless worm, and Nessie never had that accusation.
>> RationalMadman [you have me blocked; unfairly in my book]
Yes, as soon as I posted, I realized I had not noted the Legibility correctly. It has been corrected. By the way, I disagree with Ragnar's assessment of the whole pedophile issue. I saw no purpose in Pro's mention of the issue - totally irrelevant to the debate, therefore, one must question Pro's motivation. I disagree with Ragnar's dismissal.
Looks like DebateArt has taken the challenge out of the "debate."
I did not realize until responding to your friend request that you are British. I recognize and revere the foundation of our Constitution on the great legal tradition of Great Britain. My own ancestry, though deeply American [my first ancestor to arrive in America was in 1625, to Boston, from Scotland] is rooted there, and then France before the 12th century.
Anyway, I look forward to our debate.
Thank you for voting
Failing to present? I am not debating you, obviously, so stop trying to illicit citable definitions. You earn no points in comments. Leave it for your arguments. Done.
We are just going round and round on OED [don't recognize OXD] and Lexicon. The two are NOT synonymous. And, all your date citations of post #3, 1945 - 2007, plus your P&S all designate gender as equivalent to female and male. You have no citation other than your own claim via APA [Description [B]] - which has a guilty bias for disagreeing with their definition from the 60s - before your time - to bring up your neuter gender. No one else you've cited in your #3 say so. Why not?
So, who's cherry picking?
If the definition of "Gender," as a genetic and not a grammatical construct, includes a neutered sense [it does not by genetic definition in the OED, whereas the grammatical definition is consistent with the neutered addition - and all life is not grammatical, but genetic], why are human gametes only male and female, even in the instance of a resulting aneuploid rather than euploid condition?
Pls note that my R2, cited source [8] was deleted, along with its commentary due to word-count restriction, thus the gap between [7] and [9].
@ RationalMadman:
Thank you for voting
It would be intriguing to vote on this debate, but as I am drawn into the debate based upon an earlier vote on a similar debate subject, which Pro believed was unfair, and regardless of who raised the official report on my vote, the Mod action was in favor of keeping the vote, so there it lies. This applies too much bias to present a vote in this debate. I was actually asked by Pro to be a participant, but I silently declined, and will decline to vote. Besides, it could be argued that Pro wins by default by forfeit. Let others decide...
Thank you for voting
Notice: As an effort to improve reader reference to my arguments in this and future rounds of this debate, and in subsequent debates, I am using a continuous running count of argument/rebuttal/defense sections by roman numerals from round to round, to wit: R1 contained arguments I, II. R2 commences with III, IV, and so on, through all succeeding rounds in order avoid repeating numbers in rounds. Formerly, I started each round with I, then II, etc. I'm hoping a continuous run of numbering will help keep consistency and flow of argument.
Regardless of how you vote, I hope you get your vote posted in time. Thanks.
I am not confused.
For 100% of people who practice abstinence 100% of the time, it works 100% of the time.
What other contraceptive has that record? None. Memes be damned.
Strictly speaking, yes, community service does not, in solid, though debatable terms, fit the legal description of indentured servitude, let alone slavery, but I wager Pro is unaware of the specific distinctions, though Pro may now look it it up in attempt to "chattal." No need; the debate is done and in the books. The time for that proof has passed without having made the effort when it counted.
"...if you knew anything about real history"
IF? I happen to have a PhD on the subject. Yes, some Native Americans were also slave owners. And?
And I know a good deal about constitutional law, such as that today, slavery, by strict definition, still exists as punishment for a specified duration for certain crimes. We've just changed the nomenclature: we call it "community service."
since when is religion a racial profile? Was slavery a racial profile? It was not, by the way, though BLM, nor 1619 Project will never admit that. They both ignorer that Native Americans were taken into slavery from the 17th century, as well. Can't paint history with your singular brush, no matter how wide it is.
Well, there is that. But, I lead the pack in no-vote ties compared to the number of debates I've engaged, and some of those were opponent forfeits. So, I'm grateful to avoid that stigma. I lobbied to correct that particular niche of debate results when the voting policy was renewed, i.e., no-vote ties of forfeits. but, it is not yet resolved.
thank you for voting
Yeah? "Another white-domestic terrorist" who is named Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa? That may just be a huge coincidence by some Bob and Mary Jones out of Colorado Springs, who just happened to pick a non-white name for their 21-year-old son radicalized by ice cream and cake. But I doubt it. Try to keep up, my friend. "Right" is not what you are, neither in real time or space time, or even basil and thyme. A few examples picked out of a crowd, including this one, do not make a case. And this one clearly does not even fit your crowd pattern.
By the way, your "easily won" debates are actually all losers, so, perhaps your inbox messages are not as broadly observant as they should be. The same logic appears to escape your results in the last five debates as in this one. Dyslexia? Myopia? No diagnosis?
Correct. CANNOT, as said. Should not does not apply. Will not carries a similar, but not identical weight as cannot, but I chose cannot as the decisive alternative. Yes, I understand there is wiggle room between can and will, or the negation of same, but the wiggle room is not acceptable for this debate. PM for further explanation if you're interested in taking the debate.
It is sufficiently descriptive. Do you want that I give away my arguments? Sorry, no bite on that hook. I will allow that this is not politics, but law. As there is no categorical discretion dedicated to law, politics must serve as the basis of topical discussion.
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
There is no firm policy requiring the Description to contain such needs as definitions, but, I find the lack to be a major set-back to the initiator, whether
Pro or Con. To leave definitions to your opponent to offer is just sloppy, in my opinion. An initiator should always self-protect with as much description as necessary to set-up the debate and not offer the opposition the territory to claim for themselves.
Yeah, I was sweating on this one.
re your #8, I may have caused some concern having professional background on the subject.
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
Consistent with my personal mantra, I'll reserve judgment until my opponent's 4th round.
Are you of a mind that if it is not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist? Just Article I, 8 describes the 17 [or 18] items of legislative purpose the Congress has to enact, that are not defined in the Constitution other than by naming the categories of legislation Congress is allowed to act upon. As for Senate or House "precedent," that concept belongs to the Court as it affects law, but if something is intended to be "precedent" in Congress, it had best be defined within their perspective rules of procedure, as the Constitution requires. One example: lthe Senate and the House have both adopted a principle that the sitting President cannot by indicted for a crime while in office. However, Congress has never passed a law stating that that. The concept is derived from a DoJ policy dating from AG John Mitchell [Nixon], who stated that as DOJ policy. But it is jus6 policy, and the proper reading of the Constitution in 18th century syntax clearly advises that no such interdiction of indictment exists. [Article I, section 3, clause 7] The keyword is "nevertheless," which, in the 18th century, had the connotation of saying "all the above notwithstanding," or, more simply stated, "except that..." And that is why the Constitution should be understood by originalist standards, not non-originalist. We cannot simply assume that its language is a leaf that floats with the whimsey of the wind.
Now, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that a Senate acquitting a former officer sets precedent. The vote in the Senate on the constitutionality of holding a trial was voted incorrectly. Again, Article II, 4 clearly stipulates their proper role: Only a current officer should be put on trial of impeachment. Even though the impeachment came during that officer's [in this case, the President] term, the proposed trial was not, merely by the constitutional declaration of the end of his term having occurred. A trial to remove him from office, should he have been found guilty, was, itself, unconstitutional, regardless of what the outcome of trial would be. In this instance, Nancy Pelosi might have had her heart's desire to see Trump convicted by the Senate before the end of his term, but she, herself, by her own mud-stuck stick, delayed delivery of the Article of Impeachment, which was, itself, as I explained, an unconstitutional act in the first place. The whole thing was a Pelosi charade, start to finish. Someday, some of these people are going to read, and comprehend, the Document they have sworn to uphold; they have failed to do so, so far.
No. The verbiage of the Constitution, Article II, 4, is quite clear in the provision that only a President, VP, or other officer of government can be impeached and convicted because anyone else is no longer such an officer. That we hang the moniker "former" on someone notwithstanding, since that officer is not longer a sitting officer, and since removal from office is the first of two potential punishments [and the second cannot be entertained without the first], is of no consequence. That a future Senate might do so [I acknowledge the possibility] would simply be acting unconstitutionally, Just as the House, in both Trump impeachments, acted unconstitutionally in their processes of impeachment. In that case, the violation is not specifically listed constitutionally, however, the Constitution does dictate that both houses shall determine their rules of procedure in regard to impeachment and trial, and the House was in violation of their own rules in both impeachments. To wit: in neither case is the House to initiate impeachment proceedings without first having a full House vote to initiate committee investigation, in the Judiciary Committee, by the way, and not Intel. Further, they are to consult witnesses in open committee, then present findings to the full House to vote whether to proceed with impeachment, and then eventually vote to impeach, or not. The entire House process, in both impeachments, did not follow their own rules. By the way, just for your edification, the Supreme Court has established at least two precedent findings that neither House or Senate can conduct investigations at all, regardless of subject, until their respective full chambers vote on the floor to initiate a committee investigation which must, first, have legislative purpose [as such, impeachment is a legislative function], and must show what that purpose is. In other words, some action other than simply finding malfeasance must be defined before any congressional committee can be launched. You do not even find the word "investigation" in the Constitution, yet, they do with abandon, and have violated this entire principle since 1793. No wonder pelple have such disregard for Congress. They are mostly employed in doing work properly reserved for the DOJ, and not doing the work of the people.
Shades of thought police. Who rightly bans thinking? Not that I favor the holocaust; I abhor it. But it is an historic fact. Thinking it is not is a perfectly legitimate thought, but having no justification in reality. That's cancel culture for you: generally useless, but a perfectly legitimate thought process, though an utter waste of thought process..
If a three-cubed canon is supposed to define the solar system design, why is it that the theory works only with the Sun, Earth, and Moon? There are other elements to the solar system [other planets, and their moons, plus an asteroid belt, comets, etc]. Why don't these other elements fit the paradigm?
The same interrupt of logic applies t the squared circle, for which other planets and their moons do not have the same ratio of size as Earth/Moon.
A far better design theory is the prevailing use of the golden ratio: 1:1.618, as demonstrated by Fra Luca de Pacioli, friend of Leo Da Vinci.
I will likely vote on this debate, as I have had three debates with Undefeatable, with results in a dead heat: 1 win, 1 loss, and a tie. Two of the three were on the same subject, resulting in a win and a tie. So, what's my assessment? Well, since I intend to vote, and since our results are so evenly distributed, I reserve judgment to be based entirely on the debate results, and not by personal experience, which is not a valid vote consequence anyway. Good luck to both, and to the subject of the debate.
Always welcome. You did superb job of proper interpretation of the Constitution in this debate. It takes a bit of understanding 18th century syntax, but not much.
Thank you, my friend, for accepting the debate. Here's hoping for a good, friendly competition. This is, after all, a head game. Play well and have fun.
I have modified the Resolution and Description to reflect "quality of life" instead of "living standards," making appropriate definition changes to match
I'll consider that change and get back to you. Off the top, it seems agreeable, so that is how I'm leaning.
Wasting time, again? Why do you keep hassling me? This is still obviously an active debate. You want a definition, ask Ragnar. Meanwhile, time's ticking...