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...
I don't really want to delete the debate. As I said, I have arguments through 3 rounds already written, just needing to add rebuttals as needed, so I'd prefer to not have to consider that effort wasted.
Don't be confused by the term, ibid. It's citation-speak for "use the full reference listed immediately above." In other words, for [3], [4], [5] use full reference [2].
Nothing to talk about, except that somebody accepted a debate after a concessional change was made at somebody's request, and then that somebody decided to let their argument go forfeit, complaining that there were no arguments available to present, after all, when acceptance assumes one has already done some research to determine arguments. The result may be called something else...
Meanwhile, waiting on you to make a bloody decision, having already accepted the debate as is, after already making a concessionary change to the Resolution on your request, I am devoting time to research and compose arguments. I'm already prepared with R3 arguments and some anticipated rebuttals while you're futzing around with bloody complaints that you can't make arguments, after all. Well too bloody bad, my friend. You accepted the debate. That means you should have already done some research to see if you could meet the challenge as given and accepted by you. Do the bloody work, damn it. I have. You're wasting my time, and it happens to be valuable to me.
Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate. I'm tired of the whining. I'm tired of being jerked around. I'm tired encounters with people who seem too lazy to do the work. I will not debate this whiner again. What a goddam bloody time-waster.
First, you accept a debate. Then you want to back out. Then you're given a proposal with five days to respond, which you ignore until 30 minutes before clocking out, and at that, Forfeit R1. Come on, dude. Go whine to DebateArt. Again.
As I have stated numerous times in several debate comments, once a debate has been accepted, I prefer to ignore comments. My focus is on the debate. Death23 has had five days to respond to Ragnar's various proposals with a choice, and did not until, apparently 30 minutes shy of clocking out. I do not typically look at comments once a debate is accepted. I look at the clock on the debate page and I respond to it when it has expired. When Death23's clock ran out, I noted the forfeit in my R1 argument and posted it.
Death23 accepted the debate, then raised his truism argument. Too late, gentlemen. If that is the belief, the debate should not have been accepted. It was accepted. I proceed accordingly.
In my opinion, the debate is enjoined. May we deal with it, please?
I invite a re-read of
Forum: 1293-was-brown-vs-board-of-education-a-mistake
my post #36:
As James Madison once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”[1] But men are not angels, and, being imperfect, in spite of legislation, in spite of a documented, systemic policy, some people will ignore the system and act by their own, reimagined, anecdotal volition. But such individual and sub-group action cannot ever be blamed on the systemic construct. Blame the one or the few who violate the system. As the author, Richard Bach, wrote, “Argue for your limitations; they’re yours.”[2]
A scholastically-sourced definition of racism by the OED is, “beliefs that members of a particular racial or ethnic group possess innate characteristics or qualities, or that some racial or ethnic groups are superior to others; an ideology based on such beliefs.”
By this scholastically-accepted definition, even a phrase like “Black Lives Matter” must be cast in suspicious light, particularly in light of the following statement as a policy of BlackLivesMatter.com: “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.”[3]
The quoted statement above, let alone the movement’s title, represents a policy of singling out Blacks as an unprotected class, specifically, as if to say the other racial entities do not matter, and declaring, without evidence provided, that Blacks are “systematically targeted,” and not just for generic prejudice, but for specific “demise.” Alleged systematic targeting is a claim made without properly interpreting the definition of systemic. There are proper, scholastically-accepted definitions, and there are re-imagined, wish-balloon definitions. The former prevails, or, rather, it should but apparently does not.
If Blacks are “systemically targeted,” by definition, it must be demonstrated by those advocates that the U.S. Government has, by legislation and policy, demonstrated a denial of at least the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment [1868], which declares the Equal Protection Clause: “..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It follows that every federal, state, and local statute must be in accordance with this Clause, or it is unconstitutional.
I offer from a list of 10 Supreme Court cases directly concerned with the Equal Protection Clause [EPC] of the 14thAmendment the following three cases having race as a substantive issue demonstrating the Court’s consistency in compliance with the 14th:
1. Plessy v. Ferguson [1896] found that there was systemic discrimination against Blacks in Louisiana by that state’s enforcement of a rule marking trolley cars with signs, “for blacks only,” and “for whites only,” because the signs, themselves, demonstrated unconstitutional violation.
2. Brown v. Board of Education [1954] based on a proper interpretation of Plessy, the Court found that some States had incorrectly applied Plessyto allow segregation of schools if the school facilities were “equal.” Brown overturned unconstitutional state laws, applying the notion in Plessythat “separate but equal” was not even equal just because the facilities were “equal,” but that even by signage, alone, segregated facilities are unconstitutional.
3. Loving v. Virginia [1967] overturned Virginia’s state law prohibiting interracial marriage. Virginia argued that their case did not violate the EPC because their argument applied penalty to both marriage partners, the Lovings. The Court determined that the EPC required strict scrutiny to race-based classifications where a ruling was a consequence by racial discrimination.
These cases demonstrate evidence of the negating argument, that impose a disclaimer on the Black Lives Matter policy quoted above.
These cases also demonstrate that even in the apparent innocuous effort to achieve racial equality, an organization declaring that one race matters at the exclusion of others [i.e., Black Lives Matter] may be found to be in violation of the EPC. Whereas, given a total of 10 Supreme Court cases over the 230-plus years of the Court’s existence, in cases specifically concerned with racial issues, the three cases highlighted demonstrate the consistency of the Court’s [part of the system, after all] compliance and protection of the EPC, and all citizens’ rights to expect equal protection by the system.
[1]James Madison, Federalist Papers #51
[2]Richard Bach, Illusions, The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, Dell, 1977
[3]https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
Regarding your #25
Your initial point that gov’t/industry perpetuate systemic racism is apparently, on net judgment in two debates, not true. Remeber, my challenge to Pro in both debates was to show the evidence of that perpetuation by current statutory law, or by current government or industry policy [documented by publication] that such systemic racism is still a problem. My argument was that unless you have current law or policy to demonstrate, the issue is individual racism and not systemic. Pro failed, in both debates, to provide that proof.
I know something of manufacturing in the auto industry; I spent 12 years in it, both for GM and Ford as a process engineer, then manager. Your offered situation was once an issue, but in my 12 years, I watched the industry take great strides to avoid the very conditions you described. You ignore that there are two basic root cause factors of quality issues with any product, from cars to toothpicks. You either have a design issue, which requires design change to resolve, or you have manufacturing process issues, which are a little more difficult to resolve, simply because of the factors feeding manufacturing process: Method [or process], Material, Environment, Equipment, Manpower. All five have issues beyond design, and must be changed to correct/prevent issues. If the design is flawed, that could impact all five process issues. Root cause cannot have multiple factors, whereas there may be many cross-factor non-root issues, but, ultimately, there is but one root of them all, and that is what must be discovered to not only correct an issue, but prevent its recurrence. I will tell you, for nothing, that root issue is seldom manpower-related. It’s not impossible, but other issues are generally the cause, which, themselves, make manpower alter the process just to try to make things work. It is why a famous Japanese industrialist in the 80s was man enough to admit to his workers, “I’m sorry my process failed you.”
Then you are free to engage the third debate on this subject. I have passed on it, having drawn a draw and a win in the first two. I also perceive, however, a distinct disinterest in voting on the subject, drawing as single voter in 2 debates. Maybe "is not difficult' is a greater challenge than voters are willing to admit.
I'd like to respond to your #25 post, but during the voting phase, I don't want to say anything that might be influential to potential voters, even though they should not let comments influence their vote, but it's always a possibility, even subconsciously, so I'll wait until voting has timed out.
Not until the debate is concluded can one draw the conclusion of dropped arguments, and that is a job, ultimately, for voters to conclude, isn't it? Why bother mention of it during the argument phase until the last round? Who says arguments from an opponent must be picked up and rebutted in the immediate opponent's following round? That may be your convention, but no policy enforces it. Excuse my different convention, but it is mine, and no policy prohibits it. May I suggest you make it a matter of debate protocol in your Description if you're so intent on its compliance. I'm at an end of this discussion.
A word to the wise: debating debate style during argument style between opponents is not recommended and I don't like engaging it. You do your way, I'll do mine, and let's end this back-and-forth other than in the debate. Okay?
However, I note, to my dismay, that references which were intended to be included with the description did not copy into the Description field of the proposal as intended and I only now notice the absence. Here is the full definition of "Air pollution" with the references included. I will inquire with mods to either reset your clock for the first round to the full week [7 days], or, failing that, cancel the debate and restart a new one. Don't know how they'll respond or if they can do a re-set, etc. Mods, if you read this, I'm inquiring to Ragnar.
Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth. Note: For purposes of this debate, “the natural atmosphere of Earth” is defined as the air from seal level [or beneath in consideration of all portions of land mass beneath sea level] [1], to roughly 100 miles above sea level. Further, the natural atmosphere is understood to be composed of 78% Nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and smaller amounts of trace gaseous elements,[2] plus some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2], Nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and ozone [O3], when these gasses, combined, represent no more than 0.1% of the atmosphere.[3] Pure water vapor [H2O], which varies in percentage on a daily basis, is not included in the definition of pollutant.[4] Included in the definition, and therefore counted as pollutants, are GHGs [as noted above] exceeding the 0.1% concentration.[5] Other trace pollutants [dust, etc] will be considered as natural because they occur naturally [by wind], but generally do not affect sea level earth temperatures by atmospheric solar heat retention as caused by excess concentrations of GHGs], particularly as the effect does not endure over long periods of time.
I made no attempt to force anyone's acceptance of the debate. It was merely offered, as are all others, some of which die on the vine unaccepted. As accepted, now is not the time to take issue, is it?
So, malleable as they are, why have a 'probably' argument? Take a stand. But, no, I don't insist. I do not have an interest in the debate sufficient to engage it with you. Just making aside comments.
Yeah, I do. I, too, can make a flat earth. Just pull the plug out of my inflated Earth balloon. It will probably still float in the tsunami tank. Join the debris island in the mid-pacific.
Yeah, one of the best [?] simulations I've ever seen is that which is supposed to demonstrate the effect of a tsunami on beachfront property. It is demonstrated by a large, rectangular steel tank with a flat bottom and perpendicular sides. There's a paddle at one end to create the tsunami, and a miniature beach, with developed property at the other end, and, of course, water. Looks like every ocean I've ever seen [tongue in cheek!], and I've seen them all. The paddle is a particularly fine touch. I guess that's God, fanning himself on the opposing beach, and he just gets a little agitated.
Quoting from the Voting policy relative to Conduct: "Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate." I perceived a penalty against Pro for declaring a concession by Con when that concession was not offered. I considered the charge as excessive sportsmanship abuse. It simply was a matter of violation, it did not need to be said and would have made the vote a tie had it not been said. I find that to meet the criteria of a Conduct vote. Mod Ragnar agreed with my justification, so everyone just be still and learn by experience. Such declarations when not warranted will bite the arse that does it.
By all means, you can disagree with my vote, and, by all means, vote, yourself, but not merely because you oppose mine. You have to justify how you vote, as I did.
It makes sense when Pro claims Con conceded before Con forfeited. In debate, when Pro is the initiator, Pro is, comparative to baseball, the away team, which plays in the top frame of each inning. Con is the home team, playing in the bottom frame of innings. Four innings in this game. Pro cited Con's concession in the top frame of the last, fourth inning. Con did not forfeit until the bottom frame, apparently assuming he had argued sufficient in 3 innings to win the game. But, how did Pro know Con would forfeit in the bottom frame? In my vote, I disagreed, the difference being the premature call of concession. Con simply did not concede; he assumed his 3-inning arguments sufficed. It was a simple misplay of chronology.
After all, forfeiting a single round in a four-round debate is not an automatic loss, and does not deserve loss of the conduct point. No, but Pro's premature claim of concession does lose it. Ragnar agreed.
true enough. I really don't see grist there for the debate. I have my questions about Giuliani sometimes, but, on the whole, I like the guy, but he may have some over-confidence issues in his position. I'm curious how it drove your thinking to launch the debate. If that is part of your argument, I'll wait for that. I will tell you the subject has raised some interesting considerations for me, and I do look forward to a robust debate. Good luck.
"A mountain over a moll hill," yes, but in which respect? Giuliani's joke, or Wie West's reaction? Her commentary that she "was trying out a new putting style," is a weak argument because there is evidence of her "trying"" that style wearing at least a dozen different outfits, including short skirts, indicating 18-holes' worth of "trials" on at least a dozen different days. 216 "trials?" Well, practice makes perfect, and perhaps one ought to be more aware of the clamoring press and less on one's casual comment of attire. I am personally amazed by the increase dollar value in attire when there is less and less of it. What, exactly, is being "valued?"
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...
I don't really want to delete the debate. As I said, I have arguments through 3 rounds already written, just needing to add rebuttals as needed, so I'd prefer to not have to consider that effort wasted.
See my R3, "maintenance" section, when published, which should come in the next two days.
Don't be confused by the term, ibid. It's citation-speak for "use the full reference listed immediately above." In other words, for [3], [4], [5] use full reference [2].
Nothing to talk about, except that somebody accepted a debate after a concessional change was made at somebody's request, and then that somebody decided to let their argument go forfeit, complaining that there were no arguments available to present, after all, when acceptance assumes one has already done some research to determine arguments. The result may be called something else...
Why did you accept the debate? Why?
Go ahead, challenge your watered-down debate. I will not engage it. Never again on any subject. You waste my time.
Meanwhile, waiting on you to make a bloody decision, having already accepted the debate as is, after already making a concessionary change to the Resolution on your request, I am devoting time to research and compose arguments. I'm already prepared with R3 arguments and some anticipated rebuttals while you're futzing around with bloody complaints that you can't make arguments, after all. Well too bloody bad, my friend. You accepted the debate. That means you should have already done some research to see if you could meet the challenge as given and accepted by you. Do the bloody work, damn it. I have. You're wasting my time, and it happens to be valuable to me.
Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate. I'm tired of the whining. I'm tired of being jerked around. I'm tired encounters with people who seem too lazy to do the work. I will not debate this whiner again. What a goddam bloody time-waster.
First, you accept a debate. Then you want to back out. Then you're given a proposal with five days to respond, which you ignore until 30 minutes before clocking out, and at that, Forfeit R1. Come on, dude. Go whine to DebateArt. Again.
As I have stated numerous times in several debate comments, once a debate has been accepted, I prefer to ignore comments. My focus is on the debate. Death23 has had five days to respond to Ragnar's various proposals with a choice, and did not until, apparently 30 minutes shy of clocking out. I do not typically look at comments once a debate is accepted. I look at the clock on the debate page and I respond to it when it has expired. When Death23's clock ran out, I noted the forfeit in my R1 argument and posted it.
Death23 accepted the debate, then raised his truism argument. Too late, gentlemen. If that is the belief, the debate should not have been accepted. It was accepted. I proceed accordingly.
In my opinion, the debate is enjoined. May we deal with it, please?
Or, I suppose one can appeal to DebateArt. Again.
I invite a re-read of
Forum: 1293-was-brown-vs-board-of-education-a-mistake
my post #36:
As James Madison once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”[1] But men are not angels, and, being imperfect, in spite of legislation, in spite of a documented, systemic policy, some people will ignore the system and act by their own, reimagined, anecdotal volition. But such individual and sub-group action cannot ever be blamed on the systemic construct. Blame the one or the few who violate the system. As the author, Richard Bach, wrote, “Argue for your limitations; they’re yours.”[2]
A scholastically-sourced definition of racism by the OED is, “beliefs that members of a particular racial or ethnic group possess innate characteristics or qualities, or that some racial or ethnic groups are superior to others; an ideology based on such beliefs.”
By this scholastically-accepted definition, even a phrase like “Black Lives Matter” must be cast in suspicious light, particularly in light of the following statement as a policy of BlackLivesMatter.com: “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.”[3]
The quoted statement above, let alone the movement’s title, represents a policy of singling out Blacks as an unprotected class, specifically, as if to say the other racial entities do not matter, and declaring, without evidence provided, that Blacks are “systematically targeted,” and not just for generic prejudice, but for specific “demise.” Alleged systematic targeting is a claim made without properly interpreting the definition of systemic. There are proper, scholastically-accepted definitions, and there are re-imagined, wish-balloon definitions. The former prevails, or, rather, it should but apparently does not.
If Blacks are “systemically targeted,” by definition, it must be demonstrated by those advocates that the U.S. Government has, by legislation and policy, demonstrated a denial of at least the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment [1868], which declares the Equal Protection Clause: “..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It follows that every federal, state, and local statute must be in accordance with this Clause, or it is unconstitutional.
I offer from a list of 10 Supreme Court cases directly concerned with the Equal Protection Clause [EPC] of the 14thAmendment the following three cases having race as a substantive issue demonstrating the Court’s consistency in compliance with the 14th:
1. Plessy v. Ferguson [1896] found that there was systemic discrimination against Blacks in Louisiana by that state’s enforcement of a rule marking trolley cars with signs, “for blacks only,” and “for whites only,” because the signs, themselves, demonstrated unconstitutional violation.
2. Brown v. Board of Education [1954] based on a proper interpretation of Plessy, the Court found that some States had incorrectly applied Plessyto allow segregation of schools if the school facilities were “equal.” Brown overturned unconstitutional state laws, applying the notion in Plessythat “separate but equal” was not even equal just because the facilities were “equal,” but that even by signage, alone, segregated facilities are unconstitutional.
3. Loving v. Virginia [1967] overturned Virginia’s state law prohibiting interracial marriage. Virginia argued that their case did not violate the EPC because their argument applied penalty to both marriage partners, the Lovings. The Court determined that the EPC required strict scrutiny to race-based classifications where a ruling was a consequence by racial discrimination.
These cases demonstrate evidence of the negating argument, that impose a disclaimer on the Black Lives Matter policy quoted above.
These cases also demonstrate that even in the apparent innocuous effort to achieve racial equality, an organization declaring that one race matters at the exclusion of others [i.e., Black Lives Matter] may be found to be in violation of the EPC. Whereas, given a total of 10 Supreme Court cases over the 230-plus years of the Court’s existence, in cases specifically concerned with racial issues, the three cases highlighted demonstrate the consistency of the Court’s [part of the system, after all] compliance and protection of the EPC, and all citizens’ rights to expect equal protection by the system.
[1]James Madison, Federalist Papers #51
[2]Richard Bach, Illusions, The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, Dell, 1977
[3]https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
Regarding your #25
Your initial point that gov’t/industry perpetuate systemic racism is apparently, on net judgment in two debates, not true. Remeber, my challenge to Pro in both debates was to show the evidence of that perpetuation by current statutory law, or by current government or industry policy [documented by publication] that such systemic racism is still a problem. My argument was that unless you have current law or policy to demonstrate, the issue is individual racism and not systemic. Pro failed, in both debates, to provide that proof.
I know something of manufacturing in the auto industry; I spent 12 years in it, both for GM and Ford as a process engineer, then manager. Your offered situation was once an issue, but in my 12 years, I watched the industry take great strides to avoid the very conditions you described. You ignore that there are two basic root cause factors of quality issues with any product, from cars to toothpicks. You either have a design issue, which requires design change to resolve, or you have manufacturing process issues, which are a little more difficult to resolve, simply because of the factors feeding manufacturing process: Method [or process], Material, Environment, Equipment, Manpower. All five have issues beyond design, and must be changed to correct/prevent issues. If the design is flawed, that could impact all five process issues. Root cause cannot have multiple factors, whereas there may be many cross-factor non-root issues, but, ultimately, there is but one root of them all, and that is what must be discovered to not only correct an issue, but prevent its recurrence. I will tell you, for nothing, that root issue is seldom manpower-related. It’s not impossible, but other issues are generally the cause, which, themselves, make manpower alter the process just to try to make things work. It is why a famous Japanese industrialist in the 80s was man enough to admit to his workers, “I’m sorry my process failed you.”
Then you are free to engage the third debate on this subject. I have passed on it, having drawn a draw and a win in the first two. I also perceive, however, a distinct disinterest in voting on the subject, drawing as single voter in 2 debates. Maybe "is not difficult' is a greater challenge than voters are willing to admit.
Nope, exhausted subject
I'd like to respond to your #25 post, but during the voting phase, I don't want to say anything that might be influential to potential voters, even though they should not let comments influence their vote, but it's always a possibility, even subconsciously, so I'll wait until voting has timed out.
thanks for voting
Not until the debate is concluded can one draw the conclusion of dropped arguments, and that is a job, ultimately, for voters to conclude, isn't it? Why bother mention of it during the argument phase until the last round? Who says arguments from an opponent must be picked up and rebutted in the immediate opponent's following round? That may be your convention, but no policy enforces it. Excuse my different convention, but it is mine, and no policy prohibits it. May I suggest you make it a matter of debate protocol in your Description if you're so intent on its compliance. I'm at an end of this discussion.
A word to the wise: debating debate style during argument style between opponents is not recommended and I don't like engaging it. You do your way, I'll do mine, and let's end this back-and-forth other than in the debate. Okay?
This is, by your initiation, a 4-round debate. I think that means I have fully 4 rounds. Got a train to catch?
I will agree to whichever option of the two you offered, or to continue the debate as is, that is agreeable to Death23
However, I note, to my dismay, that references which were intended to be included with the description did not copy into the Description field of the proposal as intended and I only now notice the absence. Here is the full definition of "Air pollution" with the references included. I will inquire with mods to either reset your clock for the first round to the full week [7 days], or, failing that, cancel the debate and restart a new one. Don't know how they'll respond or if they can do a re-set, etc. Mods, if you read this, I'm inquiring to Ragnar.
Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth. Note: For purposes of this debate, “the natural atmosphere of Earth” is defined as the air from seal level [or beneath in consideration of all portions of land mass beneath sea level] [1], to roughly 100 miles above sea level. Further, the natural atmosphere is understood to be composed of 78% Nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and smaller amounts of trace gaseous elements,[2] plus some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2], Nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and ozone [O3], when these gasses, combined, represent no more than 0.1% of the atmosphere.[3] Pure water vapor [H2O], which varies in percentage on a daily basis, is not included in the definition of pollutant.[4] Included in the definition, and therefore counted as pollutants, are GHGs [as noted above] exceeding the 0.1% concentration.[5] Other trace pollutants [dust, etc] will be considered as natural because they occur naturally [by wind], but generally do not affect sea level earth temperatures by atmospheric solar heat retention as caused by excess concentrations of GHGs], particularly as the effect does not endure over long periods of time.
[1] https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] ibid
[4] ibid
I made no attempt to force anyone's acceptance of the debate. It was merely offered, as are all others, some of which die on the vine unaccepted. As accepted, now is not the time to take issue, is it?
I've corrected the Description to agree with the topic/Resolution.
Good observation, since trickery is not what it's about. Keep laughing, but not out loud. That's just a frightened little girl.
So, malleable as they are, why have a 'probably' argument? Take a stand. But, no, I don't insist. I do not have an interest in the debate sufficient to engage it with you. Just making aside comments.
"just shows you know how to make up stuff."
Yeah, I do. I, too, can make a flat earth. Just pull the plug out of my inflated Earth balloon. It will probably still float in the tsunami tank. Join the debris island in the mid-pacific.
"As a man thinketh..." is the axiom, and the reverse may also be true. As the Description is a 'thinketh,' it qualifies.
What's the "probably?" Either the Universe is, or is is not older. If you cannot be positive in your argument, why should we oppose?
Yeah, one of the best [?] simulations I've ever seen is that which is supposed to demonstrate the effect of a tsunami on beachfront property. It is demonstrated by a large, rectangular steel tank with a flat bottom and perpendicular sides. There's a paddle at one end to create the tsunami, and a miniature beach, with developed property at the other end, and, of course, water. Looks like every ocean I've ever seen [tongue in cheek!], and I've seen them all. The paddle is a particularly fine touch. I guess that's God, fanning himself on the opposing beach, and he just gets a little agitated.
Quoting from the Voting policy relative to Conduct: "Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate." I perceived a penalty against Pro for declaring a concession by Con when that concession was not offered. I considered the charge as excessive sportsmanship abuse. It simply was a matter of violation, it did not need to be said and would have made the vote a tie had it not been said. I find that to meet the criteria of a Conduct vote. Mod Ragnar agreed with my justification, so everyone just be still and learn by experience. Such declarations when not warranted will bite the arse that does it.
Isn't the argument that Antarctica is the edge a simulated-earth argument, which Undefeatable has declared out of bounds?
Thanks for voting
Well, that was, as hoped, a really fun debate. I hope you enjoyed it, too. Thanks. And, again, best of luck. I hope we have voters.
Bump.
By all means, you can disagree with my vote, and, by all means, vote, yourself, but not merely because you oppose mine. You have to justify how you vote, as I did.
It makes sense when Pro claims Con conceded before Con forfeited. In debate, when Pro is the initiator, Pro is, comparative to baseball, the away team, which plays in the top frame of each inning. Con is the home team, playing in the bottom frame of innings. Four innings in this game. Pro cited Con's concession in the top frame of the last, fourth inning. Con did not forfeit until the bottom frame, apparently assuming he had argued sufficient in 3 innings to win the game. But, how did Pro know Con would forfeit in the bottom frame? In my vote, I disagreed, the difference being the premature call of concession. Con simply did not concede; he assumed his 3-inning arguments sufficed. It was a simple misplay of chronology.
After all, forfeiting a single round in a four-round debate is not an automatic loss, and does not deserve loss of the conduct point. No, but Pro's premature claim of concession does lose it. Ragnar agreed.
true enough. I really don't see grist there for the debate. I have my questions about Giuliani sometimes, but, on the whole, I like the guy, but he may have some over-confidence issues in his position. I'm curious how it drove your thinking to launch the debate. If that is part of your argument, I'll wait for that. I will tell you the subject has raised some interesting considerations for me, and I do look forward to a robust debate. Good luck.
"A mountain over a moll hill," yes, but in which respect? Giuliani's joke, or Wie West's reaction? Her commentary that she "was trying out a new putting style," is a weak argument because there is evidence of her "trying"" that style wearing at least a dozen different outfits, including short skirts, indicating 18-holes' worth of "trials" on at least a dozen different days. 216 "trials?" Well, practice makes perfect, and perhaps one ought to be more aware of the clamoring press and less on one's casual comment of attire. I am personally amazed by the increase dollar value in attire when there is less and less of it. What, exactly, is being "valued?"