fauxlaw

No DebatArt policy prohibits last-round new argument, but the practice is flawed, particularly for the debate initiator, whether Pro or Con. For the initiator, leaving new argument until the last round is self-limiting, not advantageous, because, while the opponent can still rebut that last-round new argument in their last round, the initiator has no remaining round to defend their last round new argument. One constant is that initiators always have the top frame of each round.

This condition has been attempted to be rectified by calling waived rounds, but that practice is flawed as well, not to mention prohibited, since Policy dictates there shall be argument [including rebuttal and defense] in all rounds designated by the initiator. It has the further imprimatur of cowardice by the initiator by not rendering the first argument in the first round, preferring to see the opponent's argument first. If we initiate a debate, we ought to take the first crack at argument and stop playing waiver games.

We have the opportunity in Description of all debates we initiate to define rules of the road. These are not binding, so say Mods, but, as voters, we can choose to abide by them or ignore them, making it a risk for either opponent to break initiator-defined rules. I have attempted this, myself, and was willing to accept consequences. One rule should always be: No new arguments in the last round, whether or not it becomes policy.

There have been many debates on this site with the charge that systemic racism exists in America. Those making the charge often even include definition of systemic racism, and that definition is reasonably consistent that systemic racism, or institutional racism, as opposed to individual racism, includes the necessity of there being current statutes and procedural policies that allow racial animus in this country.

Those debates supporting the proposition that system racism exists all cite documents of government agency reports, academic studies, and industrial reports of demonstrated racial animus, complete with statistical data. The flaw in every one of these arguments, in every debate, is that none of these reports and studies include citation of a single current legal statute or procedural policy that stipulates the allowance of racial animus. None. Zip.

If you claim that systemic racism is based on such laws and policies, why don 't any of you cite them? Your claim, alone, by your own definitions, fail to impress.

Until someone can cite such current laws and policies, by which virtual all proponents of the notion define their cases, all your reports ands studies and statistics are sounding brass, full of fury, but signifying nothing.

Cite a law. Cite a policy. That's all. The caveat is that they must be current. Jim Crow is not current, I couldn't care less what SloJoe says, because he cannot and does not cite currency, either. Find one and give it voice. Then, you have case. Without it, you got squat.

So, while wearing her black mask, Kammie tells us if we've been vaccinated, we don't need to wear a mask. She's been vaccinated. Oh, never mind, in spite of Kammie, the CDC says even vaccinated, a mask is recommended, again. Who's following the science, anyway? They're all following the Pied Piper of political science, which is science in name only. Kind of like climatology. 

And when is Fauci going to model his mask as a diaper? Not soon enough.

Competency, anyone?

How many of these blatant gaffes are y’all going to allow before you start counting them like you did alleged Trump lies?

Breaking away from my typical ranting, here's a story for which you will provide the best and funniest ending. Better yet, you are the judge. Here is the beginning of the story; you do the rest:

My wife and I decided to split the household chores. One night, it was my turn to do the dishes. When the table was cleared,  the dishes, utensils, cooking gear stacked at the sink, I opened the tap, ran the water over my hands, closed the tap, dried my hands, grabbed my car keys and drove away. I came back with...

Biden's Town Hall last night [7/21] on CNN was a joke from start to finish. 'Moderated' by Don Lemon, a very center-of-the-road guy [and pigs fly], and, in a Republican district [although Cincinnati, itself, voted for SloJo], the event was so well attended, it probably had every voter who legitimately voted for Biden. So, it was not well attended. At all. Not as if CNN, itself, showed the empty seats; more than most of them. Many more. Trump would have filled the auditorium, even as a post-election event. But then, CNN would never host Trump in such an event, even-handed news organization that it is.

Biden, of course, was Biden, if only he knew who that was. 

Just noticed your avatar change, and the use of the Tri-Coulour. Thanks; much appreciated. Also just noticed in your profile that your birthday corresponds to Apollo 11 landing on the moon. Cool! Happy birthday, tomorrow!

When telephones first began converting to touch tone from dial tone in the 1970s in the US, via AT&T, there were two added keys to the digits of the touch tone units as opposed to strictly 10 digits on the dial, 0 - 9.  I was an employee at AT&T at the time, while an undergrad.  The two added keys were [*] and {#], called "star" and "pound" by AT&T. The # sign was also in use prior to the 70s as a symbolic abbreviation for lbs [pounds, as in avoirdupois [having weight].  My world did not begin. quite as late as yours. Your generation should ask why, in a world no longer having typewriters, your keyboard entry speed is impaired by the key arrangement, dictated by the need to avoid locking up the  type bars [aka "strikers"]. There is a faster key entry arrangement, but your generation thought it too hard to adapt the keyboard. oooh, poor baby, just as my generation blew it by not adapting to the metric system.

This is a justice issue, and not politics, as Dems claim the current make up of SCOTUS is. They've been making the claim for many years, but particularly since Trump took office in 2016, with the likelihood of having at least two SCOTUS picks. As it happened, he had three. "The Supreme Court is not well," said a group of Democrats in Congress in 2019, again charging Trump with biased picks. Curious, then, isn't it, that with two cases left before the Court to decide before their 2021 season ends, that the last 32 cases SCOTUS has decided have 12 unanimous cases decided, 37.5% of the 32 cases.  Only 3 of the 32 have been along the 6-3 alleged ideological divide. The history of the Court, since 1789 indicates that 59% of their cases are unanimous. Tell me what's sick about that? For all the claims of political bias by the Court, and both sides have claimed it, not just Dems, but it happens to be Dems now, they are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Court measuring stick happens to be something the Dems do not give much credence: the Constitution. Give it a read once in a while. A full, investigative read for fuller comprehension. I do once a month, and have for the past fifteen years. I started after thinking that Oba'a was going to be a presidential candidate, and his keynote speech in the 2004 DNC scared me to death. That's a Marxist, I said to myself, having never heard of the man before that speech. Of course, he was a Chicago Dem. Not a constitutional scholar, in spite of the claim. Nor am I, but my familiarity has never beensuccessfully assailed.

To my thinking, DebateArt already has a president, if that is the nomenclature to use, and I don't see that elections for a new President are warranted. DEbateArt is the President. I acknowledge that President, alone. The rest of yous are counterfeits. Fuggetaboudid.

Always wanted to use Hugh Grant's most famous attempt at speech.

Please, Mr. Putin, these 16 enterprises are really important to us, so if you could please not hack them? The others are open season.

That's Biden's approach to peace through strength: give concessions. You know, kind of like giving Putin open season on a pipeline to Germany, but shut down ours. Maybe we could cede Alaska back to Russia? Why not? It's just a State. We have too many for Biden to count now, anyway. No need to stress the man out. Certainly, Oba'a didn't know how many States there were, so its all good.

Some of you may be aware that I personally oppose no-vote ties as a debate result. Most who debates typically spend a moderate-to-heavy amount of time in research to take a position and justify it. Their time expended deserves a response from voters. Generally, the system works, but, it is flawed in that we allow too many debates to conclude with no votes cast. I know, because I am party to 7 of them among my total of 10 ties. 70% of my tied debates are n.v.t. [no-vote tie] results. That leads the n.v.t. in the top 15 ranked debaters. 

Currently, there are 4 debates in voting with zero votes. I am participant in 3 of them, and 1 will expire in 1 day, so, my issue is not without foundation. Until recently, there were 9 no-vote debates, but I have voted on four of them. Most still have my single vote.  Since I cannot vote in my debates, and the other no-vote debate cannot vote on their debate, we depend on you. It does make a huge difference.

So, go vote already!!!!

Beatings will continue until morale improves.

Kammie refuses appearance at the site for which the President has ceded her the duty: handle the Southern border crisis. That's OUR border, yeah?

That claim may sound critical, but a cis-gender male who thinks female is, still biologically male. Thinking does not change bone structure, muscle mass, or natural endurance, and taking hormones for the differential effect does not make a complete change. Therefore a trans-to-female is overly male in these factors over females, making "her" abilities advantageous over cis-females, on balance. There is a significant push for trans-to-females who currently compete as cis-females. I looked, but could not find any data on trans-to-males competing with cis-males; a research failure I find curious.

Nevertheless, why don't trans simply compete among themselves, just as the traditional separation of male/female sports? I've seen a graphic representation of trans, adding a third spike on a circle, which, curiously, makes use of the traditional male/female patterns, but combined. Why not originate a completely different symbolic representations?  Either this fairly distinguishes trans as separate genders, or it doesn't.

One green energy proponent, Kammie Harris, thought she told a joke at Annapolis last Friday, talking to graduates in electrical engineering how they were going to produce energy with wind and solar, and even combat power by the same. Then she quipped, "do you think a marine would rather have batteries in her backpack, or a rolled-up solar panel?" Nobody laughed but Kammie.

Nope, not just a bad joke, but a useless joke. That's the difference between actual electrical engineers and a life-log politician. The latter think they know everything, knowing, in actuality, nothing but convincing people to vote for them. Why would that marine be walking with a backpack, during the day, with a solar panel rolled-up in it? What's she going to do, take the collector out at night? Gracious, what a dummie. Kamie, not the marine. The marine would have seen through that futile exercise, but Kammie has never hauled around a solar panel in her life, day or night.

I went to the grocery store tonight, and what do you think I saw? Well, I've joked before about everything we respect ultimately ends up being public trash, like cigarette butts and masks in gutters. Well, a woman was wearing a blue mask with MADA emblazoned on it in white letters. I guessed, since she was also wearing a Biden tee shirt, that it was an acronym for Make America Democrat Again. I asked; she said yes. Then I asked her if I could knock it off her face. She was offended. She didn't think that was funny at all.

Amazing, isn't it, that some people can dish it out, but can't take it. 

Like dishing on Trump for 4 years, but mention Rollover Joe, and the same dishers can't taker it. You know who your are.

You may think this post is misaligned; that it belongs in "society," or maybe even stretched to put it in "politics." Nope, it is rightly placed.

Whereas Picasso left us with an intriguing message: “Art is not for decoration; it is an instrument of war;” da Vinci left us with a more contemplative tone. He taught a concept he called saper vedera, meaning “knowing how to see.”

One issue needs to be assessed critically lest our children grow up thinking there is no reason to parse constitutional issues of importance. Progressives are fond of saying that the government needs to “protect our children and others from this senseless gun violence.” Sounds good and right, but they confuses the right of gun ownership with the violence perpetrated by people.  Guns never have, and never will, of their own volition, kill a single individual. If we ultimately severe the hand from the right to hold a gun with continued legislation — or executive order — those hands will find other weapons to commit their violence. Do we ban the spoon? It, too, can be a killing weapon, don’t you know?

However, the deeper issue is the confusion by which Progressives jerk “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration to also call them “constitutional” rights. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, declared these rights to be “self-evident,” “endowed by [the] Creator,” and “unalienable.” And if, as Progressives believe, the Constitution is malleable, a “living document,” as the progressive left is fond of saying, then “unalienable” is subject to revision merely by evolution of society.

Some thoughts in regard to the current abortion case before the Supreme Court: Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization  from MS.

Progressives have the SCOTUS decision of Roe v. Wade [1974] interpreted by a dancing manipulation around its findings. 1 US Code, §8, to which Roe v. Wade, curiously, does not refer, legally defines a “person.” What does that say about the Roe v. Wade interpretation of 14th amendment privacy; a word the 14A does not include?   1 US Code, §8 describes a person as Homo sapiens, born alive, at any stage of development.The Latin classification,Homo sapiens,means, literally: wise man, or, human, as distinguished from other species of the genus, Homo.All three conditions must be held to claim personage. 

The first element of definition clearly distinguishes humans from any other life form, as if anything else could, or should, be nurtured in a human womb. 
The third describes the zygote [the fertilized egg], the embryo, [its subsequent multi-cell development], and the early-to-late-term fetus. 
The second element, emphasized for this discussion, is the core of the pro-abortion argument, whereas, all three support the pro-life argument. It is, by strict definition, “born alive,”that is abortion’s fundamental argument. Its opposite, stillborn,means that the organism, although born and although Homo sapiens,is dead tissue; therefore not a person. 

It will not be honest to use the pro/pro schism using the qualifier “choice” only because choice’s interpretation, opposing that of “life,” is abortion, and usually not some other alternative, such as adoption, or a mother/father/both-raised child. Nor will this argument entertain troubling aspects of the choice of abortion in the cases of incest, rape, or the danger to health of mother, child, or both. These are fraught with pitfalls on both sides of the argument too great to expand on here.

Allowing that no one, well-meaning, or not; not parent, not doctor, not cleric, not biological father, should assume to decide in the place of the pregnant female, it is a decision fraught with competing factions. They all must defer, ultimately, to the pregnant female unless she, herself, defers. That would, at least, uphold the Roe v. Wade interpretation of privacy.

“Born alive” means the organism is fully expelled from the mother’s body, alive, and regardless of the stage of development. Note that “viability” [meaning it is likely to survive outside of the womb even though in earlier stages of development] does not exist in 1 US Code, §8 verbiage.

However, one must take exception to the Roe v. Wade unspecified “person” argument because a criminal indictment may still be brought against a person who desecrates a corpse. Why shouldn’t its alternative also be criminal; the desecration of a pre-born, who would, if all else were equal and left to nature’s intent, be born alive? 
Moreover, a person who slays a pregnant woman is often charged with two counts of homicide by 2004’s Victims of Unborn Violence Act. Do these points of order strain the progressive Roe v. Wade interpretation, let alone that of 1 US Code, §8, of what defines a person? These extreme conditions would infer that the dead have certain rights that are shared as a sub-set of rights held by living persons. Should 1 US Code, §8, let along some aspects of Roe v. Wade, be clarified by more accurate legal definition? Or do we continue, blithely, blindly satisfied by precedent? In this non-lawyer’s opinion, precedent exists by virtue of poorly written law.

The hook abortionists hang on in 1 US Code, §8, if not by precedent, is that “born alive” means being fully expelled from the mother’s body, and still alive. If the zygote/embryo/fetus does not fully expel, it is not yet “born,” and is not yet a person. Its natural development to “viability,” let alone to full development, is terminated artificially, and satisfies the progressive argument because it does not yet meet the strict definition of birth. 

“Behold!” the progressive says, “abortion is, therefore, legal.” Some even expand the fetal development beyond viability to include full development, and even partial birth. New York State has just stepped over this line because New York conveniently does not define what it means by “the life and health of the mother,” let alone the fetus. With vague interpretation, a headache, let alone declared mental stress, is threatening to at least the mother. 

Other states are sure to follow. 

It is convoluted logic. Legally, it seems to be sound, but only because a person is not a person until born alive, according to 1 US Code, §8, specifically, and the Roe v. Wade decision by unwritten interpretation. But, what of the also legal Victims of Unborn Violence Act?
This single aspect of live birth is both the steps and the music of the progressive dance. Some progressives do know what they talk about and use the language of the law as written to their benefit. They dance around it like Gene Kelly, to music distant, and dissonant to some.

I frankly do not know who created the acronym, CC, related to climate change, but somebody did. I've been using it for a number of years. I find it also is Creative Commons, an organization that endeavors to free up knowledge access on many subjects. One is the Covid 19 pandemic. I could call it CC - covid crisis. It is also CC - climate change.

OK. What's the big deal that warrants a Forum topic? Well, consider the two CCs noted above; climate change - to me, a hoax to separate us from our individual freedom and our cash [donate to clean the clouds, such as by carbon credits - OMG! another CC!], but I also see it as CC - covid crisis; an effort to... separate us from our individual freedom and our cash. How?

Well, we already know how the GND would enforce something called "participatory budgeting," meaning government participation in private industry budgeting, which ought to be strictly within the control of private industry. Nope. GND, as an official government bureaucracy, must have a hand in it... to, uh, separate us from our individual freedom [to make our own budgets] and our cash [tax increases].  

So, what has it to do with Covid? What have we just been through due to Covid? A planned  experiment.  In what?  Why, taking your individual freedom and your cash. Industry, merchandising, and school shutdowns. Basically, all the reasons to leave the house, taking jobs and education in the process. You think we are coming out of that crisis? Sure, but what have the proponents of CC and CC learned? That they can... separate us from our individual freedom [to work, be educated, shop, eat out, etc, etc,] on a more permanent basis simply by imposing a different CC down the road.

Result: We depend on government for our sustenance. Something like perpetual support checks to compensate loss of jobs, and, ultimately, loss of private enterprise, leading to....

Care to guess what Marxism really is, and its effects on a free society?  CC.  Communist Control. Starts with your loss of individual freedom, and your cash...

because what will stop them from taxing your single-payer income?  Wait, wasn't single payer ACA just all about health care?  Just another brick in the wall, dummy.

Slo Joe has rolled over, again. Once, in criticism of Trump [who of the Progs doesn't?], Biden called Putin a "killer." But, Putin wants a pipeline direct through the Baltic Sea to Germany, and, ever the loyal dog, Slo Joe rolls over. The pipeline is virtually complete, anyway, so, what was Joe supposed to do? Well, he might have shown the same lawful [?] diplomacy he showed to Ukraine, threatening to withhold the billion dollar aid. No, not to Putin. Tell me, isn't that pipeline supposed to be supplying fossil fuel to Germany? Isn't fossil fuel a GND disaster? So, where is Slo Joe's outrage? Nope. Rollover Joe is ready to please. Arf.

Currently, I rank 10th in likes on the forum leaderboard, an achievement that is truly humbling. So, either my designation by some as "stupid" and "imbecile" is more universally held [not a good sign for your lot who like my commentary] than not [and, at times, it may actually be true...], or, more of you think I do not deserve the imbecilic designation. Of course, I prefer the latter, and, as a repentant cynic, I sincerely thank you for your kindness. I will certainly make a better effort to reciprocate. 

Wow. Yesterday [actually, two days before], masks were politics. Today, [actually yesterday], no masks is science. 

I'm just sayin... there's a syllogism in there, somewhere. I invite all comers.

With Hamas attacking Israel, and the Democrats divided over what to do, it seems within days, Biden will decide to move the US Embassy out of Jerusalem. When did he ever make a rational foreign policy decision? No, instead, his decisions mimic a line from 2018: "I told him he had 6 hours to fire the prosecutor. Son of a bitch, he did."

Right now, Slo Joe is considering putting the Embassy in Wuhan.

In 1848, Karl Marx, with sidekick Friedrich Engels, wrote and published the Communist Manifesto, the users’ manual of Socialists & Communists. In 173 years, we have never seen a successful use of the manual, yet it is embraced as the best combination of bread and butter since… well, bread and butter. 
 
But, let’s switch out the materials, and let’s watch Karl set up a lemonade stand; something he never actually did, by the way, but which is far easier to make than either bread or butter. In the process, you will understand the reason why in 173 years, the manual has failed to produce an enduring model. By comparison, the American free-market economy has been around since… well, when did the first immigrants come to these shores as colonists? Late 16th century? Early 17th century? That’s 400 and more years. Socialism’s best performance: USSR; 75 years. You socialists have a bit of time to go to compete.
 
First, it is necessary to understand the manual’s economic players, and their process. It’s pretty easy: you have your players: a Bourgeois, the business owner, and you have the Proletariat, the workers. 
 
So: Karl Marx and his Lemonade Stand: 
 
You have a process: the Proletariat make the lemonade, and the Bourgeois sells it for $1 per 10 oz. glass. He sells 500 glasses per day: $500 gross revenue [not profit], though preofit is what Karl calls it. Fine, we'll see. The Bourgeois pays the workers, who equally share 40% of the $500; $200. The Bourgeois keeps the remaining $300 as net revenue [Karl does not consider as that; he does not entertain gross v. net. The 40% to the Proletariat, according to Marx, is unfair, because the Proletariat do all the work. That’s it; end of manual, other than some propaganda for the Proletariat to rise up in protest because they are getting the short end of the stick. 
 
How many workers are needed? Well, daily production is 5,000 ounces of lemonade; 39 gallons. One gallon of lemonade can be made in 5 minutes. 39 gallons are made in 3 hours. One worker will suffice in Karl’s stand. So, one worker is paid $200 per day; $1,000 per week? And the Proletariat complain about that? Something is going on…
 
What will raw materials cost? Lemons, sugar, water. Simple formula of ingredients. Wait! Did we mention, or rather, did Karl mention anything about raw materials and their cost? No, he did not. Magic makes them appear.
 
But, no raw materials, no lemonade, so… Each lemon yields 3 Tbs of juice, sufficient for a 10 oz glass. Therefore, 500 lemons are needed. Average lemon is 3 oz; 5 lemons per pound. 1 lb of lemons is about $2; 40¢/ea. 500 x 40¢ = $200.
 
Sugar: about $40 for 30 lbs. 3 oz. per glass = 5 glasses per pound. We need 100 lbs of sugar = $120.
 
Water: Karl will give it away. His raw material expense, per day, is $320.
 
Wait, we did not account for a mixing container; a pitcher. A mixing spoon, a lemon squeezer, a measuring spoon for sugar, and a measuring cup for water. Nor did we account for paper/plastic cups. These are added, unjustified expenses.
 
What will the stand cost, a one-time cost, but it must come from Karl’s profit, and, as you see, after paying the Proletariat, Karl’s budget is blown just with Purchasing of two raw materials, let alone the cost of the unaccounted mixing materials, the stand, and ongoing expenses for Marketing, Material Handling, Sales, Customer Service, Warranty…
 
Did Karl’s manual speak to any of these Bourgeois expenses? No, it did not account for them at all in Karl’s model of Bourgeois taking all the profit after paying the Proletariat their 40%, which now looks very generous, all things considered. Have you read Karl’s 173-year-old manual? 
 
Karl will be out of business within a month; maybe less. Such is the result of the Manifesto in the real world. Karl is going to need that entitlement that comes after the Proletariat is fired. Burning his manual for heat will last about 3 minutes.
 

The topic speaks for itself. Just more evidence that Joe's missing competence isn't, because he never had any. Education solves our gas stations running out of fuel? Is that like last generation's education that money cleans clouds? At least the latter could be connected to 14th century indulgences. How education provides gas is hot air in a wish balloon, because we already are fully adept at production and distribution - but we're not so adept, yet, at the production and distribution of green energy. Someday, soon, sure, but, we need gasoline right now, and we used to be energy independent, but Slo Joe doesn't know how to sustain that, and since government, according to Slo Joe,  is supposed to know how, but doesn't, gas will be just one more item on a list of missing in action.

So this is my song, sang it again today
I had to turn my eyes away
Smile on the run, kisses for everyone
For hair, it’s never fair
 
I’m lying in wait, can’t wait to feel
I bet you gonna reel the deal
I’m gonna feel, feel, feel, feel in your hair
Now won’t I, Despacito?
 
Back a long time, I’ve been a feeler for you
You met my hands in your hair
No right, no wrong, you’re going along, your hair
Air my hair
 
And if the real hair don’t do it fair
I’d better wig-up something down there
You’re gonna feel, feel, feel, feel me in your hair,
Ooo, Despacito
 
Feel me, feel you, my hair just said
Dive down deep, more than my head
I think you got the feel, too
 
All those nights and days ahead
Feel so deep its all a head
You; I think you feel it, too
 
And if the real hair don’t do it fair
I’d better wig-up something down there
You’re gonna feel, feel, feel, feel me in your hair,
Ooo, Despacito
 
©2020 by fauxlaw

CRT = Critical Race Theory, for the uninitiated.

Emphasis on the last word: theory. According to the OED:   Theory, n.  a. The conceptual basis of a subject or area of study. Contrasted with practice.  Conceptual: like the napkin-generated idea at lunch of a new product. Like a proposal that the universe is geocentric, which was considered ""practical" until it wasn't. Theory is not empiric, pure and simple. Until it is no longer theory [either proven wrong, like geocentrism, or substantiated by empiric evidence, it remains conceptual. In the case of CRT, the empiric evidence must demonstrate a current law or gov't department policy, as I charged in my debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/2780-thbt-systemic-racism-is-a-significant-problem-in-the-us with Undefeatable, which concluded 2 months ago, and which I won, due to the utter lack of demonstrating such evidence. What the average person may think, and act upon, is not evidence of systemic, or CRT. The average person, or even a collected group, who do not legislate or spew policy, are not systemic, or CRT. Period. Therefore, CRT has no leg standing, or one to stand upon.

I've encountered a question in my household that needs an answer beyond mine. I'm appealing to your good graces. I love my wife to death, but she hands on to anachronisms in the face of, according to a language problem we seen to have in abundance because we do not seem to share the skill of Adam to name things appropriately. I used, once, on this issue, the example of the mouse. Not the cute little rodent, as if we would accept one [careful! it may just be a small rat] sitting on our desk. I'm talking about that computer interface device whereby images are manipulated on our computer monitor. While it would be a stretch to call the current device a mouse [remember, the original device had a cable, but it was mounted in the head and not the rump], and, in the case of the pad in virtually every laptop made today is not called a mouse, our wireless, handheld models still are.

Well, my problem is with another device: a television. Just before starting this string, I checked Amazon for that device by name: television, the original device from, what, 80 years ago, roughly, which provided both image and sound, but included a tuner, and speakers, all mounted in a convenient box. Does that device still exist? You might have one, but, in my mind, if they are not currently sold, they are no longer made. Made, as in two older such devices consult some birds and bees, a stork is called in, and, voila: offspring. 

Back to Amazon. I went through nine pages [there were 171] of "television," never encountering the device in a box described above. They all looked like the devices I have in my home; four of them, not including the other devices I have with monitors and wifi streaming capability.  I concluded that "televisions" do not mate and make anymore; therefore, they are extinct, even if there are living samples. That how we refer to "extinction in nature; we may have living specimens, but if they are no longer mating pairs... well, we're familiar with the extinction process.  What is in my house is a monitor without a tuner [though, it has speakers I don't use], which, according to Amazon, are procreating like rabbits.

So, if the device does not have a tuner, and depends on some other device to receive a signal [there are several], can the device in question still be called a "television," or must it be something else? The term I've mentioned seems appropriate: a monitor [no, not a lizard].

I maintain the Sermon on the Mount has, within its brief words [just three chapters in Matthew], read easily within a half-hour, the solution to every single social ill we face, have ever faced, and ever will face, yet it holds no significant place in our hearts as a unifying power for good.  Even if it was looked upon as a secular social document, like the Constitution, if God were not part and parcel of it, everyone, religious and not, could take advantage of its power as a force for good.

I believe, as a related matter, that the nuclear family: father, mother, and children, and perhaps even a grandparent, etc, in one household, is a hidden power that would solve our social problems, but, it, too, is being ignored for the potential it has to heal society of its miseries.

Think about it.

When I look at the directory of forum topics, I see two relatively anemic, yet related topics that continue to be kept separate, as noted above. Granted, I know I'm not a gamer, but just looking at the numbers, the two, combined, have less than 1,000 combined topics. Yes, most other topic headings are <1,000, too, but why isn't gaming a single topic, regardless, considering they are narrowly separate topics. After all, we have separate topics for "People" and "Personal." So, why does gaming get to take up space with 2 separate topic headings?

Just a thought.

Is there anything to the idea that the very things we begin to value as a civilization begins to become a nuisance in the things we throw out, but don't use a garbage can?

Like masks?

Inspired by zedvictor4's recent topic on LTBQ. Jut looking for parity. Agree, oppose, or non-committal?

Outside, at a podium, surrounded only by people who are tested and confirmed negative for Covid, and far from the assembled few attending the intended speech sequestered in their cars, is Joe Biden, crying "I've lost my mask!"  Biden acts like a kid who complains the dog ate his homework. At 100 days in office, I'm so thrilled by my President. Where is his mask? Uh, in the first place most look, first. In his pocket. I'm so looking forward to his first live summit with a foreign leader, who I suggest come with two or three spare masks, along with a spare mind to loan.

Not to mention having referred to Kammie as the "President" once again, just the night before. That he caught himself does not excuse. The signs in the WH declaring "The Biden/Harris Administration" are for Biden, alone, because he can't remember who is who. 

Wow. What a rebuttal speech by Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC] offered tonight in response to the This-is-not-a-State-of-the-Union speech by Biden tonight.

"Education is the closest thing to magic in America."

"You can't use race to solve discrimination."

"Original sin is not the end of the story."

Even if Donald Trump enters the race in 24, my vote is for Tim Scott.

If I initiate a challenged debate,  and have established the protocol, such as number of rounds, time for argument, and for voting, and that challenge is accepted, and only then do I give notice of having no time to devote to the debate, should I expect you would agree to a tied result?

No, there is nothing in the policy regarding this consequence.

How would you react, and why? Honest question.

The radical politics of climate change have much the same tactic as the radical politics of biblical denial by inverse relationship. As the strength of bible denial by the argument of contradiction rises, the inverse is true of climate change proponents: a growing ignorance of its contradictions. To advance the contradiction, these are not tactics by opposing traditional politics within its own narrow realm; it is practiced by compatriots on the same side of the political progressive/conservative dichotomies: Progrssives.
 
We have been regaled by biblical contradiction. A list is adequately provided by Undefeatable’s current debate with logicae: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3007-utilitarianism-is-a-preferable-moral-foundation-compared-to-the-bible
in which Undefeatable presents this source: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/10/top-20-most-damning-bible-contradictions/
 
Let me introduce that to which Climate Change, in the guise of the IPPC, is apparently ignorant:
 
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=contradictions+of+climate+change&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
 To read, it must be downloaded, [about 16 pages] but there is no restriction to do so. 

I invite its review; and an explanation by climate change proponents. After all, I am repeatedly asked to explain biblical contradiction. The difference is, I do explain. This is often refuted; curiously, by general vilification rather than true debate. I've been called every slur from A to Z. Time for some reciprocation, yeah?

In spite of AlGore, we’re still here.

Really? Just that little bit? Where, Joe? Is the Earth of one single climate, and if anywhere, the temperature rises 1.5 degrees, the whole Earth is doomed? There's variation greater than 1.5 degrees all over the Earth, and has been for billions of years. What says now we are, all over the Earth, at the brink? Hell, there's more variation that that just in the various instruments we use to measure global temperature, humidity, or even the stink in our armpits. Anyone concerned about that?

Is anyone surprised this guy was elected? I sure am. The man has a one-track mind.... if only he could find it.

The self-imposed human extinction line is forming over there on the left. Where else?

Whereas I have been on the first page on Debate leaderboard for quite a while, and currently in #10 position by the default qualifier [rating], as of now I am on the first page on the Forum leaderboard by the default qualifier: # of posts. That's a milestone of a sort. Have some cake and ice cream on me.

There is a common refrain that man is not given free agency, that we are predestined to act as we do. I think that argument is a cop-out so we can blame God for all our troubles. I don't believe God is even totally responsible for anything, let alone most things. He created us, but neither does force our actions, nor has he totally abandoned us to our own devices. But to expect he will always act to prevent our miseries is that very cop-out that he is responsible to fix our problems when we should be trying to fix them ourselves. Blaming God for our troubles is trying to absolve us for everything we do without our going through the responsible sequence of events that allow us to take responsibility and repent for our doing things that do not being us joy. It doesn't work that way.

This is all in good fun, and is not current, but, I ran across this toast recently, and though it might bring a smile:

The election is over,

Your party lost, my party won,

So raise a glass, let arguments pass,

I'll hug my elephant, you can kiss your ass.

The desire to scoop has completely overwhelmed the media to the extent that they throw caution to the wind, get an inkling of a story, and, if it cannot be properly vetted within a few hours, they give up on the attempt and publish as is; sometimes, creating elements of the story out of pure fiction, assuming they’re right.

Recent history says they usually are not even close to the truth. After all, it seems they can just retract the story, and all is forgiven. They can repeat with a revolving door to the retraction confessional, if they bother to do even that. Nonsense.

Case in point: When Jesus was confronted by the scribes who dragged in tow a woman caught in flagrante committing adultery, and Jesus said to the scribes that he who was without sin could cast the first stone, the scribes walked away, accused and self-convicting. To the woman, he did not merely say: “You are forgiven,” he also said, “Go, and sin no more.”

The media are like the scribes, willing to be shamed. But then, they ignore the point that they should not do it again.

Pick any color at random; you could probably describe it in a single word, regardless of what the object is. It's red or green, yellow, purple... you get it. But let that object be skin, and, all of a sudden, we get society twisted in knots trying to give it a demographic, count it, subdivide it, classify it, discriminate it, and either love it or hate it. When are we going to figure out that absolutely none of us, not one in 7 billion, is either truly black or white, or any other "color" we've devised for skin? So, why do we try to make that distinction? It says nothing of what or who we are, and not one of us determined it in the first place. So, so what?

According to Anthropology, Paleontology, Biology, Morphology, and anatomic and genetic data, [which accounts for tens of thousands of scientists, not just a holy 99] and due to what is known of similar anatomical and physiological known systems, the timeline of human evolution begins with the advent of mammals giving live-birth to offspring 160M years ago, placental mammals 125M years ago, and primates 100M ago. Homo sapiens 0.8M years ago.

From the point of placenta mammals forward, organ physiology and subsequent adaptability are virtually identical to us, meaning those ancestors were able to deal with widely variable climate changes without extinction.

With human intellect, our adaptability increases; it does not shrink. Political science did not teach the Green New Deal these facts,. nor, apparently, the rest of you climate change fanatics. And you're worried about a 2 degree C rise in global temperature? Really? Did we defrock St. Darwin and his adaptability psalm?

You want to be extinct, be my guest. The line forms over there on the left. Where else?

I am curious what people think are activities that are described as "a waste of time." I know there are many. One of them, to me, is spending time in discovery of who people are by identity. Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself; everyone else is taken."

I take that as wise advice. The best person anyone can investigate is themselves. Who else is as important? If one is investigating another at the expense of knowing, for example, how to research a debate proposal to see if it a good fit with their body of knowledge and ability to argue with that body, which would be, after all, a good exercise to challenge the self, and to accomplish a bit of self-discovery in the process; to do otherwise is folly. A waste of time.

Thoughts?

When I first moved to the state wherein I now reside, I immediately saw a TV local news broadcast of the retirement of the school board superintendant, whose retirement package included the title to her company car. Well, I wasn't that upset about that item until the broadcast included a photo of the car: a two-year-old Mercedes 2-door coupe. REALLY? Is that the best use of the education apportionment of property taxes? I'm all on for supporting public education with my taxes, but I draw the line at that kind of apportionment.

As a potential debate contender responding to an initiator challenge, is it wise to jump on a debate challenge that is feared to be too popular to assure your place as the contender at the expense of knowing before you engage that you have sufficient arguments planned - even if detail is missing - such that the rounds are adequately argued in the time given for each round?

On the other hand, is it wise to initiate a challenge with a poorly constructed Resolution that will be too easily rebutted by your competitor, or that has not had sufficient Resolution definition of words to assure your potential competitor has a firm grip of the Resolution's objective?

As a one-year "veteran" of debating on this site [not that the time is any gage of cutting mustard] these questions are serious considerations of our collective debating course and its consequences.

First, what is culture? Get there before any answer, or no answer will have merit. Have at it. I think the answer is older than you think.