- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Recent Content
-
Does lenient law enforcement foment crime? Does harsh enforcement reduce crime?
@xlJ_dolphin_473
Its important to note I was responding to this.
"Or, do the cops have NO effect on crime whatsoever, no matter how the laws are enforced?Do you think incarceration has any effect on crime?"
My answer there is of course incarceration has more impact than nothing. Again simple supply and demand. I have never stated my opinion on the most efficient manners because ultimately id know i need to do a lot more research to have an informed opinion of maximal effect
To your point about likliness of being caught. The OP says when spending on cops go up crime does not go down.
Again seems ludicrous as more cops equals more eyes equals higher liklihood of being caught.
Again i have no opinion on efficiency. Simply like you stated, higher chance of being caught equals lower amount people willing to commit crime.
-
Why the Democrat-Progressive-Communist Party of the United States must be eradicated as moral rot?
@RickeyHoltsclaw
Your hatred is reprehensible. YOUR ilk is what is tearing this country apart.
Why does it seem that with extremists everything is a zero-sum game? Must you win? Is that the goal? -
"Unfair universe" paradox
Says "not worth responding to" then proceeds to write two full multi sentence paragraphs whining and crying in response! Classic.Bogan said:Not worth responding to.
Try writing an entire 350 word article starting with a clearly stated premise that you are prepared to defend with a reasoned argument. Writing sneery one liners, or simply submitting curt replies dealing entirely in implications is hardly going to impress anybody into thinking you have an opinion worth reading. Neither is, pejorative abuse, using AI, or just continually asking loaded Dorothy Dixer questions. You may think that it makes you look authoritative, but it just makes you look like an ignorant person winging it to vainly defend a position he passionately holds, but has little knowledge of.
When you finally admit that you were wrong all along, don’t forget to indulge yourself in a little self flagellation. It is should do wonders for your over inflated ego. And don’t forget to grovel at my feet and beg forgiveness for being an obstructionist arsehole who is more concerned with suppressing debate than arguing out a topical subject based upon it’s merits.
-
Why the Democrat-Progressive-Communist Party of the United States must be eradicated as moral rot?
RickeyHoltsclaw said:These are horrible people i.e., the atheist – the secular humanist – the evolutionist – the Progressive – the Democrat – the Communist - these are demonic at their root and destructive in their reality…this demonic attack on America must END!
Hello again, Rickey:I dunno how the hatred got to this level, but I know how to put a cork in it. I took an oath to defend this country, and that oath NEVER expires. I'm a warrior and a patriot, and I look forward to meeting you on the battlefield.I'll be the one leading the charge.excon
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
@maxx ; you can act like dee all you want and pretend you won.
You are the one who does not want to continue, Max. I am still full of fight and rearing to go. You are the one who dodges every reasonable question that I put to you, which hardly supports the idea that you have any knowledge of what you are claiming is valid. You are the one who ignores most of what i write and only focuses on what you can get some mileage out of. And finally, you are the one who can not think up any argument supporting your position, and can only use links as "evidence", that any countervailing argument exists at all. . And when I pick apart one of your links and show quite clearly how unscientific it is, you make no mention of what I wrote. If you really thought that these "scientific" links had nailed it, I would have thought that you would have at least gone through my critique of your "scientific" link and addressed what I wrote, point by point? But you could not even manage that. The fact that you did not, seems to me that you either do not even read all that I write? Or, that you, yourself could see that my criticism of your "scientific" link was right on the money? And you did not know what to do about that?
It is quite interesting. You have this idea that religious people think that 2+2=3, and then you are unable to fathom your own similar religious mindset? I do not know why you think that races are equal? I can only presume that it has been banged into your head for so long that you have simply internalized it as a Absolute Truth. And this potty idea is constantly reinforced in your head by your culture and your peers, so it never occurred to you to ever question it? It is child's play to prove that this premise is wrong to any thinking person who has an impartial mindset. That this is why so many young people have this religious like belief which they themselves can not justify. It is also the reason why so many of my opponents refuse to even submit an argument as to why they think that races are equal. They never thought that they would ever have to. They know that they have no way of proving what that so desperately want to believe is an Absolute Truth. That is why so many of them like Factfinder just get angry and try and stifle the debate. Which is definitely a religious mindset. Refusal to put your side of any argument in a debate is a major weakness of my opponents, and continued refusal to do so constitutes dishonesty. You, however were smart enough to know in your heart that races are not equal, even though you obviously want to believe that they are. So, you retreated to a more defensible position.
You more defensible position was to claim that races do not exist, when they self evidently do exist. Once again, it is easy to prove that they exist, especially since lefties quite obviously see races themselves when it is convenient for them to do so. But no amount of proof can ever make anyone accept anything that they just do not want to believe. Human races equate to sub species, and once again, that is quite easy to prove. You did your best by submitting "scientific" links which denied this to support your view, but they were hardly scientific,. All I had to do was provide you with a definition of sub species, and list the characteristics which apply that define sub species, to prove to you that humans conform to that definition, and to those same characteristics. . I asked you the crucial questions as to how humans races do not conform to the scientific definition of sub species, and the defining characteristics of a sub species? And once again you refused to answer a couple of very simple but very crucial questions. Then you then headed for the door. Checkmate. -
Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear codes?
I've found him to ignore evidence that didn't fit his argument and deny its existence. I've seen him appeal to himself as an authority in math and science, when it was evident he was not an expert.Factfinder said:
I've found @MayCaesar to provide some of the most well thought out opinions on this site. Gas lighting isn't what he does. That's been my experience.Delilah6120 said:@MayCaesar
You´re not someone I care to debate with. I don´t trust you. You sound like a gaslighter and I question YOUR character. Is this your professional job? It´s psychological abuse. -
Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear codes?
I've found @MayCaesar to provide some of the most well thought out opinions on this site. Gas lighting isn't what he does. That's been my experience.Delilah6120 said:@MayCaesar
You´re not someone I care to debate with. I don´t trust you. You sound like a gaslighter and I question YOUR character. Is this your professional job? It´s psychological abuse.
-
Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear codes?
I've found @MayCaesar to provide some of the most well thought out opinions on this site. Gas lighting isn't what he does. That's been my experience.Delilah6120 said:@MayCaesar
You´re not someone I care to debate with. I don´t trust you. You sound like a gaslighter and I question YOUR character. Is this your professional job? It´s psychological abuse. -
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@Dreamer
How about the right to be free from viruses?
What agency on earth could possibly offer such a 'right'? -
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@Dreamer
Your going to use an example of 1 person on 1 issue to make that conclusion?
Also little ironic when the left stance on this issue was essentially to authoritatively force people to take the vaccine.
