I thought it said "The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be terminated."
I would have voted yes.
OK, I'm going to accept the challenge.
There's a reason I quit debating and I'm probably going to be sorry, but what the heck, I'm in.
So, a lot has changed since then, before we start, what does "rated" mean?
The wording of the challenge is a little confusing. If pro argues that geocentrism has been disproved, is con then arguing for geocentrism?
Geocentrism is opposed to Heliocentrism, it's not normally opposed to "fixed".
Do you mean fixed in the center of the "visible" universe.
I'm wondering if the unusual wording of the challenge is intentionally misleading.
I'm curious.
When you say Earth is fixed in the center of the Universe, by fixed do you mean it isn't rotating, or it is rotating but doing so in the center of the Universe?
SergeantLynch: "According to psychologists, critics are fragile folk and prone to victimhood mentality."
Remy is a victim of women, a victim of Jews, a victim of the left, heck, he's even a victim of some stupid internet poll about women preferring bears.
Now he a victim of all the big meanies casting pro votes.
Poor baby.
@wylted
Any criticism of my or gratefulgoys rfd is misplaced. I owe it to the defender to read the case for him but I am allowed to have an opinion on whether he should be banned without going into detail
Don't worry, I went into enough detail for both of us.
With Remy it's Pavlovian, he automatically says something stupid every time there is a vote against him.
I see, so people who disagree with what you say should be censored. Is that about it?
I think we should also censor people who want to censor people who want to censor people.
In the name of free speech of course.
Just be careful, interaction with Mal can cause brain damage.
What the hell does the debate title even mean, it's got a triple negative sentence and uses consistent and support in a confusing manner, is somebody trying to be clever with a misleading title or is it just a wierd way of saying something simple?
"(Pro) being a supporter of homosexuality, it IS NOT inconsistent that (pro) DOES NOT support incest at all."
OK, lets break it down, so Pro supports homosexuality, got it...then it IS NOT inconsistent" is a double negative, means "is consistent" that "(pro) DOES NOT support incest at all", not sure why "support" or "consistent were the word choice there."
Is this an accurate re-statement of the debate title: "Homosexuality does not entail incest" or "Being homosexual does not mean you engage in incest".
Is that what this debate it about?
I don't understand this debate, how can a user violate another's free speech, I posy, you post, I can't make any changes to what you post, you can't change what I post, under these circumstances, how is it possible to violate someone elses free speech?
Holy crap. you guys are both great debaters, good job. I came in with a strong opinion that "strict" was necessary, the debate didn't change that, but I was clearly reading Mikal's argument with a biased point of view, consequently, I probably won't vote, but you both did an excellent job.
