Logically, if a book that was written thousands of years ago describes today in detail and is right, it doesn't matter if said book was written by an Alzheimer's patient. It's still obviously directed by God.
How could authors, known or unknown, predict all of what is pointed out in the first points on this side of the debate? (Much less all prophecies not included in this debate)
Just in those verses alone it tells us about one point in time referred to as the "end of days". Those days are described as:
1)Gospel goes worldwide.
2)A falling away from the faith and a rebellion against God.
3)The emergence of the beast system on the scene. Islam claims to be the beast system. It's why they imprison and behead Christians.
4)The genocide of Christians(happened by the millions during Obama's term)
5)Damascus is reduced to rubble.
6)Jerusalem is divided into 3 parts in Revelation. (It is divided into Muslim, Jewish and Christian sections today)
7)Israel is the center of world conflict.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
In the eleventh year, in the third month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes:
“‘Who can be compared with you in majesty?
3 Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon,
with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest;
it towered on high,
its top above the thick foliage.
4 The waters nourished it,
deep springs made it grow tall;
their streams flowed
all around its base
and sent their channels
to all the trees of the field.
5 So it towered higher
than all the trees of the field;
its boughs increased
and its branches grew long,
spreading because of abundant waters.
6 All the birds of the sky
nested in its boughs,
all the animals of the wild
gave birth under its branches;
all the great nations
lived in its shade.
7 It was majestic in beauty,
with its spreading boughs,
for its roots went down
to abundant waters.
8 The cedars in the garden of God
could not rival it,
nor could the junipers
equal its boughs,
nor could the plane trees
compare with its branches—
no tree in the garden of God
could match its beauty.
9 I made it beautiful
with abundant branches,
the envy of all the trees of Eden
in the garden of God.
10 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because the great cedar towered over the thick foliage, and because it was proud of its height, 11 I gave it into the hands of the ruler of the nations, for him to deal with according to its wickedness. I cast it aside, 12 and the most ruthless of foreign nations cut it down and left it. Its boughs fell on the mountains and in all the valleys; its branches lay broken in all the ravines of the land. All the nations of the earth came out from under its shade and left it. 13 All the birds settled on the fallen tree, and all the wild animals lived among its branches. 14 Therefore no other trees by the waters are ever to tower proudly on high, lifting their tops above the thick foliage. No other trees so well-watered are ever to reach such a height; they are all destined for death, for the earth below, among mortals who go down to the realm of the dead.
15 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On the day it was brought down to the realm of the dead I covered the deep springs with mourning for it; I held back its streams, and its abundant waters were restrained. Because of it I clothed Lebanon with gloom, and all the trees of the field withered away. 16 I made the nations tremble at the sound of its fall when I brought it down to the realm of the dead to be with those who go down to the pit. Then all the trees of Eden, the choicest and best of Lebanon, the well-watered trees, were consoled in the earth below. 17 They too, like the great cedar, had gone down to the realm of the dead, to those killed by the sword, along with the armed men who lived in its shade among the nations.
18 “‘Which of the trees of Eden can be compared with you in splendor and majesty? Yet you, too, will be brought down with the trees of Eden to the earth below; you will lie among the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.
“‘This is Pharaoh and all his hordes, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”
New International Version (NIV)
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
AxmTYklsjo190QWAxmTYklsjo190QW
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/
And here is a debate I did showing that even the religion of the Antichrist described in the book of Revelation has come onto the scene provably.
http://www.debate.org/debates/
Liberalism is literally turning the West into the very things the God of the Bible claims He hates, brings judgement on, and ultimately manifests the wrath of God upon. Christ and the apostles were clear that you are not to dabble with such people. Liberals directly disobey and ignore the word of God to justify doing unbiblical things. And according to the Bible, it comes with judgement and rejection, even for the one claiming to be a believer.
GOSPEL GOES WORLDWIDE-
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-14.htm
-----
THEN REBELLION AGAINST GOD-
"Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God."
http://biblehub.com/2thessalonians/2-3.htm
"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other."
http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-10.htm
"Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."
http://biblehub.com/2peter/3-3.htm
"In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires. It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit."
http://biblehub.com/jude/1-18.htm
http://biblehub.com/jude/1-19.htm
-----
"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap."
You do understand that the illuminati was once a real group that actually went by that name?
Of course you see everyone as Americans, which would include terrorists, spies, jihadists, foreign extremists, aliens from the Andramada Galaxy.
But seriously, you don't see conservatives, the flag, or the military as "American". You see anyone who agrees with the Orwellian Progressive religion or a potential convert, as "American".
Already lost faith in the Soros' take down of the West machine called the media.
Globalism is how they'll get the shock colliers on you. Nationalism maintains that other nations keep other nations honest.
In other words you want to put your bloody wank in the butt of someone else with a bloody wank.
I'd say that a conventional weapon just kills. Nerve gas causes your body to drown you in your own fluids and your skin to rot off and hair to fall out and not grow back, amongst other things.
For a Muslim to believe in peace, they have to shut the Quran and decide to ignore every word of it. That would be a different religion called "not Islam".
Yes. That's why liberals constantly tell us how educated they are.*
A cult that promotes criminals being shot dead if they try to rape your daughter or child.
No. They have no sermons, no ideology, just a desire to not helplessly watch their daughter raped by a criminal who ignores gun laws.
James Harden. James had a better career but not a better year.
Reich wingers? You mean Farrakhan's Democrat Party? Yes, they hate Jews, want to kill them all and love Hitler. We know all about them.
If actions are what makes someone dangerous, Obama was Hitler's long lost brother. Which violent war act is it of Trump's that has you concerned?
Should I be able to marry my dad, grandpa, brother, son, or mother?
Like the light bulb, tv, &... soap.
I'd be damned proud to claim I was the 1st to put a rock on the end of a stick. Much more impressive than jets and cars.
Slavery is forced on you & being gay is not, so it depends on what you mean by "wrong about gays". Being gay doesn't put you in the fields getting paid nothing by the Democrats.
DEFINITIONS-
Definition of gun-
a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
b : a portable firearm (such as a rifle or handgun)
c : a device that throws a projectile
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gun
POINT 1 ----------
People living out in the country have no cops nearby to defend them, & need a way of defense. There also is no guarantee of when the police will show up or if at all. They may be busy. Maybe they can't find you. Maybe dispatch loses track of your emergency.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/05/04/505335/
POINT 2 ----------
The physically disabled and women have the right to equalize a situation against someone much stronger or bigger than they are.
Headline-
"Mom who killed home invader: 'It was either him or me, and I wasn't going'"
POINT 3 ----------
-Because those who want no one to have guns can't even begin to tell us how to disarm 33,000 gangs with millions of members.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang
POINT 4 ----------
Lawbreakers will not care what the law says and still will have a gun. Disarming law abiders is nonsensical.
POINT 5 ----------
If someone broke into your house and raped your mom, wife, and/or your daughter right in front of you at gunpoint and you knew that you having a gun would have prevented it, you'd look back forever and wonder if you could have stopped it had you been armed.
POINT 6 ----------
Illegals in sanctuary cities and states are let loose despite having a firearm. They don't get MORE rights than me.
https://www.heritage.org/
POINT 7 ----------
Claiming the police and the system are systematically oppressing blacks, & then demanding blacks disarm, is nonsensical.
This is an exercise in fundamental common sense. Liberals claim that the police systematically single out and oppress the black community. How can one then turn around and say that disarming the black community of its guns is "Social Justice"???
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialjustice
POINT 8 ----------
Gun grabs empower corrupt governments rather than the people.
If there is almost no chance of a normal, everyday citizen killing anyone with a gun, disarming them can only have the motive of corruption and desire to play "Big Brother" to the citizenry. Why do you need our guns if we aren't mudering anyone with them?
POINT 9 ----------
There is little chance of being killed by a gun statistically, so the "gun homicides are out of control" narrative is a flat out lie.
There were 11,208 gun homicides in 2013. There are about 320,000,000 people in the United States. Let's do the math.
11,208÷320,000,000
=0.000035025
There is a 0.000035025% chance of getting killed by a gun in a homicide.
"Gun violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males."
Gangs will not disarm no matter what the law says, and if you take away gang violence, almost no one gets killed by a gun in a homicide.
1,358 people were killed in what is defined as a "mass shooting" in 2015.
1,358÷320,000,000
=0.0000042438
This means there is a 0.0000042438% chance of being killed in a mass shooting.
This is literally comparable to the odds of being struck by lightning, that is to say, almost no chance.
1÷700,000
=0.0000014285
According to the CDC, gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders on average in 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 320,000,000 legal citizens.
2,200÷320,000,000
=0.000006875
This means there is a 0.000006875% chance that I am killed by a gun in a non gang related homicide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GunviolenceintheUnitedStates
https://news.nationalgeographic.
https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/
So what's the point?
1)Normal, law abiding citizens, are statistically, extremely responsible with guns. There's no non-corrupt reason to disarm innocent, law abiding citizenry.
2)Non law abiding people don't obey laws, including gun laws. So gun laws only disarm innocent, law abiding citizenry, making them soft targets for non-law abiding criminals.
3)Disarming law abiding citizens is pointless and wrong.
Put them on the front lines and send them in first. After ISIS destroys them send in the real troops. Maybe the B team can pick off a few before we send in the marines.
The way you get ISIS is to chase them with pork sandwiches and non halal food products.
What powers the Democrat Party is sucking hope out of people with one hand, then offering it with the other as you take away their liberties. They love to pretend to be generous by giving out handouts, but that's easy when it isn't your money, it's going to bankrupt us, & it will make us slaves to them and whatever rations they choose to give us or not give us. Then the mission is accomplished. No more thinking. No more decisions. Big Brother will do everything for you.
They should easily be able to show us the process from an atom to an animal and do a demonstration.
Quantumhead sent me pics of him touching a child inappropriately. It was sad.
As much as the Clintons, I suppose.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/23/news/
I'm for it. I like the presents and baby Jesus in a manger.*
His approval rating is actually up near 50%. I looked it up. Even so, 16% would still be higher than the press.
The ego of Americans is purposefully overfed to the point of obesity
It is indeed the truth. In a capitalist society like ours you can easily obtain plenty to eat.
Unfortunately, one of the side effects is that many of you are not prepared to be reasoned with
We reason well just not with deranged, uneducated corkadoodles. Why on Earth would we listen to people from countries that are subordinate to ours in almost every category including economics?
and when your belief structure is challenged in a critical manner, you become emotionally unstable.
We use you for entertainment. You are the only emotional person I see on the entire site.
In mainstream American culture, critical thinkers are under perpetual attack
I'm guessing that you live on another planet. Most certainly not the United States. It looks like you might be slow in the head, so that is that.
"Meet the 18 non-Christian American presidents"
https://www.theamateurthinker.com/2011/
since America has only ever elected white Christian male leaders
America has had Presidents who weren't Christians.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Black or African American 39,908,095 12.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native 2,569,170 0.8%
Asian 16,235,305 5.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 546,255 0.2%
Other races 14,865,258 4.7%
Two or more races 9,447,883 3.0%
White and Black or African American 2,407,385 0.8%
White and American Indian and Alaska Native 1,846,997 0.6%
White and Asian 1,871,046 0.6%
Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native 311,538 0.1%
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Also odd is your belief that, since you are "every race culture and religion" (applies to most countries
Name any country as culturally diverse as the United States of America. There are fringe minority groups here with enough numbers to create fairly large countries.
How does only electing white Christian male leaders factor into your belief that there is equal representation of different beliefs in America
You missed Obama. Why did you do that? You think black people don't actually count as people. Sick.
That's odd, seeing as Americans agree on guns, capitalism, democracy, liberty, free speech, separation of church and state and the idea that America is the "greatest" country on Earth
There are more Americans who do not believe any of those things than there are Brits in Britain.
Did you seriously just engage your own puppet with dialogue?
I believe in honest and open communication
in another debate you claimed that your wife wore the pants in the family & that her hatred for Donald Trump was stressing you out. That does not sound like honest communication to me. It sounds to me like you and her should swap clothes. You wear the panties & the bra.
I am not a clueless dipshit
Yes you are. You claim that religion is crazy & then want more migrants in your countries that are religious. That's a prime example of dipshittery.
I changed nothing, retard
You did change it. Namely because you are an illiterate, dickless, dishonest piece of cow shit. You need puppets to mask your stupidity and ignorance.
You post with multiple accounts because you're a scared, dickless cunt who can't win a debate, killing the credibility of each puppet.
Liberals in general do not care about a fair and ethical lress. It's why they rabidly watch CNN and the BBC
"Not so Great Britain" is a rainy, gloomy, snoty little third world shithole. Don't tell us how great it is when it's a piece of shit.
Just stop lying Al. We all know you lie every breath on here. Obama and Clinton illegally surveilled the opposition party like it was North Korea. Just shut up already. You're completely full of shit.
It is spelled correctly. You changed it in your heading to make me look bad, you dishonest, ball sucking, weenie slirping, twat mouthed dumb fuck. You see this? This is me giving you the one finger salute. Now come get you a bite of deez nuts.
he knows which one of us will go to hell, to be tortured for an eternity
You are again assuming things are in the Bible that aren't in the Bible. The words "tortured in hell for eternity" are not words that are actually in the Bible.
How do you reconcile the idea of a loving God with omniscience
The words "omniscience" and "loving God" are not in the Bible. You are describing what you personally think God should be like.
The Salvation Army, the Peace Corpse, feed the children, missionaries feeding the starving and building water wells in third world countries, the hope of the gospel, the push against the Muslim conquest missions into Europe 1,000 years ago that otherwise would have ended with Europe being Islamic, the Pilgrims, America, societies that built into Western democracies and republics, art, music, amazing cathedrals....
if you don't believe in a god who won't even show himself.
Who exactly is it that you think we believe Jesus is, and according to the Bible, did he "show himself"?
New International Version-
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:28
The story of Job is a horrific tale of unimagined cruelty
You mean "testing" rather than "cruelty".
inflicted on one of gods most faithful followers
He knew he'd pass the test.
all so god could win a bet with Satan.
There was no bet.
1)It's not a bet if you know what will happen.
2)It's not a bet without both sides offering the "winner" something if they lose. No such thing happened.
-All of Job's possessions were destroyed.
-500 yoke of oxen, 500 donkeys, and 3,000 camels were stolen.
-7,000 sheep were burned up by "The fire of God which fell from the sky"
-All of his servants were killed
-The house of the firstborn was destroyed killing all 10 of his children.
-His whole body was covered in boils.
That's what gives Job's faithfulness and love for God any value and beauty. He trusted and had faith in God through pure hell. That's an eternal gift from Job to God that cannot be established by any other means.
1. Why would god even care what Satan thinks?
He doesn't. Satan is a temporary tool. God fully intends on destroying him after he fulfills his purpose.
2. God can supposedly see the future, so he would have already known that Job would have stayed faithful to him. Why would he let all those horrific things still happen to Job?
Because it refined Job and showed Job something about himself.
3. How can a loving god let such horrible things happen to Job, his children, his servants, and thousands of animals just to win a bet with Satan?
Again, there was no "bet".
How? Because Job's actions now always are there in God's mind. Even if no one else ever knew what Job did, God would know. It was all created by God, for God. His tests that are passed are an eternal memory and memorial to God from these people that can never be taken away.
Why would god create someone if he knows they are going to end up in hell?
You are making assumptions about hell, what it is, who goes there, and what does or doesn't happen there. Most atheists attribute attributes to hell that are from Milton's "Paradise Lost", which is a work of fiction.
Christian’s often claim that god can see the future and is omnibenevolent (all good).
If you agree with God, he's good to you. If not, then he isn't good to you. More semantics. And "omnibenevolent" is not a word used anywhere in the Bible.
If god can see the future and knew that millions of people would end up in hell, why would he even bother creating these people?
To test those who don't. And I refer to the above statements on hell.
Why not just create the ones that he could foresee as making it into heaven?
Nontested people who "love you", have no real value at all. They're meaningless, valueless puppets.
Before creating each person he can just look into the future to see if that person would end up in heaven or hell.
Maybe we are simply experiencing him thinking about it and "looking into the future". More semantical and theoretical claims. You don't actually know what he's up to. You are blindly assuming.
If he sees they will end up in hell he can just skip creating that person and move onto the next one.
Maybe that's what our reality is; him thinking it out. You have no idea.
If god created these people knowing they would suffer eternally, then he is not omnibenevolent.
"All good" simply depends on who you ask. More semantics. And reference my hell comments above.
How can any god that would create something that he knew would end up in hell be considered good?
And again. Reference my statements onhell above.
If your great great great grandfather murdered someone in the past, is it fair to punish you for his crime?
Semantics, but people pay for their fathers' sins with or without God. It's a part of reality.
I think nearly everyone would agree that it is not fair.
Billions of theists disagree with you.
So, why is it fair for god to punish all of humankind for the sins of Adam and Eve? Why not just punish Adam and Eve and create 2 new people and give them the same opportunity to decide whether to eat the fruit, or better yet, don't put the tree there in the first place
The story is an allegory as is demonstrated by reading Ezekial 31. Everyone would "eat the fruit", and the eating of the "fruit" is what allows the beauty of the light to shine in the darkness. God is an artist and not a linear thinker.
Because he's worried about your heart, not your knowledge. Your knowledge is just as lowly to him as an ant's knowledge is to you. If you have a choice between Islam, nothing, or Christ, and you pick Islam or nothing, it speaks of where your heart is. The same if you choose Christ.
Why are most Christians against slavery if god himself said that slavery is not only okay, but it's okay to beat your slaves?
You're giving an appeal to some objective morality that Atheism claims does not exist, and it is the fallacy of indicting people from the past by modern or recent cultural standards that didn't exist at the time. You are also assuming the nature of the slaves. Many of the Jews' slaves were prisoners of war who tried to kill the Jews. Is it wrong to enslave a group that was trying to kill you? Semantics. You might do the same if you were in their position and at that time in history.
Does slavery and violence sound like something a loving god would be okay with
The term "loving god" isn't in the Bible. It's another semantical term. Anyone you call loving, I can call retribate from a simple difference in opinion or viewpoint. The Bible even gives a list of what God loves and what God hates. He doesn't just randomly walk around loving everything with a dumb grin on his face.
You seem to have missed the part where I said, "he could have created people without the desire to sin" If Adam and Eve sinned, that tells me they were flawed
You are giving a tortured black and white definition of the word "flawed". Flawed can mean anything you want it to. Art can be described as flawed, but it's still art, and it's still beautiful. So is it really "flawed"?
Why would god create flawed creations when he could make them without flaws?
Describe to us the process of creating beings with free will that all do exactly what you want.
When you cook dinner do you intentionally throw some spices in there that ruin the flavor of the meal, or do you make it taste as good as you possibly can?
Perhaps his creation being tested and brought through fire makes it "taste better" and much more valuable.
If god is omnipotent he could have created people without the desire to sin
We call those kinds of created beings robots.
but instead he chose not to, resulting in a world full of rapists, murderers, and child molesters.
Free will has results and consequences. God simply has to accept those consequences or not create beings with free will.
All of this could have been avoided if he just created people without a desire to sin.
The beauty of a person loving God through pain and an imperfect world can't be duplicated in a utopian environment. That 'trophy' can't be accomplished any other way. Why would God take away such artistic beauty?
I just can't fathom how an all powerful, all knowing god would create flawed things.
Maybe he doesn't see it as "flawed", but as a process.
Things he thought were so flawed that he drown most of them
Maybe they deserved it. Maybe they were molesting toddlers and having sex with innocent animals. Atheists demonize God for "genocide" in the Bible, but never acknowledge that it happened because they were sacrificing children to Baal by cooking them alive.
and will be sending millions more to hell
So what did Jesus say about hell? That God "kills the soul in hell". Kill implies an end. Many atheists support the right to die and no longer exist.
If god can see the future and creates someone who he knows will end up being a pedophile, then he does create them
He created the system, DNA, RNA, etc. People choose to breed and who they breed with. Knowing what happens doesn't mean he made you pick your mate or choose to make babies. It simply means he allowed it because the end justifies the means.
All of what I said is why I flock to agnosticism but mostly atheism, it's too many questions for him to be perfect
Define "perfect".
WHY CREATE EVIL PEOPLE?
Because there is no reality available to God where you can give billions of people a choice and all willingly love you and/or be good.
It depends on what it is he is trying to accomplish. Perhaps it shows a deeper love and allegiance when someone loves and serves one they cannot see. If you serve and love him now, how much more when you can see him and touch him?
It's an allegorical story that represents the end of the world and salvation. Jesus even references it as such.
It's just like when atheists laugh at the Adam and Eve story, taking it literally, when Ezekial proves it is meant in an allegorical way.
Denying evolution is like denying gravity. In fact, there is probably more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.
It depends on what you mean by 'evolution'. Within the theory are many theories, some provably true and some theoretical. Macroevolution and microevolution are two completely different things as well. Why is it do you think, that atheists never specify what they mean by 'evolution', and just throw it out as a blind and broad term knowing fully well that the term 'evolution' is not specific, and can refer to anything?
Even many Christian religions believe in evolution.
Well, there ya have it.
Don't you think god is intelligent enough to discern between people who believe in him just because they don't want to go to hell from the people who really love him? Simply believing he exists, does not keep you from going to hell
Biblical faith has nothing to do with believing God exists. It has to do with trusting in Him, hearing His voice and following Him.
He did. It's called the 10 Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes
Jesus didn't hide so much that they crucified him, and nearly 3 billion adherants today follow him and his teachings.
if all torture is always wrong
It isn't. If it takes a knife to someone's balls to get the location of your missing child, a knife they will get.
how do you reconcile your god torturing people for eternity in hell
The Bible is clear that you reap what you sew. You don't want misery, then don't deal it out.
When Jesus mentions hell by name, he says God destroys the soul in hell. No mention of eternity.
Here’s the truth, the gov't doesn’t shutdown” All essential services continue. Don't believe lies.
He's correct. You should learn something about government shutdowns. They happen fairly often. The government just keeps on going. No Armageddon.
Littlemisfit isn't a debate god. He or she refuses to even debate the better debaters out of fear.
Nobody telling us that flooding our people and lands with non-english speaking, uneducated, third world migrants won't make our country a cartel and gang centered society.
Most gang members are immigrants.
Most gun homicides are by gangs.
Give me a link showing gang demographics. Give me a link showing gun homicides caused by gangs.
The Dems say we are racist and then bring in illegals to pick cotton for almost free. And if a black doesn't vote Democrat, they label him an Uncle Tom or fence jumper.
I don't think there are any Atheists. So many of them get involved in witchcraft and Satanism. Sad.
But for some reason libs keep sending their kids to get brainwashed by liberal nutjobs, get loaded with student loans, and get useless degrees.
Tell me what the ethnicities of gangs in the U.S. are percentagewise and what percentage of non suicide gun deaths are gang related.
Using the words "immigrants" and "native born" are an orwellian use of words. Almost everyone in America is an immigrant. Immigrant can mean anything you want it to.
Native born is only literally legitimate if you are living in North Dakota or Oklahoma somewhere, and are literally a "Native American".
It's also a false dichotomy to compare the majority's total numbers to the minority's total numbers on anything. You have to go by averages per person.
There is also a major difference between controlled, legal, assimilated migration and mass influxes of illegal migrants or refugees.
It is jingoistic nonsense to claim that immigrants have done nothing for this country when so many of the people who founded this nation and improved it were born elsewhere
Immigrants used to predominantly come to the U.S. from Europe and legally and in much less numbers. You're inventing a false dichotomy.
What, were you wanting some bs numbers from a leftwing propaganda mouthpiece? I prefer pure data.
Homeland Security and the Department of Justice give similar numbers.
You wouldn't call them migrants. That's the fallacy of the entire debate. Illegal migrants, who are not included in the data, cause most crime by far, thus migrants by far, cause most crime. The legal migrant vs native data only includes legal people. No one hardly argues that legal migrants in general are dangerous. They argue that illegal migrants are dangerous. To say so is to face facts and reality.
Calling migrant offspring natives is horrible logic when trying to pin crime on real natives. It makes the entire point of the debate meaningless. Proving kids of migrants commit crime, doesn't make 4th generation Americans crime committers. It makes immigrant offspring crime committers. Your own logic argues against immigrants in and of itself.
And you are also presenting data that excludes the 30-40 million illegal aliens who make up alarmingly large numbers of prison populations.
Here are some example studies showing that immigrant populations commit less crime per capita than native populations
And it gives no definition as to what constitutes Native vs what constitutes immigrant. 99% of the population are technically from immigrants. The comparison has no validity. It's much simpler to say who makes up the gangs? Who is in the prisons? You know who.
The Boston Marathon bombers were the children of immigrants. They themselves were categorized as natives. The term native in and of itself is a nonsensical term because 99% of the population isn't 'native'.
You are also presenting data that excludes the 30-40 million illegal aliens who make up alarmingly large numbers of prison populations.
A good debater can approach the same issue from multiple angles and find the best way to translate their position in such a way that makes the most sense to the person they are debating
Then you suck sweaty donkey ass at debating.
If you watched it, and if it is porn, you are a sick, disturbed bastard.
they had better be closer to Jesus' alleged ways .... like Obama
Sorry, Jesus didn't hate Jews.
Nahhh. Liberals believe in FREEDOM
Apparently not. I saw you on another debate say that conservatives are inferior. Some illegals become conservatives. Some blacks. Some Hispanics. Some Asians. Many women. Some gays. You mean freedom, but not for them.
