The fact that you just decided that I must be referring to "intellectual diversity", as opposed to maliciously stereotyping millions of diverse people, proves my point. The fact that you then implicitly insulted me further demonstrates it.

Sad to see this website is still incredibly toxic =/

The former exists, the latter does.

It's a silly comparison.

First, that has no relevance to my post. Second, "is being used" implies a conspiracy, orchestrated by someone or a group.

Who, might I ask, is using abortion for this purpose, and based on what evidence?

No, they weren't. You claimed that the Democratic party tried to organize a sort of internal coup in the Catholic Church. The only evidence you have shown has him explicitly stating the opposite. Redirecting me to the same argument does not disprove the claim that, again, rested upon that evidence. That's beyond circular.

I'm sorry but none of this is substantied. You are simply demonizing peoplease for having differing beliefs at this point.

Your very citation shows that he believed it would have to be bottom up, and that he hasn't thought about doing it. It's EXPLICITLY quoted.

Just because I already know where this is going and it will be fun to see the twist anyways, can you point to which point in history education correlated with right wing ideologies?

....sexual attraction is a feeling. It is THE feeling we are talking about. You have consistently claimed that the feeling (sexual orientation) is a choice, as you did in this very post. You also continuously insist on conflating feelings of sexual attraction (what this debate is about) with sexual acts (which this debate isn't about).

Please, seriously, enough talking about sexual acts. This debate isn't about that. It's about whether or not an individual chooses who they are attracted to. That's it.

And I have asked you several times to provide a real definition of the word homosexual that implies sexual acts. Can you, or can you not, provide one?

Hillary is azure, while Bernie is a beautiful shade of aquamarine.

None of that demonstrates that "The Left" (a non monolithic group) had any alliance with "Islam" (a non monolithic group). It simply demonstrates that members of the left are not openly hostile to Muslims

Common misconception. Hillary is actually a 2nd generation Bangladeshi, and Bernie immigrated from Nicaragua in the 20's.

It's not a false equivilency. You used a word that has meaning: "monopoly". If the most popular cable outlet is conservative, then the idea that liberalism has a monopoly on cable news is demonstrably false.

If you believe that arming am insurgency against communists is equivalent to allying, then you must think that many Republican presidents, such as Reagan, also "allied" with Islam, seeing as how they too supporter Muslim insurgencies during the Cold War to fight against Russia.

Please, explain how any definition of the woRd homosexual implies they choose the way they feel.

It doesn't matter what you say because you don't determine the legitimacy of their religious beliefs. The fact that they don't follow the same cultural beliefs as you does not undermine their belief in Christ's divinity.

Again, most Liberals, like most Nazis, are Christian.

Addition ally, the left as a whole has not allied with or fought against any religion.

Then they shouldn't be allowed to "ally" with Jews due to the barbaric demands of the Torah. When you discount human autonomy and group people based on outdated practices you end up being against most religions.

What about instances where birth control fails? And as for Plan B, if used after the egg is fertilized the it is essentially a very early abortion. Does that mean you are okay with abortion so long as it happens sufficiently early?

Just to clarify, you just said that sperm and eggs should have legal rights. Did you intend to agree with that premise?

Okay, the problem is that you are rejecting the definition of the word homosexual and substituting your own. The very word homosexual means one who has sexual attraction (see: feelings) for someone of the same sex.

That's it. The definition of murderer, on the other hand, is someone who actually comitted murder. There isn't a comparison between the two because one deals with feelings and the other with actions.

If you are going to reject the actual definition of the word in question, then you prevent a legitimate conversation from being had about this topic.

Can't argue against someone's personalized, made up definitions after all.

Can you please quote what part of your post you believe addressed the point of the debate, because I am rather confused.

Do you always baseless insult anyone who dis agrees with you?

Because I'm sure as hell not a liberal, and you've never talked to me before, but by simply disagree with you, you've decided I'm somehow your enemy and worthy of derision. If you are trying to actually persuade people (it is a debate website after all), you might want to try behaving decently to others.

Kennedy won by 99,500+ votes more than the example you used, across several districts (which is part of the problem).

Not exactly comparable in terms of vote count. Additionally, your very example proves that even when electoral issues do come up and are incredibly small, the system STILL catches them.

And for the first part, yes, it is the point. We are talking about voter fraud because some people are calling for increased regulation that has been demonstrated to disenfranchise some voters. We have also seen numerous instances where state legislators claim to be trying to prevent voter fraud, whilst explicitly trying to disenfranchise certain voters.

So if we are going to accept the idea that we will be disenfranchising some voters, we need to prove the problem is both real, and worth it. Your hypothetical notion that an election could come down to a single vote isn't legitimate proof demonstrating the need to protect against such an event unless, at any point in our history since the advent of the modern electoral process, such an event occured.

Otherwise you are disenfranchising votes based off of fiction, which is unacceptable.