you only responded to one thing I said-----------------------------------------

Nathan I was trying to show you how to make a solid argument but oh well XD I wasn't even refuting or anything just trying to be helpful lol.

What are you trying to say?----------------------------------

Please respond I am actually trying to help here lol----------------------------

My point which is the center of this debate. Labeling proves nothing in terms of proving a point right or wrong unless said point is about said person. In a debate starting of saying things like "that is bullshit its such a progressive view" or "you liberals make me sick" or any of the other political things. Those statements do not prove anything they are to just start personal conflict which is not the point of debate.

Do I care what the admin say? No I do not that is the point of debate we are here to debate things and I am saying that they offer nothing for a debate so should not be here. "also site your sources if they said this show me"

Please re-read my argument as you have not understood the point I am making. Has nothing to do with if someone is or not. It offers nothing for a debate and adds nothing proves nothing.

Please re-read my arguement. Its not that it upsets me or whoever is called said label. Its that it does not hold and merit in proving something right or wrong

Indeed it would never end but hopefully show how illogical it is.

While my picture is literally a troll face All I do is solid debate. Now a few people on here say otherwise and thats because they dont know how to debate I just picked this picture cus its funny

yea so now list your claim what does everything you have said prove?

good now this is your data you need to add a claim before that and a impact as to how your evidence supports your claim after the data : ) also why are you focusing on nuclear warfare I could easily call out that there is no correlation between nuclear warfare and a computer making animal testing. you have to show how those things compare.

Hm on a side note I do appreciate you are debating and not throwing insults and rude gestures : ) also I may have missread or maybe you changed the comment I truly thought you said they don't care or somthing along those lines with that said

I would imagen they care because for some reason it matters to them the symbol on the wall which they use the restroom. Just use a stall of the original gender and your good.

To prevent life scarring of molestation and rape yes I suggest a strong man who says he is a women has no excuse to enter a womens restroom.

Take this as you will I will site if asked ofc hence burden of truth but there were headlines about a male who changed gender then wrestled in the women league and won nationals because he simply has more muscles changing those specific organs does not change muscles mass so even a trans male could go into the women restroom and have an even greater reason to be in the women restroom molest a women and if she testifies against him he could say she just hates trans people and is seeking the opportunity to speak against them.

my issue here is mainly molestation and rape. There are other negativeness but truly those two things get to me the most on this issue.

I am saying this is a debate you sir by definition are pitiful

-deserving or arousing pity. You deserve pity because you do not know how to debate you change the subject and rarely almost never respond to an argument I will hope some act of god or some other religion or just some random enlightenment strikes you and you suddenly know how to logic but until then you are not worth my time.

Please go site your sources to make anything you have just argued mean anything. otherwise your entire argument here is invalid.

Your dare makes no difference to any logical person ever---------------------------

"Utter bullshit."-this is a debate please refrane from just saying bland insults.

"In every society, including communism, not only is there a power structure but there has to be a hierarchy of selected people who will enjoy special privileges."

I specifically said citizens the communist government people have a different classification then citizen. it is whatever there role in the communist government is

"In Stalin's communist Russia some 18 to 45 ''MILLION''people died as he and his cronies tried to make the unworkable work."

sure but this has nothing to do with what I said. I stated equal and oppresed"

"Where was the egalitarianism in communists selecting other communists for extermination?"

Again not in anyway related to what I stated

"Go and spew out your leftist drivel in Tibet or Cuba.

Do try to keep up and smell what it is you're shovelling."

This is a debate would rather keep you unbiased but you already aggressive and insulting as normal. Do not label me I am not a leftist rightest libral whatever the hell you guys label each other as I look at every situation as a brand new one and form a criterion based on what I believe to be true your insults show nothing other then your inability to keep a cool head in this debate in if continues then This debate is over due to your inability to hold a actual debate.

How does only trans people not caring about this issue effect my impact at all? What I listed could be a very real situation. And we are not talking about women walking outside that has nothing to do with this situation.

Usernames dont matter I hold no personal biased I look at the argument being presented before me or the lack of.

Usernames dont matter I hold no personal biased I look at the argument being presented before me or the lack of.

Just respond to him jeez man you avoid actual debate so much. I have never in my life met someone who tried so hard to avoid a debate with somone. I for once just want to see you make a clean contention claim data warrant and impact. Just once.

Hm on the part you said equality if you look at the USSR every citizen class person was equal.. literally as equal as it gets. oppressed but equal.

I did notice what you said. He wrote his stance on this and you responded with

"I wonder, why do you waste so much time writing such nonsense?

Unless, of course, you're copying it from somewhere."

this does not refute a single point. Does not directly dispute a single point. And because of the burden of presumption because you never responded you lost because by not responding he is proven right : ) good job you lost a debate in one comment.

I already showed it. your using large amounts of generalization which is logically flawed. Just because something is true in one situation does not make it true in every situation.

The issue is that the situation of a man going into a women or women going into a mans restroom will have an excuse and can more easily get away with molestation etc by claiming gender confusion was the reason for being in a different bathroom. The issue is not molestation in general.

no we wouldn't I do not like Nathan allen but logic comes above personal biased you failed to respond to his debate

"red harring" but nice try you did not logically respond to my accusation of that you do not hardly if ever actually refute anyone's debate.

How about you actually respond to the persons arguments?-------------------------------------

He never logically responds to anything he rather tries to make you or your argument wrong just denial or ignore your argument and insults you directly cast him aside his words are as effective as trying to make a rock swim

Your saying that above is there logic correct? If so then yea its stupid just generalization.

No I am more asking if you can dispute them aka just playing devils advocate lol

so gloves real cheap. pedo or molester just goes and molests a women in the bathroom how are you going to prove that? obviously if there is a witness but we are assuming they are not that stupid.

Then do it im kind of sick of this kid just in a constant state of denial when i clearly make arguments.

You wont explain to me because you know you just helped call yourself out on your own illogical nonsense ; ) I dont know what biased you have against me as this is supposed to be a debate of ideas but you continue to attack me. good luck jatin

You yourself said you know what ad hominens are yet you still use them knowing they are illogical?

His point is not that rape is legal. His point is a man could walk into a womens restroom molest her etc and there is no proof of it. could just say he was there for gender confusion and the women has no proof of molestation

If you do not believe the earth is flat then I assume you have a refute for every one of these arguments you made o.o and if so then why post them at all o.o

If you understand ad hominems then you would know not to use them but you continue to do so ; ) you dismissed yourself

"You're disgusting and a pathetic liar."

even if this was true it is not relevant to the debate and not a refute against my argument you were supposed to refute two arguments ago.

"I don't consider you worth a link from my profile, especially on the allies list. It looks disgraceful there. We don't really have the feature right now, though, so you're acting more like a sticky parasite there. Luckily, I'm not in too much of a hurry about that.

Now fade away. You're dismissed."

This is completely irrelevant to this debate and rather your personal attempt to insult me.

Read the name of this site then answer your own question.

Sorry the debate is already over end result ended due to your inability to refute my points or defend your own which I responded to. :D good day

You will not reply which is your forfeit to the debate. Therefore I have won. Good day :D

You have just posted nothing but denial of my post without sourcing it in anyway. Due to your inability to refute anything on my post I have clearly won here :D good day to you and our illogical buddy jatin.

You have not refuted anything except one of my points here. I have clearly proven myself correct and proven your inability to debate. Due to your inability to refute almost my entire argument above I have clearly won :D however what a terrible waste of time that was.

"Seriously, who let you on a computer that connects to the Internet?"

This is not a refute. Invalid

"The joke's on you."

This is not a refute. Invalid

"Great. You post definitions without reading them."

I clearly do and I use them perfectly : )

Thank you again jatin for your illogical nonsense of a worthless post.

Were are you getting equity?----------------------------------------------------- oh and ty for noticing my profile :D

That is a instance only for one religion this is not the case with many many other religions you cannot logically justify generalizing every religion.

Your trying to change the subject here, which also means you realize your argument is failing. You have failed to refute my points or your own which I have denounced. You truly have not taken any form of debate and do not know how to write an argument. We are not talking about rich people democrats or republicans. We are talking about donald trumps wall and that the problem with it is it will not work.

No the result is invalid due to the invalid definition you gave.

What are you even saying?? Your claim on the other debate was one of the worst worded and thought out cases I have ever seen Go to my response if you want to see some freaking logic. I am trying to show you guys how to form basic arguments.

Let me note it is pitiful that I have to explain this. And even more pitiful that you continue this biased against me and make comments like this just to annoy me.

This is his first statement

It's still better than the religions. I could create better fairytales on the same drugs, yet they're the ones people follow, and take as their opium.

Though it'd be better if we got to say that. But sadly, it won't happen.

This statement is saying "Atheism is still better then religions. Jatin could create better religions on drugs. Yet the religions made on drugs are the ones people follow, and use the religion like drug users use opium." and sadly

"Though it'd be better if we got to say that. But sadly, it won't happen."

just makes no sense

First let me point out this is a terribly written argument as a whole. I don't like to nit pick about grammar but the entire statement except the claim is off. Now I know dermot you like to say this is me throwing the debate on a diffrent topic and this is just wrong I am just pointing out that it hinders me to have to translate nonsense into more nonsense.

Second the only thing we can call a claim here is when he says Its still better then religions. In which he does not offer how. He lists nothing about how this statement is true no support nothing. Is that clear?

Third the ability to think up a religion has no sway on merit here. It just does not matter. The grass is green and shit stinks good job??

and the rest of it is nonsense it just logically does not connect to this debate at all.

unless in saying "yet they're the ones people follow" he is referring to his previous sentence were he references the "i can create better" nonsense then that means he is saying "Religions people make" which would leave religions made by well god himself? His whole argument makes no sense and is poorly worded

Now in the comment after I said he makes no points against the debate which is true. The only thing he has in that comment is an empty claim. not the same as a point.

Then Jatin continues to say

" I'd recommend you read more carefully than that.

(Hint : IT'S LITERALLY THE FIRST FEW WORDS.)"

The first few words are

"It's still better than the religions."

which is an empty claim. He also leaves the rest of his argument unjustified therefore meaning they are dropped. So again nonsense

I say

""Its still better then religions" this is an opinon in order to prove this you need to say why this matter in anyway other then your own head.""

This is a refute you do this in a debate dermot and it proves that yes I have been debating him not just spouting nonsense

He says

"Anything else I've said there is in support of it. You can read other of my arguments if you want it much longer. You're free to browse them all.

Or you can put your reasoning here if you disagree with mine, and I might destroy your claims if they seem worthy of attention"

In response there is on support this I have clearly shown. Also the burden of truth is on the one who makes the claim so no I dont have to go anywhere you have to prove your own point you need to list the reasoning for your claim I shouldn't have to search for your own reasoning to your own claim

Or you can put your reasoning here if you disagree with mine, and I might destroy your claims if they seem worthy of attention"

missing some punctuation or somthing but this makes no sense.

So Dermot I have shown not only that Indeed I did debate him as I said I did you just didnt want to read the already going debate thread. And I have yet again gone back to show how pitiful jatin's argument is here.

Agreed that is. However as I have stated that is the issue with this debate the debate here generalizes all religions. when they are in fact very diffrent.

You have no idea how the wall may work either. Could be a 2 inch concrete barrier around the border for all you know. And sensors? all the way around the border? do you have any idea how much space that is?? The amount of raw resources to make underground detecting sensors would be enormous. the cost even more so.

And doing something does not mean better then doing nothing.

Also most of the time illegal immigrants pay people to show them a way/take them to the u.s so just leaving a ladder near the border is really not that hard. And what about the ocean? just go around?

and to further your whole sensor idea. For this to work there would have to be actually police or border patrol within a very small distance to capture these people. and know were the tunnel ends up just a sensor saying someone is under here will not be useful at all except knowing well somewhere now there is an immigrant using a tunnel.

No you all don't know how to write a proper debate claim. Much less debate in the first place.

That is idiotic. The definition given is false then. ----------------------------------------

Read above I have clearly debated this person at first he started this nonsense

Jatin is a special kind of person there I started with a debate on him. Other then his idiotic nonsense list were I have done this?

Insanity-the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.

don't know were you got your definition from there but not true at all.

This is not a debate case. This is the evidence you forgetting your claim there. Your supposed to make a claim say what is true then site the sources providing the truth.

You should not treat a mentally disabled or handicapped person the same as someone without a disability.

Treat-behave toward or deal with in a certain way.

I would never deal with someone with a mental disability the same as someone without because the person with said mental disability may not understand what I am saying

same for someone with a physical disability like lets go on a walk, oh wait. All jokes aside lol

And for the race thing ofc I will deal with different races differently most races have different cultures so it would make little sense to behave the same way around every culture.

? you don't know what I am saying because you just lack attention or clear understanding of what you read. I was saying you indeed corrected me The issue is question being asked. But the way your worded such was incorrect. And no I will stay were I want because I have the free will to do so. Unless you ban me only showing your own inability to debate with people.

you are the most confused person I have ever met on this site. And that is saying something. You don't even know what is going on do you? Do you have a mental disorder? If so I am just going to stop debating you as I don't have the time to explain myself to someone of such low caliber.

Never heard of travel? they can be anywhere and make it to the ocean.

"It's funny how I never hear the Left speak to the cost of changing EVERY public school bathroom to allow boys in the girls bathrooms."

This is completely irrelevant and also not my position in that argument stop trying to classify me in some labeling you people like to use.

"How about the cost of expanded medicaid in every state, or the cost of sanctuary cities, or the cost of paying for these millions of illegal immigrants on our social programs, etc."

This is no refute to anything I have said rather a point in argument for your position

"Nah, Liberals never care about cost until a Republican is spending the money, then all of a sudden you become deficit hawks!"

again not relevant

Who do you think you are kidding? Democrats see illegal immigrants and refugees as millions more minority votes. THAT IS THEIR ONLY REASON FOR BEING SO WEAK ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND POSSIBLE TERRORIST REFUGEES

wow man almost everything you have said this entire post is not relevant to my argument in anyway. what you said above only matters if the wall works which I am saying it will not. Again there is fencing/walls in place already and they can just go under or over or around.

good lord YOU need to write a claim and evidence leading you to such claim. What you first stated is a opinion gtfo of here with this nonsense.

Agreed as you have clarified me I shall clarify you "The debate topic is not flawed how can it be as it merely asks a question"

you first say the debate topic saying it is a debate topic and that it as a debate topic is not flawed what you mean is It is not a debate topic but a question which you are saying you disagree with.

The fact that religions are different means you would have to generalize every religion to give it the definition of mental illness. You simply cannot because they are all different. I am saying that the debate topic is flawed

The amount of generalizing and labeling here is just disgusting.

The wall will not stop any of what you just said are negativeness. It will cost so much money and not even work-under over around . Its just a wall.

The very large amount of money that it will cost to build such a wall. And its ineffective ability to actually stop anyone. Even to build a wall that a explosive couldn't take down instantly would cost so much and could be dug under could go over or even just around it via the ocean.

Hm this does get difficult because I am only arguing for Christianity because some religions justify killing etc so that makes sense. But on the hand of my faith It does not. Problem is we are not only argueing one religion, this also then comes down to generalization were we are assuming ever religion either does classify as mental or does not. Which is simply not the case religions have some rather big differences

I have refuted. I have said that what you stated is an opinion not an argument. You need to write an argument then I can really debate you.

Violence-behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

This is most definitely not intended in anyway to hurt damage or kill the women. Rather to save a innocent life.

I am telling you your position in this debate is invalid without evidence site for sources etc. I have challenged your entire argument.

What is your point here? I see very little how even responding to this would even benifit either side of the arguements.

Agreed it does affect those things. But the key word in what sets apart a mental illness is the word "disorder" Religion does not effect a person in a disorderly manner.Also does not influence any kind of collective madness. Most basic laws are founded upon rules already set by religion because we know right and wrong. A emotional unscientific given at birth feeling.

I dont understand the point of what your saying here so I will disregard it.

You have not shown me how you have come to your claim you offer no evidence you said I need to go to your page and find this information. That is not a debate it is not my job to go searching to prove your points for you. Your dismissed.

No it should not.

Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.

This definition is saying that a mental illness is something which effects the mind in a variety of way classified as disorders

Disorder-disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.

Because religions do not cause any disruption in systematic functioning or neat arrangement of your mental condition it is not a mental illness

Disorder-disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.

With this definition in mind it cannot be a mental "disorder" for religion gives the very reason for systematic functioning and arrangement.

Christians at least can be as organized or disorganized as anyone.

That is not how debate works. Make your argument or this is just neglected as an opinion.

You are the most lost debater I have ever seen. I was refuting your dispute. Please learn to debate or just leave.

"Its still better then religions" this is an opinon in order to prove this you need to say why this matter in anyway other then your own head.

You make no points here against the resolution.----------------------------------------------------

No there is a verse in revelations I do not recall it of the top of my head that has the effect of -after death we will be all knowing- aka having a better understanding. we will know there is not point to make any action to bring suffering.

of course if I have to sure I will go source this verse but Just because im short on time this is what i had.

If your atheist consider. When you die you practically have the 50/50 religion or not and some covert right before death due to fear of hell. But what is the point of living a terrible life then just throwing all that atheist pride away at death? What is the issue with living a life for religion? Christianity at least has good morals already set up guidance which most laws and basic morals are already set upon the bible. So why be atheist? apathy?

They have nothing to do with each other they prove separate things what you said is not a refute to what I said so I still carry both points. And I never said know whatever they want "which they already do anyways but that is a different argument"

This is not how you debate... you make your argument and state the facts listed in your site then list the site as a source you do not just go and say link here you go you do the work

I hate when people pull the "im not doing anything wrong so the gov can know whatever they want" card. You do realize criminals can work in the gov? gov docs get leaked? then were is all your personal information??

Not only does the death penalty eliminate cruel and unusual people but it also saves us money. In not using the death penalty we are no longer paying the taxes on people who have murdered etc to sit in prison with a bed and warm food.

This is a loaded statement-----------------------------------------------------

So you re made your post okay

"Society is best with two genders corresponding to two sexes."

this makes no sense each gender is better with two corresponding genders??? and that is better for society XD word your sentences better man there are only two genders.

"Bathroom use for the two different sexes only makes more sense considering the differences between them."

Okay but why? why do the differences make them need top have separate bathrooms?

Maybe just a one size fits all bathroom? No,"

Denial is not a logical response

"it is better we keep the differences between two sexes (and therefore genders) separate in this case."

repeating what you have already said and still shows no reasoning you just say they should be separate because men and women are different?? but why does that mean there has to be seperation? take out your ridiculous ocd with genders and races and be freaking human. Or at least provide some logic

This is a loaded question or statement and there fore cannot be argued

"There is no sufficient evidence to support the idea of homosexuality being a mental disorder"

The very definition which I have listed is exactly this evidence you say there is none of.

-Systematic-relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part

-Functioning-work or operate in a proper or particular way

The reproductive system is not working in its proper and particular way the human species has been designed/made

and for fucks sake I am not going to re word my entire arguement because you dont understand re read it and that will respond to you not even thinking before saying nothing in this suggests homosexuality is a mental disorder.

you are just saying that what i am saying is opinion and your attacking the points when i clearly list why my points are true your making me re state what i have already said

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz;=1C1CHBF enUS705US706&ion;=1&espv;=2&ie;=UTF-8#q=define+systemic+&

Functioning-work or operate in a proper or particular way

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz;=1C1CHBF enUS705US706&ion;=1&espv;=2&ie;=UTF-8#q=define+functioning&

I believe it should be the same physical test for everyone, If i am in a firefight and I need someone to carry my shot ass out of battle they better be damn able to do what I can

This has no relevance to the debate and I have already spoken my clear faith. your inability to quote the scripture is your weakness in your own faith how about you " First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." Mathew7.5 Fix your own faith and stop trying to slander my strong faith in christ.