Age can define developmental maturity, that is, when someone's grown to the age at which they cease to grow and thereby begin the ageing process. So under-18s can't vote, for instance, because they're 'still developing' and 'don't have the capacity to make decisions'.
So yes, I think age restrictions are silly I think they ought to be abolished because there are plenty of people who don't have the privilege of waiting until such and such age to begin their adult lives. Many people I know under the legal age have had to 'grow up' early. So even practically it doesn't make sense for those without certain types of privilege.
What is the meaning of this? First of all it's a debate site, so we're not meant to agree on much.
Second, even if Excon throws a massive fit whenever he sees your clever little remarks like 'fake jew scum', you won't be able to watch.
And third, but less importantly, this is all unoriginal, and you'll likely be gone within the month when you've spent your energy tirelessly chasing and haranguing someone you don't even know.
I don't understand the question you're asking. Surely everyone can be racist given the opportunity?
And please can you clarify what you intend by 'racist'? Do you mean the practice of racism? If so, what form does that take? Discrimination? Aggression?
It doesn't follow that, because CNN+ doesn't exist, everyone hates CNN or that CNN is failing. That is not a valid inductive argument.
See below:
I. CNN is running smoothly.
II. CNN+ is a premium version of CNN.
III. CNN+ is failing.
(missing premiss IV)
C: CNN has failed.
You'd need to prove that CNN relies solely upon CNN+ to succeed. This would then allow you to say that, because CNN+ fails, so it's groundwork falls, and therefore CNN has failed. Which is obviously not true. CNN+ doesn't exist, and CNN seems to be faring well.
I'm not saying I agree with CNN or Tucker Carlson, but in order for your logic to work properly you would need to prove a premiss which is, quite literally, impossible to prove.
I would ask Mr. Carlson but his laugh showed signs he was gripped by a terrible case of Tetanus.
Meanwhile doesn't Florida have an absolutely bollocks governor? And aren't the fires and homelessness due to national policy and ignorance?
You are trying to mark an easy, uncharitable win against the 'libtards', winning simply for winning's sake.
"...you're incapable of formulating and introducing an independent subject for rational discourse..."
Yet that statement is paradoxical, as I have formulated and introduced an argument right now. ;)
"...but instead cling leechlike to the subject-matters of others who have contributed positively to the forum by openly stating their viewpoints and presenting them for discussion."
Here's my independent, rational argument I am presenting: You cannot say you have contributed positively to a site's discourse when, if I'm not mistaken, Antrim, you have been banned more than twice for deplorably incorrect and offensive, ad hominem jabs which get you absolutely nowhere.
You're what's known in the debating fraternity as a parasite.
Well, that's just a sign the debating fraternity you've joined doesn't care about anything of substance, because if they did you and your predominantly baseless excuses for arguments would not be allowed.
Your sole reason for infesting this site is to do exactly what I accused Excon of doing.
And what if that accusation is completely wrong?
Clearly you're a resentful little limey pervert who finds sexual gratification in maliciously and futilely trying to condemn those who you recognize as being your intellectual superiors.
It would be admiration I give to those I consider my intellectual superiors. You may have argumentative potential, but your scheme of people-shaming does not show you've got it in the least.
HOWEVER, GRATUITOUSLY SPEWING OUT A LOAD OF MEANINGLESS DRIVEL WHICH HAS NO RELEVENCE TO THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSIONAN HAS ALL THE HALLMARKS OF ONE OF LIFE'S EMBITTERED LOSERS.
Perhaps you wouldn't feel that was the case if you actually read the arguments I propose. Every time I argue with you, no matter how polite I am, you continue to make a show of murdering the debate by removing any relevant matters and resorting to ad hominem attacks.
For someone who speaks of condemning 'mischievous little provocateurs' your arguments contain many fallacious, empty-handed grabs at 'independent' and 'non-partisan' thought.
Nothing but rhetoric, which belongs in many places, but certainly not in the debate room.
It's not like they have a choice, is it? You should just be satisfied the outcome was the way you wanted it to be instead of rubbing it in everyone's face. Not only does it make it worse that you're here and we must tolerate you, but nobody can stand your incessant nickering about something that AFFECTS EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR YOU.
You should have no problem with anarchy after what happened in your country in January xx
