Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 28 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 98% |
Arguments: | 23 |
Debates: | 2 |
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.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |