Don’t you worry, I’ll be dead and buried soon enough, and your resentment will find your release.
As for this debate, it’s not over until Stoic is convinced the legitimacy of this resolution is through the DICTATORSHIP of one indvidual, or the voting of the masses. Tab wins if he convinces Stoic that all of these votes “count” for shit. They don’t though. Popularity does not make you true, right, smart, cool, or whatever. Popularity doesn’t mean shit, or a god damned thing, except that you’re popular. Tab has that down pat, admittedly.
But sometimes truth is UNPOPULAR. And Stoic knows this. And so, let’s see the UNPOPULAR TRUTH win this one. Stoic wins, because the dictators says so. Votes do not count. Only men with great willpower mean anything in this world, or have any value at all. And we do not “vote” on willpower. It is an aspect of your soul, you either have it or you don’t. You can’t fake it.
Just because Tab is popular, as predicted, doesn’t make him right or true. And it doesn’t mean he is a man with strong willpower either.
I shall propose then the following: i have a topic set up here: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=179064&p=2310837#p2310837
Sounded as though its out of Tab’s comfort zon but he’s willing to give it a go. I will judge as I am independent of everybody on here.
Second proposal - I’ll offer my hand a sa judge to any debate between any challengers - i do not have 100 post count but my brain is logically-wired lol (tested 99.8th percentile for logic & reasoning on Mensa test)
Third proposal - i’ll take on Tab in a challenge as I’m new to the fray (but only if people want)
I’m kinda booked at the moment. Pav and I will debate the death penalty’s expansion fairly soon, and I wanna take on Faust concerning something to do with justice sometime after that.
There is no news, unfortunately. It is simply my opinion that the death penalty should be expanded to include virtually every felony.
I also like your Debate topic. I think virtually anyone would be hard-pressed to adequately defend the notion that, “Innocent until proven guilty,” is what actually takes place. If you were truly, “Innocent until proven guilty,” then how could you ever possibly be arrested and spend time in jail before your trial?
I thought by, “Abandoned,” you meant, “No longer is use or regularly occupied.” That’s how I would have used the word. I now notice that you also said, “Empty,” so, my apologies.
What if they entered the back while you started the fire in the front, or vice-versa? What if your flames caught a nearby (occupied) home on fire?
I think my point was more that crimes are adjudicated after the fact. It is up to you what your view is on the matter, it’s just that arson is one crime and murder & manslaughter are different charges.
You said, “…virtually every felony” and I was just asking whether you believe arson should be included (just arson - no added charges)?
