Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Yes. We all agree. Debate over. Next topic please, sir.

Next topic comes the next morning... Be patient lol

Truth. Patience is a virtue.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Crap, I agree with rsp. There must be a lunar eclipse.

Any chance the next debate could be about college safe spaces?

It can whatever you want. That topic seems like it would be more of a shouting, name-calling match than a fact-supported debate, but we will just call Throwdown Thursday. Throwdown Thursday is the brother of Smackdown Saturday.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Crap, I agree with rsp. There must be a lunar eclipse.

Any chance the next debate could be about college safe spaces?

It can whatever you want. That topic seems like it would be more of a shouting, name-calling match than a fact-supported debate, but we will just call Throwdown Thursday. Throwdown Thursday is the brother of Smackdown Saturday.

Anybody want to try to support the moronic idea of sanctuary cities?

Before you do, here's a fact for you - On average, the cost of lost federal funding for a family of four residing in one of the 106 sanctuary cities is $1,810 – or $454 per person. A total population of 46.2 million residents live in the 106 sanctuary cities according to census data.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/30/2019 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 2:22:00 PM (view original):
And yes, they should be memorialized. Memorialized simply means "to have a memory of". The definition is in the root word. By not memorializing them, we essentially erase them from history. This is the left's objective and it's dangerous.

Incorrect. They are still in history books. But buildings should not be named after them. There should be no statues of them. That's an honor that traitors don't deserve.

Should we build statues of the 9/11 attackers in Manhattan? Never forget, right? Need to be memorialized.

Strikeout?

Both topics so far have been picked from a conservative viewpoint (mine). I have twice put the burden of defense on those leaning left. I would like to hear a topic suggestion for tomorrow from someone from the other side of the isle. I'm specifically looking for a criticism of conservatives. It's our turn to defend our stance. My only request is that you sitemail the topic as I want to save the debate for tomorrow.

Posted by all3 on 1/30/2019 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Crap, I agree with rsp. There must be a lunar eclipse.

Any chance the next debate could be about college safe spaces?

It can whatever you want. That topic seems like it would be more of a shouting, name-calling match than a fact-supported debate, but we will just call Throwdown Thursday. Throwdown Thursday is the brother of Smackdown Saturday.

Anybody want to try to support the moronic idea of sanctuary cities?

Before you do, here's a fact for you - On average, the cost of lost federal funding for a family of four residing in one of the 106 sanctuary cities is $1,810 – or $454 per person. A total population of 46.2 million residents live in the 106 sanctuary cities according to census data.

Only BL.

BL said the Confederacy and their soldiers were traitors. I agree. I think those who support sanctuary cities are traitors too. So we should tread lightly if we want to keep the debates somewhat civil. IMO.

I don't think they are traitors, lol. It's not un-American, it's just stupid.

Posted by kermit on 1/30/2019 1:37:00 PM (view original):
I struck out once and I am traumatized by your user name.

only once? I call bullsh*t!!!

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 5:42:00 PM (view original):
I don't think they are traitors, lol. It's not un-American, it's just stupid.

cccp believes anyone who doesn't agree with him is a traitor!




I kid....

Topic of the day: Electoral College

As I am leaving for Tampa to watch 3 of the top 5 preseason ranked college baseball teams in the country square off this weekend, I will leave this one for Tang to get us started when he awakes from his slumber. Anyone else get us started sooner if they would like. Have fun!

OK, I will write up my piece in an hour or two when I have time.

So I have a couple of reasons why we should replace the electoral college with either a popular vote, a system in each state like what Maine and Nebraska have, or a more proportional system.

First, the electoral college is unfair to larger states. Due to the disproportionate nature of electoral votes assigned, an electoral college vote in Wyoming represents about 200k people, while an electoral college vote in California is worth 725k people. This is simply unfair. A person is a person, and their vote should be counted equally regardless of which state they are from. A disproportionate electoral college system leads to elections like 2000 and 2016, when a candidate won the popular vote - more Americans wanted that candidate to win - and lost.

Next, I still don't like how the popular vote is filtered through the elector system. Democrats tried to convince electors to vote for Clinton instead of Trump in 2016, which is really shady, Because the electors are party loyalists, if Bernie Sanders had won the primary and the general, it is feasible that electors could vote against Sanders and for, say, Clinton when they filled out their ballots.

Finally, the the electoral college was created for two reasons: “The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.” Both these reasons are invalid today. The first reason was due to the founding fathers “ feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. “ which is irrelevant today because Trump got elected. I kid. The second reason was partly due to wanting to keep slavery. Southern states were given more votes proportionally. So while some might argue that it is part of our constitution so we should keep it, both reasons why the founding fathers put the electoral college in the constitution are outdated today.

Also, I support giving rural areas a say. That's why we have the senate.

Debate away.

Oh, and it would remove battleground states. Candidates would no longer only campaign to Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and MIchigan.

Swing states typically have higher turnout. Also, before you make the argument that candidates would only campaign in California and New York, keep in mind that those states only represented around 16% of the voters in 2016.