idpol never changes

wtf is happening here?

everyone you dont like is a faggot i assume

you just asked to suck his dick!

i still wonder why the left movement is not that popular in the west huh....

you just compared commie to a hitler? really?

so he is like a pet troll over here?

more useless shittalking pls i like it

i am at leftypol. of cource i am a commie

list the stupid things i sad

heah just assume i sad something stupid without proving i am wrong

when? you showed no arguments

i scrolled up and didnt saw any of your arguments

i am trying to be serious with you

i see just an endless wave of shitposting and shittalking

@Mr. X then disprove it

show your info on population of ussr

and source

let me guess yours sauce is balck book of communism

who else is suppose to do research on this topic but the soviets?

they used this data in their own work

how does the western source can be more valid than ussr?

how you can have bias about numbes of your own population?

why western source cant be called be called western propaganda?

we have our info show your info that debunks it

you cant just say "its not valid"

prove us wrong

you had to prove AJ was wrong

you have to do it man

you have to show your counter argument

your research wich we can

se

then why shoud i belive that USA has population over 327 631 340?

how i is more credible? you cant say just "obviously"

why ussr's research isnt valid and usa's is

yeah he is a joke he has 0 prof just shittalking and insults

prove me wrong lil dummie

calculation of demograpy of every city and village throuout time. Birthrate statistics.

when you proved something?

a assume its "you are gay" yeah thats your proof you just proved me wrong.

you didnt tel it to me

"Mr. E is an intelectual" best foking joke of this day

is that dude with his GIF trying to get our attention? Mr E is more funny.

thuth that you cant prove our infograpf if wrong? yeah thats funny.

just saying that your source isnt valid isnt a proof. You had to show your research and show where we were wrong and why we were wrong. as ia sad before - show the fucking research that disproves ours.

at least show us "you can easily find ussr propaganda to prove that the source isnt valid" i shoudnt search for YOUR proof

You use it as a proof, show us the data. Show us the nubers.

Mr E "I have a proof but i will never show it to you. I'll just say that it is its public and basic information. And i ahve no fucking brains to give a single link for my source."

we have been talking about ussr's statistics lets stay with the topic pls

"i think that my enemies shoud search for my proof even if its proving that i am wrong and have no arguments" - Mr E

You guys know i am really fucking tired of hum. No links an proof that we can discuss, no arguments to support his position. Lets just igone him and discuss possibility of revolution in europe after new World War.

i think he will be more angry if we will just stop talking to him. he will be just like a barking dog near the caravan.

@Mr. X thats not howe belarussian sounds. even if you being serious

your shittalk cant have context because it it has no sense

what is your first language?

projecting what? lack of evidence?

lack of sense? lack of inteligence and logick? not understanding how debate works?

how proof works?

Mr E - "I think my apponents shoud search for my evidence for me if i cant show it to them; even if its breaking the order of debate and turns me into a fool"

i you know it THEN SHOW IT TO US! destroy us, make us stfu and end this

Proof
A great deal has been written and said about the burden of proof, and certain misconceptions have arisen about the duty of the affirmative. The rule is simple:

Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

This principle applies equally to the two teams. Of course, the affirmative must show that its plan is desirable, which means that it must show that some benefits will result; otherwise it has failed to give reason for adopting the plan, and has lost the debate. The commonly heard statement that "the affirmative has the burden of proof" means that and nothing more.

On the other hand, if the negative wants the judge and audience to accept the idea that there are certain defects which outweigh the plan's good points, then it must assume the burden of proving that such disadvantages actually will result.

If the negative introduces a counterplan, it has the burden of showing how it is better than the affirmative's proposal; the affirmative then has the duty of establishing any alleged objections to the counterplan. In every instance, he who asserts must prove.

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

The amount of proof required in debating is generally less than that required in law. In law, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty in order to convict him; in debating, an assertion is established if it is supported by the weight of evidence and logic, even though there still may be room for doubt.

One further distinction is this: In law the jury may disbelieve evidence, even though its accuracy is not disputed. In debating, the judge is measuring the relative skill of the two teams, not deciding the "bedrock merits" of the matter in question. Therefore he is required to accept as valid all arguments backed with reasonable proof (as defined above) until overthrown by the opposing team.

A debate coach once remarked, "The implications here are pretty strong. Does this mean that the judge cannot penalize a team which uses a bare-faced lie as proof? Why not manufacture your evidence?" His point is well taken. Manufactured evidence is so rare in debate as to be almost non-existent, but conceivably it might happen some time. In that event, the following rule would cover the situation:

Rule 5c. Facts, presented in a debate as such, must be accurate.

If the judge is certain that the evidence is deliberately falsified, he is justified in giving the decision to the other team on this point alone. More often, it is simply a matter of interpretation of evidence, and if some error in logic is present, it is up to the other team to find it and point it out.

Rule 5d. Any restatement or quotation of an opponent's argument must be accurate.

A word-for-word quotation, in context, is ideal. This is ordinarily possible when the quotation is short or when one of the members of the team knows shorthand. Under most circumstances, however, the debater finds it necessary to paraphrase his opponent's remarks; for this purpose he needs careful notes and an understanding of his opponent's intent.

Misquotation, whether deliberate or not, unfairly places the other team in a false position and should be studiously avoided.

Mr E " I know how debates work better tha you do"

Mr E "I will ignore the rules of debate established in GB's parlament and the rest of the world"

Mr E "I simply do not care for it: - i is what called "ignoring"

what are your rules of debate then Mr E?

Guys just let his explain his fucking rules so we coud laugh at him

guys i am serious let his fucking say something

Projection!

Projection!

Projection!

Projection!

Projection!

Strawman!

Strawman!

Strawman!

Strawman!

just say your fucking rules of debate so we could understand your fucking logic

@DA GOMMIE JOO add "It is a public information" and "Find it yourself"

his sauce is "find my proof for me cuz i am a retard"

Anothers Mr E bingo is done! Projection!

being a vibrator is your true destiny

we are not talking with you right now

yelp

oh dude

wrong use of words

we have our own talk

projection

thinking that you are smart is funny

cuz its not truth and you are not smart. You are ingnorant and have no logic in your mind. You cant debate with people who dissagree with you.

you just ingore already established rules of debate to keep your ingnorance intact and keep illusion of being intelectual

stop that useles shittalk pls

its just one college?

and we unintentionaly let elements of market economy into our socialist system in 1965

we started to jundge efficiency of our industry by profits rather than accomplishment of plan

theocracy means rule of god but god cant govern the state therefor theocracy is just rule of priests. It is a rule of a single small group of people.

good old days without vaccination where people had to make lots of kids because many of them were dying before 20

forced assimilation hurts more than you think

well dont be suprised if they will fuck you insted