Socratic. It took time because the facts everyone was using existed within false

Socratic. It took time because the facts everyone was using existed within false and insignificant theories because they lacked knowledge of everything from basics of knowing to the subject matter to the causality involved. I demonstrated that fact. The point being that the vox populi isn’t possessed of facts nor theories but random moral accusations at their meager levels of understanding that are irrelevant without the underlying cause of conflict – quite childlike really. What you interpreted as debate tactic was a strategy of exposing not only these factors but the use of the same demand you demonstrated in your post: attempt to quilt into a frame you are capable of instead of seeking to understand one you are not – at least yet.
Civil wars occur, and civilizations die, for well understood reasons. The over-production of pseudo elites – talking classes, the exhaustion of the opportunity for expansion, Democracies that extend the vote beyond the capacity for responsibility in the context of the complexity of development are impossible for this reason – the parties descend into moral accusation because the audience of voters cannot comprehend nor wishes to, the underlying causes. Ergo, lies prevail. A competition of lies to the minds of adult children.
As such, at the very least, the solution to the deterministic end of democracy by collapse, conquest, colonization (what’s occurring), or civil war is the prevention of lying to the public, in public, in matters public: testimony. And that isn’t difficult. And it doesn’t suppress free speech – it extends conspiracy to commit personal and commercial crime to political crime.
The end result would necessitate restoration of the government as a market for exchanges between the regions, classes, and now sexes, in the production of commons and the devolution of the social domain to localities, and a restoration of the prohibition on the federalization of such.
The alternative is to continue progression to the two alternatives: leninism (irresponsibility) or fascism (responsibility) with ‘democratic characteristics’ (if you’ll pardon the bit of humor).
At the present rate of demographic collapse we will have a second world country within fifty years through immigration alone. Even our technological advantage the sustains the economy despite the raging asymmetry of incomes and risks is due to immigration at the top to compensate for immigration at the bottom to compensate for the extractions from the middle collapsing their reproduction, and it’s acceleration in urban regions.

Yet this discussion has been one of nonsense over the personalities and policies of candidates and kindergarten levels of understanding of both.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

REFERENCES

What theories cannot produce prediction only explanation? (All the important ones). What theories that can only explain can be subject to error bias wishful-thinking and deceit? What theories that only explain, are subject to error bias wishful- thinking and deceit are commonly held by the population? The blank slate, nature vs nurture, capacity for learning and adapting, capacity for self regulation, agency, logic , differences in Sex, class, race, ethnicity, culture, civilization, equality, neoteny, genetic load, regression to the mean, necessity of natural selection, continuous growth, end of scarcity, end of status competition in furtherance of natural selection to prevent dysgenic regression.

Given our genetics, their expression , especially as variations on sex differences in cognition, justification negotiation and deceit, combined with our self selection and self sortition by all of the above reinforcing all of the above, then why would you presume that the purpose of any given debate was to persuade another party react counter to all of the above rather than to educate one another on their positions in an effort to determine whether habitation in the same polity is either desirable or possible. Masculine inter temporal capitalizing and feminine temporal consumption are polar opposites. Ego the only solution is separation. I would only seek to educate others in alternatives because persuasion is impossible especially when amplified by the territorial demand for individual responsibility vs the urban impossibility of it leaving only extra political trade viable. You could try to debate me on these matters but the science and the incentives are incontestable.

The jury determines the outcome one of a debate – not the participants.

There are multiple threads herein. I would win a debate. That does not mean you agree. It means the jury would decide so.

If you have a debate issue of merit that is decidable then state it.

There is a negative correlation between applied intelligence and traits empathizing, agreeableness and neuroticism which dominate the feminine cognition whether in males or females. So what you would find pleasantly conforming, we would determine whether true false capitalizing or consuming. This is why we cannot even speak to one another. The left is of the now and the right is of the consequences.

You lack the knowledge and capacity to rationally debate me or you would have done more than feminine abrahamic Marxist postmodernism pretense of knowledge and competency and instead effectively engaged in feminine GSRRM because I demonstrate no desire for your approval I only wait for an adult argument of some merit while casting a few pearls of insight beyond your gasp as if before swine so to speak.

Only an immature feminine mind would suggest so. I have a decades long history dating back to compuserve of studying ignorance error bias and deceit in public discourse. I seek to learn. It’s my job. In this matter I have demonstrated the problem.
So far I said I would debate and win, I stated the jury decides, I stated the origins of present political conflict, and the historical pattern of consequences, and suggested the optimum solution in prevention of that civil war. I just finished giving four hours of lectures on this subject and others. Yet you and yours cannot even grasp or respond to that arc – and instead are criticizing that I won’t dumb it down to your level of ignorance and understanding – which of course is why you are stuck in your cycle of failure.

Reply addressees: @Duriaann_ @GodswillUgwaJr @LittleMammith