PolymarketI am, you're ignoring them and inventing an argument that does not resolve per the rules
I am, you're ignoring them and inventing an argument that does not resolve per the rules
wildchylde参与话题 4消息总数 478
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 478 条，显示第 301-350 条What part of courts do you not understand? What part of constitution is unclear? The PM is anti-separatist.
What part of courts do you not understand? What part of constitution is unclear? The PM is anti-separatist.
The only reason the ballot initiative exists is specifically be ause it isn't a referendum on separation, otherwise the courts would strike it down
The only reason the ballot initiative exists is specifically be ause it isn't a referendum on separation, otherwise the courts would strike it down
"obviously" is not a legal argument. Prime Minister, state media, separatists, courts all agree that this is NOT a referendum on separation
"obviously" is not a legal argument. Prime Minister, state media, separatists, courts all agree that this is NOT a referendum on separation
The follow-up would yes
The follow-up would yes
I outlined cases why people might do that. The article I linked outlined cases why people might do that too
I outlined cases why people might do that. The article I linked outlined cases why people might do that too
No it doesn't. It doesn't show desire for separation because I could vote FOR the referendum but still NOT want to separate
No it doesn't. It doesn't show desire for separation because I could vote FOR the referendum but still NOT want to separate
Option 2 does not unequivocally show a desire to separate
Option 2 does not unequivocally show a desire to separate
Fundamentally wrong. If option 2 wins, a legal referendum will take place about separation. Option 2 winning does not mean that the separation will take place, or even that people voting for 2 want the separation
Fundamentally wrong. If option 2 wins, a legal referendum will take place about separation. Option 2 winning does not mean that the separation will take place, or even that people voting for 2 want the separation
Your point is that it's nonbinding and therefore valid under the rules. My point is that the question is nonbinding, yes, but it's still not valid under the rules because the question doesn't establish Albertans' desire for independence -- in a binding OR nonbinding way
Your point is that it's nonbinding and therefore valid under the rules. My point is that the question is nonbinding, yes, but it's still not valid under the rules because the question doesn't establish Albertans' desire for independence -- in a binding OR nonbinding way
Brother, THIS is what a nonbinding separation referendum looks like: Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
Brother, THIS is what a nonbinding separation referendum looks like: Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
Yup there it is
Yup there it is
If this is an argument about binding/non-binding, it's irrelevant.
If this is an argument about binding/non-binding, it's irrelevant.
There were already 2 non-binding secession votes in Canada in Quebec in the past. The Alebrta vote is not even close to being the same as those
There were already 2 non-binding secession votes in Canada in Quebec in the past. The Alebrta vote is not even close to being the same as those
Should I share this instead of the .txt file?
Should I share this instead of the .txt file?
https://drive.proton.me/urls/6FVPT7YJ20#yClYRbQ52bSL
https://drive.proton.me/urls/6FVPT7YJ20#yClYRbQ52bSL
test
test
@outcome "or move ahead with second binding vote" -- from your source
@outcome "or move ahead with second binding vote" -- from your source
The referendum doesn't establish desire for separation. It doesn't meet the rules.
The referendum doesn't establish desire for separation. It doesn't meet the rules.
<@941405798096076880> clarification on canada market plz
<@941405798096076880> clarification on canada market plz
I am face-palming so hard
I am face-palming so hard
It's not this OR that. I can be this AND that.
It's not this OR that. I can be this AND that.
You can agree to both things, and yet they're proposed as dichotomy. That's why it's a false dichotomy.
You can agree to both things, and yet they're proposed as dichotomy. That's why it's a false dichotomy.
It's not "I like apples, I want to vote about liking apples" Rather, it's: "I have to eat apples" vs "I want to have a vote on whether everyone should have to eat apples as well"
It's not "I like apples, I want to vote about liking apples" Rather, it's: "I have to eat apples" vs "I want to have a vote on whether everyone should have to eat apples as well"
This is such a flawed argument
This is such a flawed argument
*Canadians'
*Canadians'
It does not establish Canadian's desire to secede
It does not establish Canadian's desire to secede
Voting to hold a referendum doesn't necessarily indicate you support secession. That's your flaw
Voting to hold a referendum doesn't necessarily indicate you support secession. That's your flaw
the bet isn't about establishing a desire to stay in Canada, it's about establishing a desire to separate from
the bet isn't about establishing a desire to stay in Canada, it's about establishing a desire to separate from
You continue to ignore the part of the question that is unfavorable to your position. You focus on the "remain in Canada" as if the counter-part of the question implies SECEDE from Canada, when that is NOT true
You continue to ignore the part of the question that is unfavorable to your position. You focus on the "remain in Canada" as if the counter-part of the question implies SECEDE from Canada, when that is NOT true
Now who is inventing phrasing?
Now who is inventing phrasing?
very concerning reply
very concerning reply
@Vector Thanks mate, I'm trying to. I'm level 4, need to spam to reach level 5
@Vector Thanks mate, I'm trying to. I'm level 4, need to spam to reach level 5
(binding or non-binding)
(binding or non-binding)
"Any referendum that establishes the province's desire for independence, sets a framework for independence, or establishes independence from Canada will qualify" Any referendum that DOES NOT establish any of these things DOES NOT qualify
"Any referendum that establishes the province's desire for independence, sets a framework for independence, or establishes independence from Canada will qualify" Any referendum that DOES NOT establish any of these things DOES NOT qualify
Jesus bro, lemme explain it for you
Jesus bro, lemme explain it for you
Y'all are focusing on a single word, concerning, and ignoring the rest of the rules. It doesn't fulfill any condition in the second paragraph.
Y'all are focusing on a single word, concerning, and ignoring the rest of the rules. It doesn't fulfill any condition in the second paragraph.
Mirza: You can't ignore the second paragraph, which outlines the conditions for fulfilling the rules.
Mirza: You can't ignore the second paragraph, which outlines the conditions for fulfilling the rules.
It's a referendum on a referendum.
It's a referendum on a referendum.
The courts say it's not a referendum on separation, the Prime Minister says it's not a referendum on separation, separatists say it's not a referendum on separation, a panel of experts the PM consulted say it's not a referendum on separation, the Crown news corporation says it's not a referendum on separation. Only regards in Polymarket chat say it's a referendum on separation.
The courts say it's not a referendum on separation, the Prime Minister says it's not a referendum on separation, separatists say it's not a referendum on separation, a panel of experts the PM consulted say it's not a referendum on separation, the Crown news corporation says it's not a referendum on separation. Only regards in Polymarket chat say it's a referendum on separation.
forthcoming :3
forthcoming :3
Vector: No, and I have a 1000 word essay why
Vector: No, and I have a 1000 word essay why
well yeah obviously, but that's not very helpful
well yeah obviously, but that's not very helpful
we just growl caveman noises and then go "P2!!!!"
we just growl caveman noises and then go "P2!!!!"
How can you argue a position when your character limit is 2000? Are we not supposed to provide sources, evidence, rationale, etc.?
How can you argue a position when your character limit is 2000? Are we not supposed to provide sources, evidence, rationale, etc.?
I just said it turns into a .txt when pasted because it's too many characters
I just said it turns into a .txt when pasted because it's too many characters
y'all too afraid of evidence to lemme know how to provide it
y'all too afraid of evidence to lemme know how to provide it
When I past my argument, it turns to a .txt file. Should I just submit that? Will it display correctly?
When I past my argument, it turns to a .txt file. Should I just submit that? Will it display correctly?
A non-binding referendum on separation was Quebec in 1980 and 1995. This is NOT that. It doesn't satisfy the rules
A non-binding referendum on separation was Quebec in 1980 and 1995. This is NOT that. It doesn't satisfy the rules
but it turned into a .txt because it is so long lmao
but it turned into a .txt because it is so long lmao