The Fair Vote

Are you telepathic? How do you know what other posters have and haven't read?

 

It's tough to lose power, I guess.

 

By your comments

 

He didn't even cite language in the ruling, just the name. It doesn't say what he claims.

 

Of course it does. Had you read it, you would know that. Meanwhile, Texas is still a state, because states can’t secede.

 

So cite the language in the ruling that says states can't leave. You made the claim, it on no one to support it but you.

 

Read the ruling. I have no obligation to spoon feed you. I’ve given you the Supreme Court ruling showing you are wrong. Read it. Or don’t. States will remain unable to secede whether you do or not.

 

You made the claim, so yes you have the obligation. Texas v White doesn't rule on succession as a concept nor was Texas trying to leave (so the cort had no reason to make such a ruling in either direction) when the case was heard. You're just talking out of your ass.

 

my obligation was fulfilled. Texas v white. Read it.

Which shows you didn't read the ruling.

 

Telepathetic?

 

Well, your telepathic powers are weak because I have read it. The court cites no constitutional prohibition on any of the states leaving the union.

 

He clearly doesn't understand how debate works. If one makes a claim, such as "the text says X", then it's kind of on them to cite where the text says X. Not just, "Read it. It's in there. Believe me."

 

Then cite the text. That's all you gotta do to win this debate. You can't because that's not what it says.

 

I already won the debate, lol. It's why texas is a state, and not it's own or part of another country.

 

You can't substantiate your claim about the text. Ergo, it is considered false.

 

I've repeatedly substantiate it. it's why texas is still a state.

 

You still haven't produced any language from the constitution that forbids any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union.

 

proven false

 

By what?

Remember, bald assertion is a fallacy.

 

The supreme court, which cited the constitution in the ruling.

Remember, pretending I have not proven my claim is dishonest, as there is a written record for all to see.

 

Yes, you've asserted this. And yet no text from the constitution has been presented.

That's what's called a bald assertion fallacy.

 

no, ive proven this.

proven false

only if you don't know what bald assertion fallacy means.

 

Great my statement continues to stand: The constitution contains no prohibition on any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union.

 

Texas wasn't trying to become independent when that case was heard. It wasn't about secession. Texas would have remained a state even if they'd won.

this is why you can't actually cite Texas v white. lol You're only making yourself look bad here.

 

proven false