You seem to relish in the fact that people have been banned. Is that your definition of an honest debate? Perhaps you can share with us how you define debate? It certainly can't include those that disagree with you, because you've indicate those people shouldn't even be allowed to post.
I've got other stuff to do today. Have fun trashing the US with your pro-criminal alien rhetoric...
I usually regret when people are banned or chose to leave. But there are also people that I am not sorry to see get banned.
This site forbids obvious personal attacks, so many people resort to a very passive-aggressive technique that does nothing to contribute to any dialog, but is instead the 'smear by association' tactic, combined with innuendo and interrogative misdirection. Your post here is an example.
I have obviously indicated that I am interested in debate. To have debate, there must be more than one side to the debate, therefore including those that disagree with me. This dynamic is obvious to anyone reading my posts with an open mind.
Yet, your post, through it's interrogative misdirection, seems to indicate a position that is exactly the opposite of what I have called for in supporting 'intellectually honest' debate.
I have never indicated that I would wish those that disagree with me should not be allowed to post. I have indicated that I would be happy if those that consistently use this passive-aggressive and fundamentally dishonest baiting tactic would disappear.
That tactic results in threads like this one being thrown (as we now see) into the SBR or deleted altogether. It does nothing to further anyone's understanding of the issues. I believe that those people (and there are exactly 4 of you left at this point) who consistently use this fundamentally dishonest and childish form of thread baiting would be asked to leave. The signal-to-noise ration of this site would improve dramatically as a result.