That's the point.

1. A is doing B because of C
2. C isn't true because if D
Thus A is being stupid.

Has been an argument style long before twitter existed. That you don't understand basic arguments is your problem and has nothing to do with kids with twitter these days.

Sickle cell anemia doesn't help you pass on your genes either. And yet there was selection pressure for it due to people who could produce children with it having higher malaria survival rates.

It's hardly uncommon for a selection pressure to result in a gene with some down side (like say some children being autistic) being selected before because it also has a upside (like some children fitting into the modern working world and hence being able to have more kids).

Of course that's not going to be the case here because those people don't in fact have more kids than people who don't have tech desk jobs, but for your general question there could be a bunch of advantages that "being more likely to have a child with autism" could provide if the genetics for that happen to also be related to something else...

Except it isn't a 25% increase from the base and then a 21% decrease from that higher result. It's a 21% decrease from the base. Where the base is the average Monday rate.

So if heart attacks are evenly distributed across the days of the year (which seems very unlikely but I don't know the stats on it and can't be bothered looking it up) and there are 52 Mondays in a year (well a little more...) then 2% of heart attacks happen on a Monday. Taking the conclusion in the headline at face value then there's a 4% increase due to daylight saving. We have a 0.08% increase in the number heart attacks in a year.

I'm pretty sure there's other slightly more impactful risk factors to tackle first...

The fact that competitive debating is a thing is pretty clear evidence that you are wrong.

Of course that wasn't the type of debate being discussed - but you changed "the" into "a" thus making a more general claim.

Also surely "when your opponent's arguments convince you to agree with them" is winning, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" and all.

No one does. Well I guess you do, but you are clearly an idiot.

Right. "work for hire" is the efficient way of sating that.

Sure, but it's being put up against a theory with no numbers or data at all.

Right because only a lawyer could possibly claim that "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity" isn't covered by any of those claims even though all of them are completely unrelated to it.

Or are you arguing the US nuked Ukraine last week and nobody noticed?

Do you have an non-anecdotal evidence for your theory?

http://content.healthaffairs.o... seems to contradict your claim with actual data - though it's data is getting old, so maybe you have something newer rather than just making up theories in your head with no actual evidence for them?

Your linked source says nothing about "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity". Did you link the wrong source? Did you just make it up?

From your link:

  Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed that they would:
        1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
        2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
        3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
        4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
        5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
        6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

The US us respecting Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. The US is not threatening or using force against Ukraine. The US is not (that I've heard anyway) using economic pressure to influence Ukrainian politics. Nuclear weapons haven't been used against Ukraine so there's nothing to seek. The US hasn't used nuclear arms against Ukraine. And I'm sure the US doesn't have any questions about those commitments.

So the US is meeting all their obligations and keeping their word.

I take it you were (and would be now) perfectly happy with a Russian naval/air base in Cuba? Or Mexico?

arrested != convicted, but that's was the starting of what led to the computer fraud conviction I believe.

It's not, but it's standard "see that guy is a bad".

If he was a convicted (or even just accused) child molester you can be sure that would get a mention too.

He was convicted of computer fraud and embezzlement. There was no claim made that he was felon due anything related to content, copyright of intellectual property.

Sure, if you just ignore that when a plane you aren't on crashes that information can then be used to make the plane you fly on in the future safer. Which some people would consider a benefit of greater than ZERO.