THBT: Conservatives are right

you're not reputable though

If I strive for a cry of outrage for every Loss I had, I would be considered to be way less reputable. Keep that in mind.

I hope you know, if it wasn't for orisadmans unfair and biased vote, I would have won. I dont know why they awarded so many points to you - it is simply outragoues.

I have long agreed with the advocation of changing *S&G* to "Legibility". Dunno why they still haven't done that after over a year.

Oromagi's sng vote is based on the wrong terminology for the presentation category.

I report oromagis vote for sng point

I am literally the other side of that debate. How about you tell me how his argument was faulty. I don’t even wanna talk about anything else, just that.

of course orosadmi comes in and ruins everything with his salty vote. funny how orosadmi faults me for using tricky arguments, when his entire 100 wins is based purely nit picking and misleading opponents. What a hypocritical skum

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2208-thbt-present-day-style-motorsports-will-not-go-extinct-even-if-more-advanced-forms-of-transportation-replace-the-car-motorcycle-industry

"Even if the phrase is not grammatically correct this does not mean that it means something else."

Ok, That just makes me more correct. There are in fact even adverb entries for "right" and I didn't even bother writing it because of course it is grammatically incorrect. That is one in god knows how many entries. There is a very small chance for "right" to be actually used in accordance with the political right-wing when you look at all the usages of the same-spelled phrase, most of them being "correct" or "opposite of left"(as a directional phrase, not political).

I don't think Pro gets the vote just because 1 entry favors Pro when in reality at least 21 entries does not. All claims are in an unproven state until a satisfactory proof has been brought forth. My source if anything is stronger pull to Con than to Pro.

"Pro's definition(which is the only one) is a NOUN unsuitable due to them referring to different classes of subjects. Con's only entry that could be seen as "flawed" is an ADJ that in no way should be considered a commonplace definition due to it obviously not being capitalized. The 13th entry is more of an entry for "Right" than an entry for "right."

One Pro's source does not capitalize "right", so it really shouldn't matter. Even if the phrase is not grammatically correct this does not mean that it means something else. At the end of the day the resolution may be worded very poorly, but Pro's source still says that this is what it means.

I don't think this is a BoP issue. I agree the structure is inherently unfair, but you agreed to it when you accepted the debate. In a final round it is usually considered the judges responsibility to go back and cross-apply points from previous rounds to new points.

You do not bring up the specific entries within your speech, so I don't think I should vote there. More importantly, your point is that "No adj. entry was shown inherently conservative and no n. entry can meaningfully refer to people." This might be true within your own definition, but Pro has a definition that says right means political.

When without modification, the BoP defaults to Pro, not Con. Pro's *only* argument was deemed irrelevant and due to the 1-rounder constraint not able to use any of my "flaws" against me.

Also, Con's argument in a much greater magnitude works FOR Con than in any part AGAINST.

No. I have proven that Pro’s definition is unsuitable as a noun. The 13th entry requires in order for the term to be common-place understood it must be distinguished by capitalization(which was absent here).

That would mean 21/22 or 22/22 entries favor Con.

Vote removed from Barney.
Reason for removal: user request.
Points: 3 to con.
RFD:
Pro attempts a semantic kritik that right can have multiple meanings, and con disagrees citing language structure making the commonly understand meaning to be more applicable. That's the entire debate.

rational mad man is correct here. they understand. my argument was not disproven

The lengths to which you are responding to me (see your last post) shows a rather excessive interest in addressing me. I posted a couple of sentences to you. Apparently, you didn't think that was enough, but that's fine.

I never said I wasn't receptive to criticism. If you want to criticize my vote, feel free. I'm happy to address it. I'm just not going to tell you that your vote is wrong. I wouldn't call what I've done "frantic," though, again, see your last post. Pot, meet kettle.

can you imagine if I worried every time someone talked about me? Do you even know what some people have said about RM let alone me irl?

Idc if it's sexist I will tell you something and I am aware I don't always live up to it, that's only on this website and it's for the purpose of sometimes a reputation tarring is too far or an insult is a sort of insult where if people believe it and I don't show any resistance it tells about me.

In all instances other than true defamation (such as the shit Lunatic did to me that you never once moderated against let alone Mikal's disgusting lies in his final rap and then faked screenshots of discord) a man should let people say what they want and not worry unless he sees truth.

The reason this is sexist is I am not sure this applies to women the same way/dynamic. That is just something that's a reality, women have a different path in life and I firmly believe that and idc if you tell it makes me phobic this or bigot that.

As a man right here right now, you not only proved you are sensitive to what i said about you but you chickened out of an engagement on the topic only to then keep ranting on about me having mentioned you in a so-to-say meaniepants way in the first place.

You did 2 things no man should ever do:

1) prove you are sensitive to something you are unwilling to take head on.
2) despite saying you refuse to take it head on, engage frantically about it.

you can ask yourself now only this:

Why did you not just spend that same amount of characters and effort that you spent in the last 2 whiny posts engaging me on the topic?

I understand if you deflect here and say I've been whiny. Yes, I have. Nobody is always masculine and always hardcore thick skinned, at least neither you nor I am. You are usually not this sensitive though, so I ask you why you are sensitive if you are then telling me I ought not to engage you on the topic. It's like you're forcing me to attack you as a man, so I will.

Talking to someone and talking about someone are two very different things. You were talking about me and my decision. I responded to your claim about it and, as it is clearly directed at the "competence" of "the other 2 voters", it seemed appropriate to say something. Directing that comment at someone else doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with me or, for that matter, with BearMan.

Your mistake is assuming I was talking to you. That is okay.

You have already stated clear-cut you don't want to discuss or debate it. This was predictable... where is it I am missing something?

I @ Barney here as I @ another username before. it is a mistake

You're welcome to your opinion, as usual. Doesn't mean you're correct in your assessment, but I'm really not willing to argue your perspective with you.

I recommend rereading the debate again. I dont expect more conpetence from the other 2 voters but you should do better.