Songs that you relate to battle

RM, you are wrong as there is no any "win trading" happening, and if you look at my other debates with FishChaser then you will see that I am not really forfeiting but I do try very hard to win, and I did win several debates against him, and I just dont understand why you think that debater cant realize that he lost after the debate ends as I did realize, so your opinion is obviously incorrect and I would even say that you are trying desperately to make me look bad which infects your vote and I would prefer if you voted honestly and with some dedication.

A troll debater should always win vs an inferior honest one on the same topic.

if you had the same words BK had and vice versa with flipped sides, I'd vote for you.

You are making it up.

He knew he was trolling, you voted for a troll position and made up stupid excuses for it because you're such a bitch that me telling you to "shut up" actually offended you.

I let you rip me a new ass hole because I thought you were just being honest and trying to help, but now I see how fucked up you are for dishing out so much and taking so little.

Everything you say is an excuse to be retarded. "If you type things in a debate, they default to true even with 0 proof. Unless it's what Fishchaser says."

"If you are sarcastic and I know you're being sarcastic, then I can pick and choose how I interpret it and say you conceded when you didn't because being unbiased actually means being biased."

If you type things in a debate, they default to true even with 0 proof.

The problem you had is until Round 3 you'd never ever typed your root of evil or good and even then it was a case of you conceding (with sarcasm) in both Round 2 and 3 but especially 2 that Con is able to twist evil to suit whatever God says it is.

BK is so damaged as a person he is disgusted that he beat you, it's all quite funny.

And you're metaphorically a genius.

That doesn't mean "Christianity is true by default" though. You're just spouting nonsense to justify your biased vote.

You're literally stupid.

Yes in a way in a debate we should. We default to pure elastic thinking and adapt like a jellyfish turning into an octopus from thoughtless blobs to whatever the debates turns us into.

0 preconceptions biasing.us, 0 common sense, 0 abnormal sense.

The winner is the one to convert the jellyfish into an end product that leans away from the other opinion, not necessarily towards its own.

When judging rapists and murderers, we should default to the ethics of rapists and murderers"

You're stupid, I can't believe I considered you intelligent.

If you default to Christian ethics you are accepting Christianity as true by default because Christian ethics are part of Christianity you stupid piece of shit. You are the one being biased and I no longer consider you intelligent for saying that.

Maybe Con would be able to win if it wasn't an objective fact that the Christian God is evil by any reasonable definition of the word. It is also possible for him to win thanks to biased people and retards, both of which describe you.

In discussions of the Christian God, we'd default to Christian ethics when analysing him.

You wanted it to be unlosable for you because of some deaths or pain, instead of for the holier cause God deemed benevolent and just.

It is the only fair way to see it. Your way makes Con unable to win and is blinkered.

You're treating Christianity as right by default then, it's too late to say you aren't either retarded, biased or both.

Too late to say that and you didn't back it up meaning it's Con's word Vs yours and inside Christianity it's axiomatic that evil is what God says it is.

Number one, I said that evil is defined as unnecessary harm in the last round.

Number two, not only did I "touch" his claim but he provided no basis for it and you are treating it as more valid than my claims by default even though it is retarded and baseless at face value.

I hate how the concept of BOP is treated in debates. It is literally just an excuse to be biased. If two people make a claim, one must go to greater lengths to prove it and the other can simply say stupid shit and be right by default because person number one made the initial proposition.

Such is the way of life,
Only hardship, pain and strife 😊

Okay, but thats your mistake.

I will just pretend to respect you, so you unblock me, and then I will return again to not respecting you.

I already did so like 5 or 6 times with you and you fall for it every time, I am pretty sure you will fall for my fake respect again as soon as couple of months pass so you forget about this.

You are blocked until you learn to talk with respect.

No. As proven by my elo, I am just a bad retarded debater, so its reasonable to assume that I performed my best in this debate.

Now, unless you wanna cast another bad vote, I suggest you to vote as I have instructed you.

if no fair voter can vote for you, you admit to throwing this.

No, I am not admitting that.

I am just telling you how to reasonably vote, because you seemed to be on the path of voting unfairly again.

If you are admitting to throwing this debate to give another debater elo, you need to justify it to the mods.

you should allow a 'stupid' idea to win even if you think it's stupid, if it's debated and untouched by the other debater. It's a simple concept, you don't get how scoring happens in debates. BK may even lose to you in a real debate on style points but not for structure in that debate as you never defined evil

You can just come up with some excuse to vote for him to give him back elo.

And it should be easy too, since I literally posted songs that I dont even relate to, since my life has nothing to do with "miyasan miyasan" song or "red sun in the sky" song.

In fact, its impossible to relate to both since they come from opposite sides of politics.

How can you rationally justify seeing two people debating where one says that supporting genocide and slavery is evil and the other says "nuh uh because he said so" and voting for the latter?

You pretended as if I had all the BOP and was wrong by default, but con was making a claim too. An incredibly stupid claim and one that required just as much backing as mine. You treated him as correct by default because you are either retarded or you wanted me to lose. Those are the only two possible explanations.

Maybe look at the votes reported or made. Suddenly it will get less suspicious.

I will only get angry and hold a grudge if you seem like you're trying to make me lose instead of giving an honest vote or if your vote is stupid.

Before you usually voted in my favor and reported votes that harmed my chances of winning and now you're doing the opposite. It's legitimately suspicious.

How is it fair that if I vote here you will get angry and grudge me?

You made a rated debate on this, why did you do that?

Some people enjoy risk taking.

I do too.

For a guy so concerned with rating why make a debate that literally no criteria determine a vote wrong on?

Any votes?

Remember, dont be biased and vote in a fair way.

but that has nothing to do with how they relate to themselves.

worse songs that relate less to how I see them are superior to good songs that relate more to how I see them, leaving no room for me to categorically vote.

You vote based on a combination of which songs are better and which songs are more similar to the debater in question.

how is one supposed to vote on a rated debate entitled this? Do we relate it to us or what?

You have probably never heard of songs I will post.

I am certain because videos I will post have about 40k views, so less than 0.00005% of people in the world know about them.

But they are strong songs. They werent written by pussies but by real men.