I did. He pretended he ruled out semantic abuse to win.
I figured as it was unrated and I was speaking truth of God I win either way in the eyes of God.
Mikal rushed me to accept by saying I was a coward if I didnt in other words and this is always his way.
It was a good way to test how dishonestly he would engage in the other debate he abusively tries to bait me into on his terms at a time I still need to focus on a lot irl instead of this nonsense.
What separates Sharia from Catholicism is realism. That is why a thief can literally get his/her hand cut off in Saudi whereas Christian nations weigh up ruining a life over a little shoplifting a lot more (obviously modt Muslims will also offer a chance to pay back with interest/fine instead but yoy get the idea).
I eother lose anyway from a votebomb that intentionally avoided realisjg I used sources against Mikal in Round 3, or I lose with your vote on top. That means theres no real loss.
So yes. Mikal won devates on DDO by his friends votevombing him. He clearly knew Luna would do so.
It could be true, however based on data you have on me you have concluded that and decided to disseminate that a wife beater with barely any morals who is known to abuse steroids and use any dirty trick in the book to brutalise opponents is a better person than I am.
Then you clearly prioritise superficial success or might is right mentality. By that definition everyone on here is either inferior to him as a person by your logic or they are hiding their success and prowess.
Hitler is not necessary to bring up in this topic.
Gandhi was not even close to an anarchist. He supported different rulership. He opposed Pakistan becoming Pakistan, he wanted to force them under Indian (predominantly Hindu) rule and the Gandhi descendants mistreated non Hindus especially the Sikhs.
Gandhi was actually a hardline Hindu Nationalist. He wanted to eventuallt make all Indians Hindu and bend to Hindu law. You do not quite know him enough it would seem.
Gandhi did not support freedom, he literally starved himself risking death and told others to never fight. Jesus had similar 'aura' that is arguable for sure, to Gandhi. However, they did differ on a lot.
Gandhis pacifism is hardline absolute, Christian pacifism is conditional and definitely is not there if self defense situations occur.
You are not a Christian, never were afaik and cannot meaningfully speak on this topic condemning me to Hell in any real sense beyond words typed (they have no impact,k
So where in the CoC does it say to delete 1 round debates or FF debates?
I was not tricking you, I was asking you does the same principles on which you remove FF debates not apply here. I still have not understood any difference.
Umbrellacorp is using his own rebuttals amd arguments agianst my case and ignores that I myself address most of those arguments in later Rounds than Round 1.
A major example of this being unfair is the fact he takes for granted that Pro states that liberty comes with democracy.
I proved both that Democracy is not actually liberal and that liberalism can interfere with protecting against evil in a nation. He ignores all my rebittals to Pro and says I needed sources.
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards)."
The FF clause says if no arguments are made or if none are made after the first Round arguments are made in (even if that Round is Round 2 of more) that is FF.
Change it to whichever translation suits you and click the magnifying glass. That is New Catholic Bible translation.
As for what I said, it is so important to realise this:
First there was a Church
Then there was the Bible in the 300s.
The Bible was finalised and compiled by what became Catholicism and primarily Eastern Orthodoxy. Admittedly, Oriental Orthodox, Jews and others may have contributed to the Bible. Regardless we would regard the Jews as Messianic Jews and they would be moderm Christians rather than Jews perhaps if in this era.
There is no possible way to deny that the Bible you are reading does not for instance say Trinity. Also it doesn't have the Apostle's Creed. So as a protestant you are clinging to concepts from Catholicism to comprehend it.
St. Peter and the Apostles could forgive on God's behalf. Not at first while Christ was alive, it came later on that he appointed Peter as the head of the church. He already called Simon Peter his 'rock' while alive.
This is very very key to understand.
There was a Church first, the Bible came 300s as they finalised the Apstolitic teachings in the First Council of Nicaea (but for Eastern Orthodox it took 3 more Councils to finish their theories). Some of these peopleoved West afte the First Council amd founded what is now known as Catholicism.
The Catholics and Orthodox are stemming directly from the original Church. Protestants have no claim to it.
Those are Sect differences denomination is within a Sect.
St. Peter was the first Pope to Catholics and the first example of a Patriarch apostle or something, to the Eastern Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox (North African, not Chinese) have their own Pope. They are closer to Eastern Orthodox in dogma but have some Cath stuff they agree on tradition-wise. The Coptic Rite is arguably slightly closest to EO of the OO Rites. That is the one with the Pope.
I did. He pretended he ruled out semantic abuse to win.
I figured as it was unrated and I was speaking truth of God I win either way in the eyes of God.
Mikal rushed me to accept by saying I was a coward if I didnt in other words and this is always his way.
It was a good way to test how dishonestly he would engage in the other debate he abusively tries to bait me into on his terms at a time I still need to focus on a lot irl instead of this nonsense.
As I predicted, Mikal gets semantic win because of 'salvation'.
I win if this was about Christianity.
Sure, I am Catholic.
What separates Sharia from Catholicism is realism. That is why a thief can literally get his/her hand cut off in Saudi whereas Christian nations weigh up ruining a life over a little shoplifting a lot more (obviously modt Muslims will also offer a chance to pay back with interest/fine instead but yoy get the idea).
You seem to want Sharia Law.
Then allow porn to be legal for adults. Is it really worth it? Imprisoning 40% or more of the men in your nation over adult porn watching?
Sure yes ty
The autocrat can ban porn in the blink of an eye.
The autocrat can make sure the neonazis never ever can rise in a nation.
Wahooooohaaaaa baby
I thought you support democracy. The porn watchers must get their representation by your logic.
It was/is a votebomb. Ty
I eother lose anyway from a votebomb that intentionally avoided realisjg I used sources against Mikal in Round 3, or I lose with your vote on top. That means theres no real loss.
So yes. Mikal won devates on DDO by his friends votevombing him. He clearly knew Luna would do so.
Are you willing to vote please?
Conduct really?
This is nonsense.
I won imo
It could be true, however based on data you have on me you have concluded that and decided to disseminate that a wife beater with barely any morals who is known to abuse steroids and use any dirty trick in the book to brutalise opponents is a better person than I am.
Then you clearly prioritise superficial success or might is right mentality. By that definition everyone on here is either inferior to him as a person by your logic or they are hiding their success and prowess.
It was a genocide.
I did not ask what you say I asked.
I don't say this as any sort of racebait, I say as a genuine question:
Are the 2 Jewish mods are okay with Holocaust denial debates taking place?
Yes or no?
You banned it but allow for Mharman?
You are biased and enablers!
How is Mharman allowed to? Tell it!!!
Directly baiting users to debate permaban positions should itself be punishable.
This debtae is irrefutable bait.
What a conscience to glorify a man like that. Sociopathic wife beater...
Welcome to UFC.
I will post this near the deadline. Dont expect it posted until close to it. I won't forfeit.
I cannot be on a website with holocaust denial allowed on it.
So if that continues even for my mental health I need to quit instantly.
It is a legal threat to my wellbeing.
How many double standards and 2 tier moderating are you going to give popular users vs unpopular?
Stop it. Punish him exactly equally.
Hitler is not necessary to bring up in this topic.
Gandhi was not even close to an anarchist. He supported different rulership. He opposed Pakistan becoming Pakistan, he wanted to force them under Indian (predominantly Hindu) rule and the Gandhi descendants mistreated non Hindus especially the Sikhs.
Gandhi was actually a hardline Hindu Nationalist. He wanted to eventuallt make all Indians Hindu and bend to Hindu law. You do not quite know him enough it would seem.
See my reply to LucyStarfire. It is a reply to you.
Replace the later part with that you should realise as a Christian you have no right ever to judge if I go to Hell.
Ok sorry
Gandhi did not support freedom, he literally starved himself risking death and told others to never fight. Jesus had similar 'aura' that is arguable for sure, to Gandhi. However, they did differ on a lot.
Gandhis pacifism is hardline absolute, Christian pacifism is conditional and definitely is not there if self defense situations occur.
You are not a Christian, never were afaik and cannot meaningfully speak on this topic condemning me to Hell in any real sense beyond words typed (they have no impact,k
Yes wonderful when women of west go to Saudi in Ramadan they are so free.
Pro Forfeited, not me btw.
You have to say sources that won the sources thing and have to mention Pro's arguments too
Please vote if you have time.
If you show this debate on vids just dont make it into a big thing pls.
You have the username wrong btw. That is pierree not UC.
Its unrated and even if rated Id have debated it similarly.
I accept the loss now. Fauxlaw sealed it. Your vote imo is still insufficient but I guess it wouldn't get removed.
It is an L. I think people like democracy too much to comprehend its flaws.
Unblock pls
So where in the CoC does it say to delete 1 round debates or FF debates?
I was not tricking you, I was asking you does the same principles on which you remove FF debates not apply here. I still have not understood any difference.
Show me where I gaslit here?
How is this debate a y sifferent to a full FF debate or you wanting 1 round debates banned?
How did I concede?
It can work doesnt mean it is the best... How was that a concession?
If you have time in tbe next 2 days, please vote. Thanks
Umbrellacorp is using his own rebuttals amd arguments agianst my case and ignores that I myself address most of those arguments in later Rounds than Round 1.
A major example of this being unfair is the fact he takes for granted that Pro states that liberty comes with democracy.
I proved both that Democracy is not actually liberal and that liberalism can interfere with protecting against evil in a nation. He ignores all my rebittals to Pro and says I needed sources.
I was the only side that used sources.
If you are for it as it is junk in the server space, you must be for this too.
Idk why you are angry, snarky or any of it about this.
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards)."
The FF clause says if no arguments are made or if none are made after the first Round arguments are made in (even if that Round is Round 2 of more) that is FF.
Checkmate.
You used the word 'forfeit'.
Making 0 arguments is forfeiting.
What is a forfeit defined as in the CoC
Show me 1 word from either side that is a debate here
If you delete full FFs why don't you delete this too?
Couple of corrections to my.
own stuff:
I said founded.
The Founder of Orthodoxy and Catholicism is listed as Christ himself. My apologies.
Secondly its is Apostolic, not Apostolitic.
As for your Biblical ignorance, see here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020%3A21-23&version=NCB
Change it to whichever translation suits you and click the magnifying glass. That is New Catholic Bible translation.
As for what I said, it is so important to realise this:
First there was a Church
Then there was the Bible in the 300s.
The Bible was finalised and compiled by what became Catholicism and primarily Eastern Orthodoxy. Admittedly, Oriental Orthodox, Jews and others may have contributed to the Bible. Regardless we would regard the Jews as Messianic Jews and they would be moderm Christians rather than Jews perhaps if in this era.
There is no possible way to deny that the Bible you are reading does not for instance say Trinity. Also it doesn't have the Apostle's Creed. So as a protestant you are clinging to concepts from Catholicism to comprehend it.
St. Peter and the Apostles could forgive on God's behalf. Not at first while Christ was alive, it came later on that he appointed Peter as the head of the church. He already called Simon Peter his 'rock' while alive.
This is very very key to understand.
There was a Church first, the Bible came 300s as they finalised the Apstolitic teachings in the First Council of Nicaea (but for Eastern Orthodox it took 3 more Councils to finish their theories). Some of these peopleoved West afte the First Council amd founded what is now known as Catholicism.
The Catholics and Orthodox are stemming directly from the original Church. Protestants have no claim to it.
Those are Sect differences denomination is within a Sect.
St. Peter was the first Pope to Catholics and the first example of a Patriarch apostle or something, to the Eastern Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox (North African, not Chinese) have their own Pope. They are closer to Eastern Orthodox in dogma but have some Cath stuff they agree on tradition-wise. The Coptic Rite is arguably slightly closest to EO of the OO Rites. That is the one with the Pope.
Oh no are you an Irish Presbytarian?
I am a Catholic convert. Do you think I disagree?