15k is ideal imo - whenever I do 10k debates, I always feel like a few hundred words would be nice to close things out. It also gives you room to quote your opponent's arguments, and do proper citations (with full links and author attributions).
Yea, obviously I'll put smth in the fourth round about mental illnesses or the like - I technically don't need to, but some voters tend to assume the bop is shared.
We could finish this debate, then you could challenge me to a topic with different parameters. Unfortunately, mods can't edit debates that are already started iirc.
P1: White privilege exists. (conceded)
P2: White privilege has a negative impact on some people. (truism)
P3: If something has a negative impact on some people, it is a problem for some people. (truism)
C1: White privilege has a negative impact on some people. (logic)
C2: White privilege is a problem for some people. (definition of "problem")
C3: White privilege is a problem for a significant population of the USA. (Blacks make up 13.6% of US population)
C4: White privilege is a problem in the USA. (logic)
Your argument really doesn't make sense - you're saying that because whites and Blacks are officially granted equal rights under the law, then white privilege doesn't exist - ignoring the system inequalities in the ways Blacks are treated.
Prime facie, if something exists and affects people, it is either good or bad. Since white privilege exists and affects people, it is either good or bad - and you have to argue for the former.
"Plagiarism is passing off the intellectual property of another as your own. Plagiarism poisons the very spirit of debate. Plagiarism is such an extreme offense, that even if identified outside the debate it may be voted with prejudice against the offender in all categories. While there exist minor cases that do not necessitate such grave sanctions, the determination of the degree of it generally rests with each voter." (From DART's official Voting Policy)
If you keep arguing that plagiarism should be ignored, then I will vote against you on all four points - as I have the right to, as enumerated in the voting policy quoted above.
No offense, but that's one of the most jank arguments I've seen in a while. If you are willing to defend your topic, then send me a challenge with the same resolution.
I have to disagree there. Wylted mentioned that, "During these times you know I'm not fully manic so I'm not mad or crazy at the time." This is a typical description of hypomania by people who experience it - feeling excited and energetic, but not completely out of control.
Well, it depends on your definition of fallacy. I was always taught that it was an "error in reasoning."
Yea, I figured.
This is the first time I've seen fallacies number in the triple digits...?
15k is ideal imo - whenever I do 10k debates, I always feel like a few hundred words would be nice to close things out. It also gives you room to quote your opponent's arguments, and do proper citations (with full links and author attributions).
I just realized that rule 1 doesn't explicitly ban Kritiks. :thinking
Or - hear me out - you could set a higher character limit?
FYI don't even try it, because I have an archive of hundreds of your posts from here and DDO.
You may be a weird guy, but I appreciate your consistency.
Yea, obviously I'll put smth in the fourth round about mental illnesses or the like - I technically don't need to, but some voters tend to assume the bop is shared.
I consider myself an efficient lazy person.
Perhaps.
We could finish this debate, then you could challenge me to a topic with different parameters. Unfortunately, mods can't edit debates that are already started iirc.
I would assure you that Barney knows his stuff.
I would be willing to do the same debate with more rounds, if my opponent wishes so.
Sometimes you almost seem normal for a few days, then you go and post something like this. Like WTF was that argument
Since you claimed you could beat Barney, I will assume that you're the better debater. Therefore, I will copiously use the letter F.
For the record, I think you have a great knowledge base in these topics - just remember that the resolution is half of the debate.
I am very curious to see what strategy you're going for here.
Currently about halfway through the vote. Weighting the arguments is pretty tricky.
I literally can't understand either of the arguments without doing some research to find out basic context.
I'll vote on this tomorrow - since I don't know much about boxing, I have to do research in order to understand the arguments in context.
I'll take a look at it tonight.
Thanks for the vote. If you ever need a fair vote for a debate, don't hesitate to tag me.
Looking forward to your vote.
Thx! Don't feel any pressure to do it if you're short on time.
Still planning on voting?
I'm not going to penalize you S/G points - I'm just saying that as a voter, it makes it harder to weigh impacts of individual arguments.
Please organize your arguments... it's genuinely painful for me as a voter.
Well, I suppose there is certainly some elegance in your "nothing exists outside of the text" approach.
Can't tell if that's sarcasm or not
He doesn't have to address my arguments - it's hardly a formal attack. Nevertheless, I get your point, so I'll stop now.
That's your opinion then. If you're willing to back it up, challenge me to a debate with the same resolution, whenever you're ready.
Are the comments not for discussing a debate? If I see a silly argument, I point it out - it's a debate site.
P1: White privilege exists. (conceded)
P2: White privilege has a negative impact on some people. (truism)
P3: If something has a negative impact on some people, it is a problem for some people. (truism)
C1: White privilege has a negative impact on some people. (logic)
C2: White privilege is a problem for some people. (definition of "problem")
C3: White privilege is a problem for a significant population of the USA. (Blacks make up 13.6% of US population)
C4: White privilege is a problem in the USA. (logic)
Your argument really doesn't make sense - you're saying that because whites and Blacks are officially granted equal rights under the law, then white privilege doesn't exist - ignoring the system inequalities in the ways Blacks are treated.
So you're arguing that white privilege is good?
Prime facie, if something exists and affects people, it is either good or bad. Since white privilege exists and affects people, it is either good or bad - and you have to argue for the former.
Bump, full forfeit
Well, fair enough then. I obviously won't vote solely based on plagiarism, but I probably will give the first round (of five) to RM.
Off to an auspicious start as president - using your authority to stop votes against you.
"Plagiarism is passing off the intellectual property of another as your own. Plagiarism poisons the very spirit of debate. Plagiarism is such an extreme offense, that even if identified outside the debate it may be voted with prejudice against the offender in all categories. While there exist minor cases that do not necessitate such grave sanctions, the determination of the degree of it generally rests with each voter." (From DART's official Voting Policy)
If you keep arguing that plagiarism should be ignored, then I will vote against you on all four points - as I have the right to, as enumerated in the voting policy quoted above.
Nothing personal.
No offense, but that's one of the most jank arguments I've seen in a while. If you are willing to defend your topic, then send me a challenge with the same resolution.
"No. A tadpole is a tadpole."
Tadpoles are just baby frogs - I don't see how anyone can object to that.
Ngl, your plagiarism isn't exactly inspiring me to vote for you.
But a tadpole is a frog...
Agreed. Under common usage of "essential," this debate is a truism. I could Kritik it, but that would be pretty difficult with only 5000 chars.
Why that link -_-
Alr.
Hypomania followed by long periods of severe depression is a classic presentation of Type 2 Bipolar, AFAIK.
I have to disagree there. Wylted mentioned that, "During these times you know I'm not fully manic so I'm not mad or crazy at the time." This is a typical description of hypomania by people who experience it - feeling excited and energetic, but not completely out of control.
Bump, full forfeit
BTW the correct term is actually "hypomanic." It refers to a milder form of mania.