I could certainly make a case involving the ambiguity of "the government." Seriously, how Americentric is it to assume that "the government" automatically refers to the US government?
It's a shame you didn't make rule 2 more explicit - the way it's currently written, the punishment for breaking it could either be the loss of the debate or the loss of a conduct point. Generally, in ambiguous cases, voters will err on the less harsh punishment.
For your first debate, you did excellently. I would advise you not to take every debate in sight you see - that's something I often see new users do. Instead, carefully evaluate the debate topic, and ask yourself: how winnable is this for me? Personally, I think no matter how well you argued, it would be very difficult to win this.
Thanks for challenging me. However, could you please change the "Time for Argument" to 2 weeks? I'll be gone for 1 week during Christmas, but the rest of my rounds will be very fast.
Alright, you can challenge me by clicking on my profile, and then clicking "challenge user to a debate." I'd prefer for the argument time to be 2 weeks, since I might be gone for 1 week during Christmas. Looking forward to a good debate.
Indeed - a well-explained and backed-up Kalam Cosmological Argument would have been far more effective. In particular, the last three contentions of PRO are on the weaker side.
Would you be willing to do a parallel 2-week debate on the same topic with me? I'm pretty busy right now, but I'd like to branch out to doing some religion/philosophy debates like this one.
Ok, I'm supposed to explain what the issue is with the vote I reported (jaay's vote).
First of all, he awarded arguments points in an act of fluffery. Nowhere in the debate was the concept of "objectivity" or "subjectivity" of truth directly mentioned. Therefore, awarding arguments based on this is incorrect.
Second of all, he awarded conduct points for no reason other than PRO having a provocative resolution.
That's fair - I was thinking more of some other common scenarios, e.g:
-You're walking alone on a dark night. Some drunk with a knife tries to mug you. In this situation, being aware of your surroundings is crucial - if you try and grapple, and his friend sneaks up behind you, then you're basically dead. Striking allows you to maintain situational awareness.
-Someone challenges you to a 1v1 fight. When things start to go bad for them, then their friend jumps in from the crowd to "help"- yes, it's cliche, but I'm sure it does happen quite often.
BTW, this link might be useful: it gives some interesting quantitative data on how street fights actually go.
IMO the resolution is broad enough to allow this kind of derailing - a random street fight could entail all sorts of factors affecting the effectiveness of striking vs grappling.
-Is your opponent armed?
-Is it a 1v1 all the way through?
-What is your own body build?
-How strong is your opponent compared to you?
-Are you looking to beat up or subdue your opponent? Is legality an issue?
-How far are you and your opponent willing to go?
In a straight, fair fight with rules, grappling should win most of the time. However, in a street fight, I feel striking is more consistent and lessens the risk of personal injury.
Why would you be mad at him? The only one being harmed by his forfeitures is himself - he could have won this debate by putting a single sentence mentioning BoP.
I agree - I think the best course of action would be to take them down quickly (with striking), then run for your life. In a protracted fight, you run the risk of bleeding out even if you win.
In that case, it opens up some interesting possibilities - per the definition of striking, "to hit or attack someone or something forcefully or violently." Does stabbing someone count as striking?
I was using "sabotage" in a sarcastic way, apologies if that wasn't clear. I'm merely pointing out that you could have worded your vote in a slightly better way - then again, it probably doesn't matter, since full forfeit votes aren't moderated.
I could certainly make a case involving the ambiguity of "the government." Seriously, how Americentric is it to assume that "the government" automatically refers to the US government?
Bump for a vote
I will probably vote on this later; at a glance, it looks like arguments to PRO and conduct to CON.
Good luck getting someone to accept a rigged resolution like this - "zero" is a ridiculously high burden of proof.
Objection, "orange" does not rhyme with "itself".
I'll vote on this later when I get time
It's a shame you didn't make rule 2 more explicit - the way it's currently written, the punishment for breaking it could either be the loss of the debate or the loss of a conduct point. Generally, in ambiguous cases, voters will err on the less harsh punishment.
I guess I should have just accepted the debate xD - well it's too late now.
If you can't, that's fine - I might still take the debate, depending on how much I care about my rating.
I'd take the debate, but could you increase the argument time to 1 week? Otherwise I'd have to forfeit 3 rounds in the middle of the debate.
You gotta be a little bit less blatant with the trolling - it's too obvious rn.
Check your PM's, I sent you a message
Ok budget Korea
That's ironic coming from you.
see my comment in that debate
You know what, we're really derailing the thread. Take it to PM's if you want to talk.
The burden of proof is on you to prove it would be a mistake.
Wow, you're so original. Not like I haven't heard that one a hundred times.
The way, I see it, I have three choices:
-Vote for a frequently banned guy with no campaign promises
-Vote for an active user with a clear platform
Or...
-Convince people to vote for RM.
Yeah, I think I know what I'm going to do. Time to create a campaign thread for RM and convince all the newbies not to vote for you.
The site only lets me vote against you if you participated in the election, but just know that mentally I docked you one invisible vote
I wasn't even part of the debate? Lol
It's a real shame that I miss all this low-hanging fruit while I'm asleep...
I believe you gave a spelling and grammar point to the wrong guy - PRO is the one using German.
Bump, 50% forfeit
For your first debate, you did excellently. I would advise you not to take every debate in sight you see - that's something I often see new users do. Instead, carefully evaluate the debate topic, and ask yourself: how winnable is this for me? Personally, I think no matter how well you argued, it would be very difficult to win this.
Thanks for the votes!
Bump, 50% forfeit
You too!
Thanks for challenging me. However, could you please change the "Time for Argument" to 2 weeks? I'll be gone for 1 week during Christmas, but the rest of my rounds will be very fast.
Alright, you can challenge me by clicking on my profile, and then clicking "challenge user to a debate." I'd prefer for the argument time to be 2 weeks, since I might be gone for 1 week during Christmas. Looking forward to a good debate.
Do you want to do a debate on the same topic? It's something I'm interested in discussing.
On the contrary, what makes you think that? Their description is basically their opening argument, and I see no glaring problems with it.
Alright, thank you for the advice. I'll do that in the future.
Indeed - a well-explained and backed-up Kalam Cosmological Argument would have been far more effective. In particular, the last three contentions of PRO are on the weaker side.
Would you be willing to do a parallel 2-week debate on the same topic with me? I'm pretty busy right now, but I'd like to branch out to doing some religion/philosophy debates like this one.
Ok, I'm supposed to explain what the issue is with the vote I reported (jaay's vote).
First of all, he awarded arguments points in an act of fluffery. Nowhere in the debate was the concept of "objectivity" or "subjectivity" of truth directly mentioned. Therefore, awarding arguments based on this is incorrect.
Second of all, he awarded conduct points for no reason other than PRO having a provocative resolution.
That's fair - I was thinking more of some other common scenarios, e.g:
-You're walking alone on a dark night. Some drunk with a knife tries to mug you. In this situation, being aware of your surroundings is crucial - if you try and grapple, and his friend sneaks up behind you, then you're basically dead. Striking allows you to maintain situational awareness.
-Someone challenges you to a 1v1 fight. When things start to go bad for them, then their friend jumps in from the crowd to "help"- yes, it's cliche, but I'm sure it does happen quite often.
BTW, this link might be useful: it gives some interesting quantitative data on how street fights actually go.
https://www.highpercentagemartialarts.com/blog/2019/3/6/how-long-do-street-fights-actually-last-and-what-can-we-learn-from-that
IMO the resolution is broad enough to allow this kind of derailing - a random street fight could entail all sorts of factors affecting the effectiveness of striking vs grappling.
-Is your opponent armed?
-Is it a 1v1 all the way through?
-What is your own body build?
-How strong is your opponent compared to you?
-Are you looking to beat up or subdue your opponent? Is legality an issue?
-How far are you and your opponent willing to go?
In a straight, fair fight with rules, grappling should win most of the time. However, in a street fight, I feel striking is more consistent and lessens the risk of personal injury.
Does this debate deal with socialism in a theoretical or practical context?
I predict much of this debate is going to come down to semantics over the "1v1" part of the resolution.
Care to add a vote? Thx in advance.
Is this the record for most reported votes in one debate?
One of these days, I might do an unrated troll debate to see whether I can annoy people both on the left and right.
This debate is literally killing my braincells
Why would you be mad at him? The only one being harmed by his forfeitures is himself - he could have won this debate by putting a single sentence mentioning BoP.
I agree - I think the best course of action would be to take them down quickly (with striking), then run for your life. In a protracted fight, you run the risk of bleeding out even if you win.
In that case, it opens up some interesting possibilities - per the definition of striking, "to hit or attack someone or something forcefully or violently." Does stabbing someone count as striking?
A fair vote would be appreciated - thx in advance.
And Novice is the Caruana - forever overshadowed?
I was using "sabotage" in a sarcastic way, apologies if that wasn't clear. I'm merely pointing out that you could have worded your vote in a slightly better way - then again, it probably doesn't matter, since full forfeit votes aren't moderated.