Cut the crap. You're just using the blitzkrieg strategy against me. Bombarding me with huge loads of arguments and cherry picking too just hoping so that I miss out one or two argument and don't counter attack those. Because arguments not counter attacked by opponents are considered valid by voters and mods. But your little strategy isn't going to work against me
After looking at your argument, I must admit that your argument is not at all catchy. It is some gibberish you copy pasted from some science website,wikipedia or ai. And it's all false. Richat structure IS NOT Atlantis. Why is this even an argument? For the sake of the debate I'll argue back I guess
I can ofcourse list my sources. But opponent didn't list his so I didn't either. If you think our claims are fake you can search it up yourself. Please vote cuz ratman is gay
The voting is unfair. Ratman hates me so obviously he will vote my opponent nevertheless . His reason for voting is absurd. And plus I cannot mention him because he blocked me. Either play it fair or don't play at all. I don't like this type of bs
Grades are important. It tells us how much we need improvement or have already improved in a particular subject. However, what you argue is that grades aren't important because you hate studying. That just means you just hate the way of teaching in school which I hate too. An interactive school where we are actually taught lessons which we will need in life would be much better.
Kissing on the lips should not be illegal BECAUSE it harms the person's right to privacy and right to body. Kissing on the lips is generally a romantic gesture and romance comes under right to privacy which means the court has nothing to do with the person's choice of kissing another person with consent in private.
You contradict yourself lil bro. You say that the border of wetness begins from individual water molecules, but all the molecules itself make up water. You cannot drop a single molecule of water on paper and expect paper to be wet, because wetness is a macroscopic concept and it needs a huge lot of molecules to make something wet. I said that wet means something saturated with water, and water itself cannot be saturated with water, like fire cannot itself burn itself. Fire burns something else, not itself. Same for water.
WATER IS NOT WET. I don't know what the con is smoking but it must be some good stuff, cuz even a three year old can make better arguments than him. I have made a seemingly better argument than Con.
By definition, wet means "something" covered or saturated with liquid. However, water itself is the liquid. It cannot be "covered" by another liquid. It is impossible. Water can only make things wet. But it cannot BECOME wet, physically. Pro has stated that Water isn't dry so it has to be wet because opposite of dry is wet. Ofcourse water isn't dry because liquids cannot be dry. However, it isn't so simple as said. Just because wet is the antonym of dry doesn't mean water is "wet" because it isn't dry. Pro's argument does not fit the actual definition of "wet". I believe that water is neither wet nor dry. It is the medium to make things "wet" but it is not wet itself.
This debate has no hope. My opponent is friends with mods so obviously he will get votes nevertheless without any valid reason. Shitty website tbh.
Cut the crap. You're just using the blitzkrieg strategy against me. Bombarding me with huge loads of arguments and cherry picking too just hoping so that I miss out one or two argument and don't counter attack those. Because arguments not counter attacked by opponents are considered valid by voters and mods. But your little strategy isn't going to work against me
After looking at your argument, I must admit that your argument is not at all catchy. It is some gibberish you copy pasted from some science website,wikipedia or ai. And it's all false. Richat structure IS NOT Atlantis. Why is this even an argument? For the sake of the debate I'll argue back I guess
Sorry I couldn't state my argument in time I think pro should win too. Sorry again.
I can ofcourse list my sources. But opponent didn't list his so I didn't either. If you think our claims are fake you can search it up yourself. Please vote cuz ratman is gay
The voting is unfair. Ratman hates me so obviously he will vote my opponent nevertheless . His reason for voting is absurd. And plus I cannot mention him because he blocked me. Either play it fair or don't play at all. I don't like this type of bs
I like a good opponent
Best of luck to you mate. Never lost an argument once in my life
What would u do if I sold you fetanyl
Can I ask you a question please :3
Grades are important. It tells us how much we need improvement or have already improved in a particular subject. However, what you argue is that grades aren't important because you hate studying. That just means you just hate the way of teaching in school which I hate too. An interactive school where we are actually taught lessons which we will need in life would be much better.
Kissing on the lips should not be illegal BECAUSE it harms the person's right to privacy and right to body. Kissing on the lips is generally a romantic gesture and romance comes under right to privacy which means the court has nothing to do with the person's choice of kissing another person with consent in private.
No because I want to kiss you on lip
Clearly I have a lot more experience about wetting things than you. If you don't believe me ask your mom
You contradict yourself lil bro. You say that the border of wetness begins from individual water molecules, but all the molecules itself make up water. You cannot drop a single molecule of water on paper and expect paper to be wet, because wetness is a macroscopic concept and it needs a huge lot of molecules to make something wet. I said that wet means something saturated with water, and water itself cannot be saturated with water, like fire cannot itself burn itself. Fire burns something else, not itself. Same for water.
Oil up lil bro.
Water isn't wet cuz water isn't in oil which u need to oil up womp womp
Tbh I could make a better opponent I have a better argument as a Con but eh who's gonna read allat anyway my essay is pretty big
LOL UR OPPONENT FORFEITED XDDD TF
WATER IS NOT WET. I don't know what the con is smoking but it must be some good stuff, cuz even a three year old can make better arguments than him. I have made a seemingly better argument than Con.
By definition, wet means "something" covered or saturated with liquid. However, water itself is the liquid. It cannot be "covered" by another liquid. It is impossible. Water can only make things wet. But it cannot BECOME wet, physically. Pro has stated that Water isn't dry so it has to be wet because opposite of dry is wet. Ofcourse water isn't dry because liquids cannot be dry. However, it isn't so simple as said. Just because wet is the antonym of dry doesn't mean water is "wet" because it isn't dry. Pro's argument does not fit the actual definition of "wet". I believe that water is neither wet nor dry. It is the medium to make things "wet" but it is not wet itself.