"the status quo is that Taiwanese people are losing confidence due to a lack of organization of the current government."
I don't think they are losing confidence in the government, rather, they are just weary of the PRC and the US's relationship souring. Taiwan is probably going to be a focal point of a lot of future modern conflicts, and I don't think Taiwanese people want so much "military attention." I think the status quo of Taiwan being completely independent from both the PRC and the US should stay, as that is the most peaceful option.
The ROC is recognized by a few nations, and customary international law dictates that recognition has little to no effect on a territory's/state's sovereignty.
ur argument is confusing bc it is unclear which state u mean when u reference "China"
If u mean that China is the PRC, ur explantion of history is off, because the PRC did not exist b4 the resolution of WW2. Your argument that China is the rightful also falls flat, because the PRC has never, in a single point in history, controlled the island of Taiwan.
You are conflating the PRC with the ROC. They are not the same entity.
Taiwan is an island, it isn't a state. "Taiwan wanted to become independent" is completely false. After WW2, Taiwan was ALWAYS under the de-facto rule of the ROC. Taiwan never "wanted to become independent" after WW2 (we can get into Taiwanese independence movements later, but the ROC as a country never declared anything like that).
You said: "Taiwan decided to leave China a few decades ago, but China never approved." This is false and is based on nothing. Again, no country of Taiwan ever "decided to leave China" after WW2.
The problem is that news reports often exhibit bias that paints sources as saying something they aren't, unlike Wikipedia. I won't be voting on this debate because im probably the most biased against China (liberal taiwanese-american bru), so u dont need to worry about my bias in the voting section.
Non-Chinese doesn't mean reliable, just as Chinese doesn't mean not reliable. Most of your validation of sourcing is based on if a source is Chinese or not. For example, you validate the Gray Zone as reliable despite being a known far-left source > "Overall, we rate The Grayzone Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and consistent one-sided reporting. [...] In general, The Grayzone promotes a socialist left perspective that promotes conspiracy theories and pro-Russian/Chinese propaganda." - MBFC.
I agree that his claim is misleading... the source doesn't necessarily agree with his claim. The source clearly states that the calculation is being debated, but the general observation is that a person needs 5-10 acres to sustain themselves. It literally says, "The General Consensus is 5-10 acres to be self-sufficient."
I think you should change the resolution to: The Religion of Islam Does Not Oppress Women, as I think that is what you are trying to convey. Right now, you could argue that women who are Islamic are being oppressed (not necessarily because of their religion), which is a truism.
If ur still online, in this case, what does CON need to prove? Do they need to prove that men need to pee standing up, or do they just need to disprove that men should sit down?
You clearly have to specify what the other person has to do, if you want them to prove that they are standing up... then say that in the rules. The default is just disproving your resolution. You can't just assume they're going to prove what you want them to prove.
Anyway, if you're leaving than I don't see why you need to care all that much, but report it if you want to. I've gotten a complaint on the vote from RM alr so if u rlly believe its a bad vote just report it.
No, you didn't define Taiwan as that. See, Taiwan is also a short name for the ROC (from Croc's thing). So essentially Taiwan rules over Taiwan. What you should've done is say: "Taiwan: http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/taiwan-map.jpg". Otherwise, Croc would be perfectly fine saying that Taiwan is the ROC or the government, not the island, because you didn't actually define Taiwan, rather you said that there is a piece of land called Taiwan.
CON had to agree with those definitions when accepting the debate. But PRO's definitions didn't define "systemic racism" they defined "systemic" and "racism."
"the status quo is that Taiwanese people are losing confidence due to a lack of organization of the current government."
I don't think they are losing confidence in the government, rather, they are just weary of the PRC and the US's relationship souring. Taiwan is probably going to be a focal point of a lot of future modern conflicts, and I don't think Taiwanese people want so much "military attention." I think the status quo of Taiwan being completely independent from both the PRC and the US should stay, as that is the most peaceful option.
I would imagine that chatbots that mimic GPT-3 either just call OpenAI's API or just fine-tune GPT or another generative model.
i just established that UN recognition didnt mean anything in regards to defining a state
the matter is that u just said the PRC had the right to invade the ROC, another sovereign state.
"China has ruled Taiwan for centuries. Taiwan decided to leave China a few decades ago, but China never approved." also:
Again, the PRC has never ruled over Taiwan. The ROC was given de-facto control of Taiwan after WW2.
"I believe that China has the right to reclaim or annex Taiwan."
How would china have the right to annex another state? would u also agree that Russia had the right to annex Ukraine?
The ROC is recognized by a few nations, and customary international law dictates that recognition has little to no effect on a territory's/state's sovereignty.
ur argument is confusing bc it is unclear which state u mean when u reference "China"
If u mean that China is the PRC, ur explantion of history is off, because the PRC did not exist b4 the resolution of WW2. Your argument that China is the rightful also falls flat, because the PRC has never, in a single point in history, controlled the island of Taiwan.
You are conflating the PRC with the ROC. They are not the same entity.
Taiwan is an island, it isn't a state. "Taiwan wanted to become independent" is completely false. After WW2, Taiwan was ALWAYS under the de-facto rule of the ROC. Taiwan never "wanted to become independent" after WW2 (we can get into Taiwanese independence movements later, but the ROC as a country never declared anything like that).
You said: "Taiwan decided to leave China a few decades ago, but China never approved." This is false and is based on nothing. Again, no country of Taiwan ever "decided to leave China" after WW2.
"China has ruled Taiwan for centuries. Taiwan decided to leave China a few decades ago, but China never approved."
???????
did u even bother researching the topic yet
nah its fine, looking forward to a free win now
good game
damn thats a lot of rules
what does this mean? what are u going to debate?
The problem is that news reports often exhibit bias that paints sources as saying something they aren't, unlike Wikipedia. I won't be voting on this debate because im probably the most biased against China (liberal taiwanese-american bru), so u dont need to worry about my bias in the voting section.
Non-Chinese doesn't mean reliable, just as Chinese doesn't mean not reliable. Most of your validation of sourcing is based on if a source is Chinese or not. For example, you validate the Gray Zone as reliable despite being a known far-left source > "Overall, we rate The Grayzone Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and consistent one-sided reporting. [...] In general, The Grayzone promotes a socialist left perspective that promotes conspiracy theories and pro-Russian/Chinese propaganda." - MBFC.
How so?
I have no clue how I didn't see that second sentence. That's my bad.
I agree that his claim is misleading... the source doesn't necessarily agree with his claim. The source clearly states that the calculation is being debated, but the general observation is that a person needs 5-10 acres to sustain themselves. It literally says, "The General Consensus is 5-10 acres to be self-sufficient."
They provide the link in their case.
im prolly gonna lose my winstreak but carpe diem :)
Up to our discretion
Hi, it doesn't seem that anyone is really interested in this debate (with the parameters I set) besides you. I'd be happy to debate u on this topic :)
Could you close this debate/delete it? The contender got banned.
Looking forward to seeing your argument!
Damn, looks like somebody already accepted.
bump
I think you should change the resolution to: The Religion of Islam Does Not Oppress Women, as I think that is what you are trying to convey. Right now, you could argue that women who are Islamic are being oppressed (not necessarily because of their religion), which is a truism.
bump
Ah, ok.
Three days would be a bit tough for me to fulfill, would you accept a week?
@RM
Just by glancing at it, I think it's obvious that u won on conduct, and I believe u also won on arguments
@RM
Just by glancing at it, I think it's obvious that u won on conduct, and I believe u also won on arguments
what
Cool, I enjoyed it too.
I don't wanna spam the comment thread, so do u just want to talk in dms and reach a conclusion?
If ur still online, in this case, what does CON need to prove? Do they need to prove that men need to pee standing up, or do they just need to disprove that men should sit down?
You clearly have to specify what the other person has to do, if you want them to prove that they are standing up... then say that in the rules. The default is just disproving your resolution. You can't just assume they're going to prove what you want them to prove.
Anyway, if you're leaving than I don't see why you need to care all that much, but report it if you want to. I've gotten a complaint on the vote from RM alr so if u rlly believe its a bad vote just report it.
I'll look at it, but I'm pretty busy rn
LMAO
this debate was hard for PRO to win any way bc of his resolution
he should have specified the BOP more in the rules
@RationalMadman
no that would be considered a kritik, and applied in this case, its against the rules provided by Incel_chud. that's the way i understand it.
@RationalMadman
Cant ping but in my debates, it was always referenced as all.
For example, when you say Black Lives Matter, it means all black lives matter, not some black lives matter, or most black lives matter.
I've voted.
No, you didn't define Taiwan as that. See, Taiwan is also a short name for the ROC (from Croc's thing). So essentially Taiwan rules over Taiwan. What you should've done is say: "Taiwan: http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/taiwan-map.jpg". Otherwise, Croc would be perfectly fine saying that Taiwan is the ROC or the government, not the island, because you didn't actually define Taiwan, rather you said that there is a piece of land called Taiwan.
bruh this was very winnable by you, if you had just said Taiwan ain't a nation, it's an island.
hell yeah
Nah, this is so easily semantically kritiked.
CON had to agree with those definitions when accepting the debate. But PRO's definitions didn't define "systemic racism" they defined "systemic" and "racism."
This causes problems throughout the debate.
fauxlaw provided definitions, but those definitions split the phrase into two words.
@RationalMadman
Do you normally forfeit R1's just because you want a challenge, or you just forget about it?
Nah I was just clarifying that systemic racism means the entire system, to voters that didn't know that.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/systemic-racism