Your opponent could just say that it would be only enforced in rich private schools, negating most of your arguments. I suggest saying a specific school system, or a location.
The reason why you lose is mostly by the resolution. You have to meticulously define the resolution, and word it so that no obvious flaws are there. Or else people like oromagi and Intelligence will ruthlessly kritik the resolution.
seldiora always makes debates like this, but always loses. The problem lies in his resolution. Instead of putting probably lose, he put will lose. Which means seldiora must prove that you will CERTAINLY lose the debate.
This point remains relevant through all of these types of debates: Pro's Argument is that he is better, and Con's argument is that it is less probable to lose than it is to win or tie, and that you can not say for certain the outcome of any debates.
Money is not real. The value of money is simply just a reward in our mind. That is why the value of foreign currency is hard to understand without transferring it into native or local currency.
Merit on the other hand is you. It is part of who you are as a being. Those who value merit over money believe in the true nature of us as human beings. Those who value money on the other hand value the societal nature, or the modern nature we have adopted to. This modern nature includes complex parts of thinking, ideas which have melded into effective government systems, rewards, and scientific advancements.
Yeah. Well money and wealth builds merit, and merit enhances that wealth. Essentially, once you have enough money, your merit builds the wealth, and not your actual money. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but this is what I believe.
"I will waive the first round and my opponent the last. Upon acceptation, my opponent agrees to the terms above. Upon voting, voters agree to accept the terms above regarding losses."
Yeah I think I did. Perhaps you are reading the short description?
Argument: Pro argued that stay-at-home was not the same thing as social distancing, then applied the rest of his argument, and sourcing, applying social distancing as the bar against which to measure, thereby undermining his own argument. Con argued that extended stay-at-home would collapse the economy; a far more valid argument.
A pandemic ends when, as stated by the New York Times, the disease is eradicated or when “people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease”. Essentially, it is either ended by medical data or sociopolitical processes.
Vote
Seems interesting
bump
If you guys feel so strongly about this topic, I plead you not to vote on this debate.
Say Overall, Music has Gotten Worse over the Last 50 years
Vote
Vote
Oh wait I messed up
The best debater is the one who beats all others in one word. 30,000 is just so people who like long arguments have no boundaries.
Yes I realize that, but you can also realize that every single person can do that. I'm trusting you guys enough to not copy each other's arguments.
My god. I agree with Chris. This argument is amazing.
bump
bump
Good Luck!
Good Luck!
I've done an immense school debate on this one. I've though it out for three months. But I was on the Pro side.
Your opponent could just say that it would be only enforced in rich private schools, negating most of your arguments. I suggest saying a specific school system, or a location.
Basically what I said in this vote, but edited a little less.
Enforced where? The public school system of where?
Enforced where? The public school system of where?
The reason why you lose is mostly by the resolution. You have to meticulously define the resolution, and word it so that no obvious flaws are there. Or else people like oromagi and Intelligence will ruthlessly kritik the resolution.
seldiora always makes debates like this, but always loses. The problem lies in his resolution. Instead of putting probably lose, he put will lose. Which means seldiora must prove that you will CERTAINLY lose the debate.
This point remains relevant through all of these types of debates: Pro's Argument is that he is better, and Con's argument is that it is less probable to lose than it is to win or tie, and that you can not say for certain the outcome of any debates.
Cheap points, but valid ones.
Money is not real. The value of money is simply just a reward in our mind. That is why the value of foreign currency is hard to understand without transferring it into native or local currency.
Merit on the other hand is you. It is part of who you are as a being. Those who value merit over money believe in the true nature of us as human beings. Those who value money on the other hand value the societal nature, or the modern nature we have adopted to. This modern nature includes complex parts of thinking, ideas which have melded into effective government systems, rewards, and scientific advancements.
Yeah. Well money and wealth builds merit, and merit enhances that wealth. Essentially, once you have enough money, your merit builds the wealth, and not your actual money. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but this is what I believe.
You basically checkmated him. Then again, this debate is super easy to win as pro.
No. I will win the debate.
Forfeiting three times merits a loss
bruh
Animal abuse.
Ok.
Thanks, I'll use that.
"I will waive the first round and my opponent the last. Upon acceptation, my opponent agrees to the terms above. Upon voting, voters agree to accept the terms above regarding losses."
Yeah I think I did. Perhaps you are reading the short description?
Yeah I know. but i fixed it.
I disagree. Waiving is a perfectly fine way to have your opponent have the first word, and you have the last. As with EricT, he was being an idiot.
yes but they aren't the same. It has been proven again by a scholarly source. So I don' think my entire argument is invalid just because of that.
Oh, btw quarantine and stay-at-home orders are different things.
https://forrestfirm.com/blog/stay-at-home-or-shelter-in-place-orders-are-not-the-same-thing-as-quarantine/
Argument: Pro argued that stay-at-home was not the same thing as social distancing, then applied the rest of his argument, and sourcing, applying social distancing as the bar against which to measure, thereby undermining his own argument. Con argued that extended stay-at-home would collapse the economy; a far more valid argument.
Can you please explain what this means? Thanks!
Nah it is.
Ok thanks.
Nah. All croc talks about is China.
Okay
https://images3.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED382/5c0383f5d5257.jpeg
He's actually pretty good if he tries.
Ok. Thanks.
What does ibid mean?
obvi
A very good plan, I see no flaws.
Whatever you say, mate.
Taken from my pre-written debate:
A pandemic ends when, as stated by the New York Times, the disease is eradicated or when “people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease”. Essentially, it is either ended by medical data or sociopolitical processes.