Bella3sp

Why was I mentioned like four different times? All I read was "go fck yourself", and to that I will say, is something you wish you could do.

Bitchless even when it comes to men? Sorry about that.
Also, ramdan? Looks like your "self-restriction" is over with, not even fully finished and you're already edging.

Not going much further with this, thanks for your unwanted opinion.

If I directly mentioned you in that comment, it was made for you.

It's almost as if it was clear?

If i'm going in partly blindfolded, and ignored, no, I don't want another debate at all.

I don't need to stress definitions, judges witnessed (or would have) in the case I laid them out in the very beginning.

There is no need to continue debating definitions, when in reality, I succeeded on my part of the definitions. Judges know exactly (or would have) the definitions, and they go off of them. The difference is none when my opponent chooses to either ignore them, or not contend them properly. I pushed my defintions as much as needed.

I already explained my reason, and being honest, I went into this partly blindfolded. Keep in mind, I recommended none of these judges at all. The only special case was DavidAZ when the other possible judge decided quit the website, but we accepted him at late timing.

(And just in case it wasn't known, most judges picked here either voted for him or voted for a tie on his previous debate similarly.. It was clear how he tried weighing it against me).

I don't if I would use the term "gaslight". It's not as if I was completely unaware.

I didn't continue the debate because I was busy, and just wasn't wanting to put effort into something a self-centered cocky bastard was telling me.

I spent practically hours arguing with him, behind the scenes, for absolutely nothing.

Con, one hundred percent lost this, in my eyes. He admitted to my points, and nothing changed. Hence in my rounds, I discussed that cons arrogance was uncalled for completely. Voting for him once doesn't make it the same. Who cares if he won the last debate he was in, do I look like Sir.Lancelot?

Appreciate it, but to be honest, I don't have to take a physical win on this website. Either I know I truly lost, or I truly won.

Thanks for the vote.

If you wouldn't mind, can you make the document public? That way I can read your vote.

Many grammar and spelling mistakes, but oh well, sorry about that.

I'm always procrastinating, haha.

Not fully just biologically.

Take a look, though, it is a rushed and late response.

That being said, now that you've actually seen my position... Do you still want a go?

My description explains it all in detail.

I saw this challenge, and it looked fun. I want to see the loopholes people will use for this debate. The creator of the previous debate that I was referencing, actually accepted this debate. Giving them a good chance for describing in detail their position once more.

Give me an example when you say, "clarify your position". I'm more than willing to change the title of this debate if you're wanting a chance at it.

I see your point, and you're almost there.

I am prepared for a few setbacks in mind, and I am actually not going for the full idea you're thinking.
Pay attention in this debate, and you'll find out what I mean. I'm not fully going for a strawman. That's an incomplete response.

Currently, I want it unrated. It gives everyone a chance to take a part in this debate, novice or experienced member of this website.
Not only, but it gets people out of their box. What do you have to lose, besides your own confidence?

I can't even mention you RationalMadMan, whatever the case, my description says it all.

I'm looking for something a little more creative. I don't mind at all if I "lose" or "win".

I wasn't even going to get into that part at first, I've seen loopholes to that suggestion. I'm curious how people might try and spin it.

Always someone defending this topic, not sure why.

Possibly defending gromming all together? Haha.. It's a great topic to dicuss but borderline he was attracted to Aisha, sexually and (mentally).

Im suprised the "work around" of this argument hasn't been argued.

Debating? I'm not debating with you. You asked for informative reasoning, I gave it.

I did not play dirty. No matter what I said would it have changed that we agreed to a mutual tie.
I wrote that in this debate, because you seem to be gloating and surrounding the fact "yeah, give up this debate because you would've lost with only one voter".

You took it into terms of being a bias voter, and if I wouldn't have agreed, it's sad you'd need a specific voter in order to win.

Addressing being online - I didn't participate, I simply get emails regarding DebateArt and I check out my notifications every once and awhile.
It said I was forfeiting rounds, and I was quite sure I finished all my debates. I checked it out, then I happened to see your "arguments" and decided to comment on it.

That's it, I'm done. I don't care what is in your next "argument". I want to leave it here, and that's what you wanted as well.

Thanks.

Guess it's my turn to report.

#1 vote seems like an obvious removal to me.

Whoops. My bad... I'll do it next round.

Change to three days?

My bad, i've been more inactive on this website.

If you want.

This is a bit broad. Would they need a high result on the IQ test? Psychological tests are exactly what?

Are you arguing in general terms and average terms?

I was going to wait, in case of a quick vote bomb and a necessary vote.

However, looks like there's no longer a reason for that. But sure, credits are credits.

Reading now and hopefully voting by tomorrow.

I would assume that pro is aruging that the new form of democracy he suggests should happen, con disagrees and argues against that.

Change the resolution and I'll consider.

Already discussed this with Mall.

But the topic is: Standardized testing should not be abolished.

Basically..
Pro: Standarized testing should not be abolished.
Con: Standardarized testing should be abolished.

It's rushed.

But yes, I did include your link.

My bad for the forfiet, got busy.

Alright, done.

I'll probably vote in a few hours.

But if I don't, if you can, remind me if it gets close to the voting period ending.

I doubt guys will get to it because of voting period is ending very soon, but I thought I'd let you know just in case you do log on before then.

Clear vote-bombing and alt accounts here with the last five votes, do you mind taking a look and removing?
They of course, did it in the last few minutes.

Good luck blocking everyone on this website.

I'm discussing exactly what you reported. I would hate to see how you are in real life when you don't have the block button to save you.

If you want something to pay attention to, stop ignoring the people who disagree with you and instead listen. I'm not blocking you back (for now) because I don't need something to hide from others disagreements.

Unblock me or not in the future, I don't have a problem with you. And because of that, I won't block you.

Look at the description of that debate.

Or.. did you not read it? Does it matter unrated or rated? Obviously right now you're complaining over votes when this debate is unrated.

This is no debate either. Don't go crying to the mods over the exact thing you did. I consider this a troll debate, you seemed to view the same with mine, I guess we're chill now.

Savant's vote is a tie, which also leaves it standing either way.

Okay, and I'm introducing my opinion regardless of you inviting me. If you're forgetting, this is public comments. And my vote is involved. Otherwise, report on private messages if you want it private.

Others might take this shit from you and let it slide, but I won't. You want to vote like this on my debates, I will as well. Nothing personal.

I disagree. You never stated it was tabula rasa, therefore as the voter I don't have to use my own knowledge.

Besides that, I can in fact, consider this a troll debate and you (feed) into it.

I would accept this but unfortunately i'm already in another tournament debate.

You were originally my first pick to mention for voting, lol. Sounds good.

A better resolution for picky people out here would be: "Owning a pet unicorn would be better than owning a pet dragon".

Not sure why you decided to respond late, but alright.
It's whatever. I don't really want to drag this out.

I'll appreciate it if you do vote, if not, that's fine.

Thanks.

"I 'expected her to give examples of militaries banning dueling, due to officer death during war,"
I was going to, but I wanted to spread out (test the waters) and not focus on examples of it being banned in other areas for whatever reason.

I think about freedom, I tried to stress the fact about how freedom should be limited.
Not only limited, but this debate dealed with basically, "We should/shouldn't legalize dueling".

And I think the point leads to, just because we allow smoking, doesn't mean we should.
So, using that example still applies. Even though we allow smoking, we shouldn't, same goes for dueling.
We shouldn't allow smoking, and we shouldn't allow dueling.

But in any case, i'll appreciate the vote.

Not as confident as I was before with this, looking back, but whatever. Bump.

All good. I'm going to ignore your link and everything mentioned with it anyways.
(Expect for small comments of course but it's not of importance).

^ Also, I don't think mod's can change your argument regardless of mistakes.

Couldn't forget her.

Three days?

I thought of that as well. I didn't want to go down the route.

Here's why:
If they couldn't forgive him, and it would also hurt the people of Japan. I could leave pro with many things like, "if someone hurt you, wouldn't you want them to apologize?". So now I got to prove that it would actually hurt the people for someone to apologize. What I mean by that is, would they welcome him back within time or is he already welcomed?

Next, number three would be based off luck that pro actually concedes to the fact people wouldn't accept it. Otherwise, I would go down that route. However, that can be rebuttaled quickly because many people did accept his apology. So, by saying it's not likely that people would accept his apology especially after even atoning further would be easily rebuttaled. I expected pro to find a way around that, so I played the safe side.

Further, I added off pro for number three because it rebuttaled him. As said, I wasn't going down that route as my main points.

I also fully read number one again. And while I didn't address not being welcome in Japan, for reasons, I did fully address it would hurt his image more and it would hurt him mentally.