"That Logan Paul is anything but welcome in Japan and could be hurt if he returns there (and ruin his image more).
2) That what he did wasn't quite as bad as Pro makes out if you see it in a different light.
3) [Kritik] That atoning for it is implausible or at least very improbable and him going to Japan would only seem superficial as they will not forgive it."
Number one wasn't addressed because it leads pro into backing me into a wall. I already thought of that, but here's the problem I can come across. "If he isn't welcome, that means there must be something he has to do to atone." I wasn't going to give that to pro in any way, just in case voters get led into that path.
Number two, it was mild. I talked about freedom, and if people view cultures that way, they can. That was my way of saying it all that.
Number three, I did clear that. My rounds did talk about if they did not accept his apology, how would atoning even work? Could he really atone? I already cleared through that as a backup.
Thanks for the vote, but just wanted to let you know.
How would you prefer it? Always willing to change it if someone upfront requests before accepting.
If you're wanting to accept, let me know, i'll compromise. If not, still let me know and i'll consider.
That said..
Looked at verywellmind.com; found a definition.
Would you prefer the following:
"Cultural appropriation refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression and doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source. It also includes the unauthorized use of parts of their culture (their dress, dance, etc.) without permission."
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cultural-appropriation-5070458
If not, really, what else do you want as definition? The leverage I see for con is immense, but I guess theres different views.
tigerlord requested you, actually. I just acted as the "messenger". I picked no judges, expect for DavidAZ as a change for Slaint.
My bad if it came off as a rude attitude or something like that, but it feels like its a bother to you (past two comments by you).
So, my response is, that's fine. And if it is, no problem, you don't have to vote. Or you could've declined at the start, no worries.
I'm tired, it wasn't an exception to add anything new, this is a different debate. Being this is a different debate means i'm not factoring in another debate. Different debate, different responding.
What you feel answers all of what I said in depth and disregards it, sure. By all means, copy and paste for all I care.
Yes, it took thirteen days. You asked for two weeks, you received. I believe you think my life outside of this website is less important?
So thank you, for taking the time to respond and reminding me I do not give a shit if you're disappointed. Thanks!
Just to let you know, some judges don't vote conduct based on a forfiet. Even some people like AleutianTexan don't vote on conduct at all and only arguments.
Though, I am alright with losing conduct, just wanted to let you know.
I already had that idea in mind. Last debate with Sir.Lancelot and tigerlord it was not discussed what an adult was, who is classified as an adult, etc. Which let a lot of open room with the question, Is Aisha an adult?
I get it, lol. I am adding a different definition, where the definition states "a person who is attracted .." Or I'll just find another way to reword the resolution.
I just assumed with tigerlord, he wasn't going to nitpick at that.
RFD 2/2:
Pro’s Ideal of Framework/Burden:
All there really is to it, is letting us review the resolution and the description of how it reflects upon both the burden and framework.
I think pro prevails countering con’s framework.
So, as the description says “This is not something that should be done”, the resolution is practically;
Instigator: American cutting dick is not something that should be done
Contender: American dick is something that should be done
It really, now, just comes down to who can justify it more.
Pro: Personal Preference
I wasn’t going to mention this at first but I think this actually does play a role.
It is clear that con has been influenced by personal feelings or interpretations per say, and i’m led to believe just because it’s not desirable from them, it’s not desire for everyone else. That’s the problem. Pro points out themselves.
I think this is one of my main reasons for not regarding contention one and contention two as much.
Decision:
Now I think I come down to just a few things.
Freedom & Medical Emergency and Children Consent.
I think overall, pro justifies why someone might want to be circumcised or get circumcised. I think it’s shown we shouldn’t not let people do as they want when they have reasons. Con never shows that those reasons don't outweigh the risks. Children consent is limited, while con opens up to both children and adults covering a good portion, or majority.
RFD 1/2:
[ ] is personal thoughts, not mentioned by either side that won’t be judged or based on.
First off, before I go straight into my vote, let's take a look at the resolution. Nowhere does this include all men, some men, one man, etc. It’s quite broad. I won’t personally distinguish what the resolution should be, I'll leave that to both pro and con.
Let's go ahead and look into the arguments..
R1
Con stated four contentions:
1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men
2. Cut penis looks weird
3. Accidents happen
4. Kids should not be harmed without consent
Pro stated his first contention:
“The individual right to mutilate their bodies in the name of a belief or religion is a cornerstone of individual humanity.”
—
Now let’s look into the actual rebuttals.
R2
Con’s rebuttals:
Con doesn’t really rebuttal, except for the fact of practically saying religious people have the choice, however, it’s not a good choice.
As for Pro’s rebuttals:
“1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men”
Pro then goes on to state a valid point, some things don't feel good in general.
They give examples of such things like piercings, tattoos, hangovers, etc..
Basically pro’s point was: Many things don’t feel good, so what?
I think pro quite literally threw pro’s first contention out the window.
“2. Cut penis looks weird”
Pro doesn’t completely counter, expect for reminding that she had already conceded circumcision should be a choice.
“3. Accidents happen”
[I think it would’ve been better if somebody had said the rates of accidents when circumcising. Particularly con if they mention it. But nobody did.. so..]
Basically pro, summarized, says accidents happen all the time. Doesn’t mean we should completely stop or ban it all together.
I think pro did drop this to an extent, but doesn’t at the same time. Accidents happen all the time and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but specifically, accidents happen with this surgery.
[Once again, it would’ve been so much better if someone had some percentage of these accidents occurring. It would’ve cleared this up so much better. Just a little heads up, the percent is low.]
“4. Kids should not be harmed without consent”
[Honestly the resolution: “American Men” should clear this up completely. The resolution says men, not American male children or American males. But once again, nothing was said. I just don’t know if I can or will include this as it is not counting towards her burden. She would not fulfill it talking about children.]
Pro sites a source, and gives reasons children might need to be circumcised. Pro counters this by what's necessary. Sometimes it's needed.
Pro’s defense:
Pro states: “My issue with Con is the blanket statement it should not happen, and then accepting that it is someone's choice”
^^^^ I wouldn’t call this part completely defense, but rather questioning con’s position.
[I think con is alright with doing so. Ex: Murder shouldn’t happen but it’s someone's choice. Theft shouldn’t happen, but it’s someone's choice]
Con themselves clears that up in round three, but until then..
The impression of this part of pro’s defense is really just: Since con accepts it may be a choice and medically needed though not able to consent at the time as well as the right to do anything with our bodies then con has failed their position of the BoP with contradiction.
So now, were left with pro’s side of two things once again:
1. Our bodies our choice
2. May be medically needed
Also, science has developed and changed defintions to match with it.
Not that I know the actual scientific backup behind your defintions, hints the " ".
"But, the votes I call vote bomb, I can prove them here by discussing them in full detail. But I do not want to waste my time on that. Probably I will do debate on this topic again in near future."
If your not willing to discuss to the "fullest" in private messages, why exploit what you say in comments?
If your going to complain about my vote, why not complain to the person directly especially when you messaged them in the first place?
I can see getting busy but I don't think that's quite the case right now.
Yeah.. my loss would've been an automatic loss in this debate if I used that defintion. It favors pro more than it would favor me in almost all if not all aspects.
But as said, I won't be using a defintion that now, has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.
I get you have defintions you like, cool, but for this debate I won't be using them.. Either its an old defintion as I see from dates and now has been changed more in society or just simply not fitting for my idea in this debate.
Many defintions from health care to other websites have far different definitions that are like mine. And so far, I agree with those definition but thanks.
One thing, regarding:
"That Logan Paul is anything but welcome in Japan and could be hurt if he returns there (and ruin his image more).
2) That what he did wasn't quite as bad as Pro makes out if you see it in a different light.
3) [Kritik] That atoning for it is implausible or at least very improbable and him going to Japan would only seem superficial as they will not forgive it."
Number one wasn't addressed because it leads pro into backing me into a wall. I already thought of that, but here's the problem I can come across. "If he isn't welcome, that means there must be something he has to do to atone." I wasn't going to give that to pro in any way, just in case voters get led into that path.
Number two, it was mild. I talked about freedom, and if people view cultures that way, they can. That was my way of saying it all that.
Number three, I did clear that. My rounds did talk about if they did not accept his apology, how would atoning even work? Could he really atone? I already cleared through that as a backup.
Thanks for the vote, but just wanted to let you know.
Oh.. I meant to add a different ost. Guess i'll have to wait till next round if you don't catch it.
How would you prefer it? Always willing to change it if someone upfront requests before accepting.
If you're wanting to accept, let me know, i'll compromise. If not, still let me know and i'll consider.
That said..
Looked at verywellmind.com; found a definition.
Would you prefer the following:
"Cultural appropriation refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression and doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source. It also includes the unauthorized use of parts of their culture (their dress, dance, etc.) without permission."
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cultural-appropriation-5070458
If not, really, what else do you want as definition? The leverage I see for con is immense, but I guess theres different views.
Feel free to accept, or not.
^ Same thing applies as above for definitions.
tigerlord requested you, actually. I just acted as the "messenger". I picked no judges, expect for DavidAZ as a change for Slaint.
My bad if it came off as a rude attitude or something like that, but it feels like its a bother to you (past two comments by you).
So, my response is, that's fine. And if it is, no problem, you don't have to vote. Or you could've declined at the start, no worries.
Feel free to not vote, and let all other three judges (or other judges) vote. That's fine.
I didn't see this, but thanks for clarifying.
I most likely wont being that my songs would carry the same type of style, which i'm trying to spread out to match the voters 'cup of tea'.
'Nothing's' impossible with Christianity and without it being comfirmed, of course it is possible.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
I wasn't going to bombard and use hundreds of songs.
I'll try to vote on this tomorrow; before the deadline.
If you read the new enforcement.. Really you would only be reporting yourself.
"Assigning nicknames that are meant to belittle or harass"
Yeah. Hopefully ill get it done by this week.
I hope you don't mind me accepting both your open debates, lol.
They actually just seemed something cool to do, rather than tiring myself.
I'm tired, it wasn't an exception to add anything new, this is a different debate. Being this is a different debate means i'm not factoring in another debate. Different debate, different responding.
What you feel answers all of what I said in depth and disregards it, sure. By all means, copy and paste for all I care.
Yes, it took thirteen days. You asked for two weeks, you received. I believe you think my life outside of this website is less important?
So thank you, for taking the time to respond and reminding me I do not give a shit if you're disappointed. Thanks!
Also, I forgot to make it multiple points and not winner selection.. Just factor both of them (criteria) in there for whomever votes.
Not to mention the trans community will be very disappointed!
Nothing at all. Rather you not, but that's up to you.
It's been a long, and I mean a long time since i've seen some of these people mentioned.
It's on my list to vote after the other rap battles.
I might. I'm getting busy with debates and other personal stuff outside of this website, but i'll try to get to it before voting ends.
All good, it happens.
Should be a quick vote being that most of Devon's rounds were forfeited.
Do you mind leaving this up? I'll probably accept later.
No problem, I don't mind. Thanks.
Just to let you know, some judges don't vote conduct based on a forfiet. Even some people like AleutianTexan don't vote on conduct at all and only arguments.
Though, I am alright with losing conduct, just wanted to let you know.
Bump
Humans can eat raw meat, but should they?
You guys with these trap debates, of course they can, but doesn't mean they should. Burden is easy for pro.
I already had that idea in mind. Last debate with Sir.Lancelot and tigerlord it was not discussed what an adult was, who is classified as an adult, etc. Which let a lot of open room with the question, Is Aisha an adult?
I plan to clarify it, hence my definition.
Okay in what standard?
Alright.. It's been sent. Up to you to accept.
Slainte no longer wanted to judge, so, I swapped his place.
If anything needs to be changed, let me know.
I didn't pick any judges, and I was already going to send the challange. I just got busy.
Still wasn't going to explore that as part of the definition, but hey, thanks. I'll change it.
Better, along with the definition change or should I change the resolution a bit more?
Yep, im figuring out a resolution/changing the definitions now.
I just said im fixing it to where that's not assumed.
I get it, lol. I am adding a different definition, where the definition states "a person who is attracted .." Or I'll just find another way to reword the resolution.
I just assumed with tigerlord, he wasn't going to nitpick at that.
I changed max character limit.
Private message me to discuss judges.
Thank you.. A bit passive aggressive, but its whatever.
I'm sure you can look up the definition of pedophilia on your own.
I'm also not sure if you didn't read all what I said, as I just said, I might change it. I get what your saying.
In this case, yes. I was going to mention pedophile, but the definition worked in this case.
I may find a new definition for pedophile in specific, if it's all that.
I wasn't expecting to argue over the two being that I already set definitions.
RFD 2/2:
Pro’s Ideal of Framework/Burden:
All there really is to it, is letting us review the resolution and the description of how it reflects upon both the burden and framework.
I think pro prevails countering con’s framework.
So, as the description says “This is not something that should be done”, the resolution is practically;
Instigator: American cutting dick is not something that should be done
Contender: American dick is something that should be done
It really, now, just comes down to who can justify it more.
Pro: Personal Preference
I wasn’t going to mention this at first but I think this actually does play a role.
It is clear that con has been influenced by personal feelings or interpretations per say, and i’m led to believe just because it’s not desirable from them, it’s not desire for everyone else. That’s the problem. Pro points out themselves.
I think this is one of my main reasons for not regarding contention one and contention two as much.
Decision:
Now I think I come down to just a few things.
Freedom & Medical Emergency and Children Consent.
I think overall, pro justifies why someone might want to be circumcised or get circumcised. I think it’s shown we shouldn’t not let people do as they want when they have reasons. Con never shows that those reasons don't outweigh the risks. Children consent is limited, while con opens up to both children and adults covering a good portion, or majority.
ARGUMENTS: Pro.
RFD 1/2:
[ ] is personal thoughts, not mentioned by either side that won’t be judged or based on.
First off, before I go straight into my vote, let's take a look at the resolution. Nowhere does this include all men, some men, one man, etc. It’s quite broad. I won’t personally distinguish what the resolution should be, I'll leave that to both pro and con.
Let's go ahead and look into the arguments..
R1
Con stated four contentions:
1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men
2. Cut penis looks weird
3. Accidents happen
4. Kids should not be harmed without consent
Pro stated his first contention:
“The individual right to mutilate their bodies in the name of a belief or religion is a cornerstone of individual humanity.”
—
Now let’s look into the actual rebuttals.
R2
Con’s rebuttals:
Con doesn’t really rebuttal, except for the fact of practically saying religious people have the choice, however, it’s not a good choice.
As for Pro’s rebuttals:
“1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men”
Pro then goes on to state a valid point, some things don't feel good in general.
They give examples of such things like piercings, tattoos, hangovers, etc..
Basically pro’s point was: Many things don’t feel good, so what?
I think pro quite literally threw pro’s first contention out the window.
“2. Cut penis looks weird”
Pro doesn’t completely counter, expect for reminding that she had already conceded circumcision should be a choice.
“3. Accidents happen”
[I think it would’ve been better if somebody had said the rates of accidents when circumcising. Particularly con if they mention it. But nobody did.. so..]
Basically pro, summarized, says accidents happen all the time. Doesn’t mean we should completely stop or ban it all together.
I think pro did drop this to an extent, but doesn’t at the same time. Accidents happen all the time and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but specifically, accidents happen with this surgery.
[Once again, it would’ve been so much better if someone had some percentage of these accidents occurring. It would’ve cleared this up so much better. Just a little heads up, the percent is low.]
“4. Kids should not be harmed without consent”
[Honestly the resolution: “American Men” should clear this up completely. The resolution says men, not American male children or American males. But once again, nothing was said. I just don’t know if I can or will include this as it is not counting towards her burden. She would not fulfill it talking about children.]
Pro sites a source, and gives reasons children might need to be circumcised. Pro counters this by what's necessary. Sometimes it's needed.
Pro’s defense:
Pro states: “My issue with Con is the blanket statement it should not happen, and then accepting that it is someone's choice”
^^^^ I wouldn’t call this part completely defense, but rather questioning con’s position.
[I think con is alright with doing so. Ex: Murder shouldn’t happen but it’s someone's choice. Theft shouldn’t happen, but it’s someone's choice]
Con themselves clears that up in round three, but until then..
The impression of this part of pro’s defense is really just: Since con accepts it may be a choice and medically needed though not able to consent at the time as well as the right to do anything with our bodies then con has failed their position of the BoP with contradiction.
So now, were left with pro’s side of two things once again:
1. Our bodies our choice
2. May be medically needed
Sorry about that judges, and Devon. I rushed on the last fifteen minutes.
I'll try to clear up my contentions and rebuttals a lot better next round.
I thought I mentioned the wrong people - I was going to rewrite the comment.
As for the comment:
He already does have voting qualification, so, even if he misses this one he'll be alright. Just an extra debate I guess.
Look at the dates.
Also, science has developed and changed defintions to match with it.
Not that I know the actual scientific backup behind your defintions, hints the " ".
No, I just think its funny you shit on someone, without mentioning them, but can't do the same in private messages.
It's not completely about changing someones mind, but you complain when you can't even to the direct person.
If you don't want to go deep into it, don't complain in the comments about it. Simple.
Comment two:
That's why I deleted it. Funny you have no complaint but compare me to him..
"But, the votes I call vote bomb, I can prove them here by discussing them in full detail. But I do not want to waste my time on that. Probably I will do debate on this topic again in near future."
If your not willing to discuss to the "fullest" in private messages, why exploit what you say in comments?
If your going to complain about my vote, why not complain to the person directly especially when you messaged them in the first place?
I can see getting busy but I don't think that's quite the case right now.
Yeah.. my loss would've been an automatic loss in this debate if I used that defintion. It favors pro more than it would favor me in almost all if not all aspects.
But as said, I won't be using a defintion that now, has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.
Thanks, but no thanks?
I get you have defintions you like, cool, but for this debate I won't be using them.. Either its an old defintion as I see from dates and now has been changed more in society or just simply not fitting for my idea in this debate.
Many defintions from health care to other websites have far different definitions that are like mine. And so far, I agree with those definition but thanks.