Bella3sp

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.

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.