Have you seen the Pain vs Naruto fight? At the end, Pain encases himself in a small earth box and traps the 6-tailed Naruto in a rock sphere, which Naruto needed 8 tails to break out of. I am fairly certain that Aang in the avatar state could do something similar. The first Avatar, Wang, was able to confine Vatuu, a powerfull evil spirit comparable to multi-tailed beasts, in a ring of air, fire, water and earth.
Slash the military budget. Raise taxes a tad for rich people. Regulate the price of medicine so healthcare programs cost far less. Print some money if necesary. Bada bing bada boom, budget surplus.
Like 30% of your argument, and also your conclusion, was that even 12 year old Naruto could get as many tails as he wants, despite his seal being strong- if that isn't a fake scenario I don't know what is.
Naruto has databooks with wildly hyperbolic speed feats from the first arc that even deathbattle wiki does not accept as valid and is contradicted by everything else in Naruto and Shippuden.
Aang is definately hypersonic. And he is also consistently a lightning timer. But many people think lightning reactions and movement does not "fit" into ATLA, so headcannon it as "slow" lightning.
Dodging lightning is on par with dodging Haku, unless you are going to ignore the blatant fact that Naruto never reached 1x lightspeed untill KCM1, 10 powerups later.
Whether you are low-balling or high-balling, so long as you apply the same standard to both, Aang and Naruto are relative in speed.
Use all your characters this time around. Then I will use few characters in R2 to match your character count in R1. This will make things fair and give you the best possible chance to win.
Hero_In_Statute also writes that
>"Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human"
>"Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting."
>"Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life."
Which is a context that makes it really weird when he says that "Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people." If the voter doesn't think that PRO has properly defined personhood or justified why humans are persons, then why does he accept PRO's claim that fetuses are already people. If he doesn't think that PRO has properly established personhood, then he must by default accept my criterias that are backed by academic sources, which are also the only ones the voter recognized.
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hero_In_Statue gave conduct point because: "Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying."
>Calling a specific argument moronic is not a personal attack. Especially when it is not an attempt to avoid adressing the argument, but just as a prelude to a rebuttal of the specific argument.
>Saying that one specific claim is a lie is also not a personal attack. Especially when it is followed up immidiately with an actuall adressing of the claim and why it is obviously wrong.
>Voter ignores that I name dropped Savant 4 times, 3 of which were "thank you, Savant", which I don't say to everyone I debate, but specifically to those I want to show respect for.
>>So clearly, I don't show a pattern of disrespecting my opponent.
Even if voter thinks I had used 1 personal attack, that would only be a valid reason for conduct point if I used it INSTEAD of arguments, which was obviously not the case.
Voter also ignored similarly minor infractions by PRO such as this quote: """Con tries to justify mutilating children in utero so they grow up disabled"""
>I never did that, I just claimed that PRO had rejected all the arguments that could be used to condemn it.
>Wrongly accusing opponent of justifying mutilation is far worse than accusing of making a lie.
Code of Conduct verdict:
"Conduct point is Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is TO MINOR FOR A REASONABLE PERSON TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DISTRACTED FROM THE TOPIC."
Arguments.
I must say, I have nothing against being voted against or losing this debate, indeed I expected that outcome from the begining. But I won't to lose due to valid votes.
Hero_In_Statute wrote: """Pro needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this."""
Voter clearly defined what he required PRO to do to win this debate, and then clearly states that PRO did not fullfill that criteria. Saying that PRO pushed back on my affirmative case is not the same as stating that you found his affirmative case more convincing. Hero_In_Statute should re-vote without awarding conduct point and with a clear and understandable explanation for argument point.
It's really hard yes. Especially since in ATLA there isn't technology to measure Aangs speed. So his speed ranges from at minimum "faster than the wind" and "running on water" to the more insane feats of dodging lightning in midair. Naruto is a series where one of the main methods of saying "x fighter is stronger than y fighter" is having them "teleport" behind their opponent with a kick loaded up or something. But that is a very inconsistent animation shorthand for superior speed. The same goes for turning into a blur. ATLA doesn't have a huge speed gap in any of it's major fights, and when he "fights" civillians he moves much slower. The best speed feats for Naruto that CON brought up was when he moved so fast that he created waves and winds. Apart from Aang arguably doing the same with running on water and creating massive winds by just running faster than wind. But that also begs the question of why doesn't that happen in every Naruto fight. The Naruto KCM2 clones , when moving orders of magnitude quicker than 1-tail, actually faster than light, should be passively creating orcanoes with every step they make, and yet they don't. So it appears like "hyperspeed" effects is just some extra flare they add into the most important fights with the highest budget and that have to look good. Naruto is wildly inconsistent, while ATLA is grounded and consistent.
Something that is my fault is I didn't link directly the moments of lightning movement. Here Zuko moves as fast as lightning, which we can see since both are moving in the same frame at the same time: https://youtu.be/rsrRdIh2WaQ?t=217. Here Aang jumps from one pillar to another, with at least 30% the speed of lightning, which we can see since both are moving in the same direction at the same time, but it doesn't immidiately hit him: https://youtu.be/rsrRdIh2WaQ?t=267. My interpretation is that lightning is just much slower in their universe, since that seems much more grounded than everything in the verse being relativistic in speed (moving in more than 1% of lightspeed). But with CON pulling Haku out to establish Naruto lightspeed I had to retaliate with maximum ATLA scaling.
Showing that, if you give Naruto the benefit of the doubt to have superhyperbolic speed, then you must also apply that lenience to Aangs feats, making them still equal.
But as you picked up on, neither of the characters are that fast.
Top 10 comments on youtube:
>>Already an icon at 18. Imagine her 5 years from now, she's gonna be a superstar.
>>If you don't win the Grammy, there's something wrong with this award!
>>I love the "just about to completely lose it" vibe that Olivia always brings to her songs.
>>I'm totally not in her usual demographic of fans but this is such a great video and song.
Top 10 comments on youtube:
>>SOUNDS SO DAMN GOOD ON MUTE
>>I love your music when is the English version coming out
>>WE STARTED FROM THE BOTTOM AND KEPT DIGGIN DEEPER
>>can’t even describe the pain i feel in my entire body after hearing this
I should have done more research, used all my characters and added more sources in R1, and then been more focused and efficient in my back and forth rebuttals.
From the start I did not expect how good arguments and sources you could conjure up so that's my mistake for underestimating the challenge this debate posed. You did really well.
At least being abused and abusing others on the regular has given you an impeccable knack for insults, perfect for a rap battle. Also a good opportunity to let some steam off.
Vote bump.
Thank you for voting.
Thank you for voting.
This is your last day to remove the invalid conduct vote and, if you want to, provide your own tiebreaker vote.
Have you seen the Pain vs Naruto fight? At the end, Pain encases himself in a small earth box and traps the 6-tailed Naruto in a rock sphere, which Naruto needed 8 tails to break out of. I am fairly certain that Aang in the avatar state could do something similar. The first Avatar, Wang, was able to confine Vatuu, a powerfull evil spirit comparable to multi-tailed beasts, in a ring of air, fire, water and earth.
Slash the military budget. Raise taxes a tad for rich people. Regulate the price of medicine so healthcare programs cost far less. Print some money if necesary. Bada bing bada boom, budget surplus.
What kind of truism-ass debate is this?
2 hours left, and your vote will determine the outcome.
You brought to my sttention a crucial detail. How could I forget the sexy jutsu, Naruto takes the win for sure. Luckily CON forgot about it as well.
To give ijb1 a chance to revote the current invalid vote has to be removed pronto.
Vote bump.
Like 30% of your argument, and also your conclusion, was that even 12 year old Naruto could get as many tails as he wants, despite his seal being strong- if that isn't a fake scenario I don't know what is.
Naruto has databooks with wildly hyperbolic speed feats from the first arc that even deathbattle wiki does not accept as valid and is contradicted by everything else in Naruto and Shippuden.
Aang is definately hypersonic. And he is also consistently a lightning timer. But many people think lightning reactions and movement does not "fit" into ATLA, so headcannon it as "slow" lightning.
Dodging lightning is on par with dodging Haku, unless you are going to ignore the blatant fact that Naruto never reached 1x lightspeed untill KCM1, 10 powerups later.
Whether you are low-balling or high-balling, so long as you apply the same standard to both, Aang and Naruto are relative in speed.
Vote bump.
Use all your characters this time around. Then I will use few characters in R2 to match your character count in R1. This will make things fair and give you the best possible chance to win.
Feel free to scrutinize the votes in my favor. I think it is important that all of the votes on this debate are held to the same standard.
Hero_In_Statute also writes that
>"Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human"
>"Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting."
>"Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life."
Which is a context that makes it really weird when he says that "Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people." If the voter doesn't think that PRO has properly defined personhood or justified why humans are persons, then why does he accept PRO's claim that fetuses are already people. If he doesn't think that PRO has properly established personhood, then he must by default accept my criterias that are backed by academic sources, which are also the only ones the voter recognized.
Conduct.
Optional. One point.
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hero_In_Statue gave conduct point because: "Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying."
>Calling a specific argument moronic is not a personal attack. Especially when it is not an attempt to avoid adressing the argument, but just as a prelude to a rebuttal of the specific argument.
>Saying that one specific claim is a lie is also not a personal attack. Especially when it is followed up immidiately with an actuall adressing of the claim and why it is obviously wrong.
>Voter ignores that I name dropped Savant 4 times, 3 of which were "thank you, Savant", which I don't say to everyone I debate, but specifically to those I want to show respect for.
>>So clearly, I don't show a pattern of disrespecting my opponent.
Even if voter thinks I had used 1 personal attack, that would only be a valid reason for conduct point if I used it INSTEAD of arguments, which was obviously not the case.
Voter also ignored similarly minor infractions by PRO such as this quote: """Con tries to justify mutilating children in utero so they grow up disabled"""
>I never did that, I just claimed that PRO had rejected all the arguments that could be used to condemn it.
>Wrongly accusing opponent of justifying mutilation is far worse than accusing of making a lie.
Code of Conduct verdict:
"Conduct point is Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is TO MINOR FOR A REASONABLE PERSON TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DISTRACTED FROM THE TOPIC."
Arguments.
I must say, I have nothing against being voted against or losing this debate, indeed I expected that outcome from the begining. But I won't to lose due to valid votes.
Hero_In_Statute wrote: """Pro needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this."""
Voter clearly defined what he required PRO to do to win this debate, and then clearly states that PRO did not fullfill that criteria. Saying that PRO pushed back on my affirmative case is not the same as stating that you found his affirmative case more convincing. Hero_In_Statute should re-vote without awarding conduct point and with a clear and understandable explanation for argument point.
It's really hard yes. Especially since in ATLA there isn't technology to measure Aangs speed. So his speed ranges from at minimum "faster than the wind" and "running on water" to the more insane feats of dodging lightning in midair. Naruto is a series where one of the main methods of saying "x fighter is stronger than y fighter" is having them "teleport" behind their opponent with a kick loaded up or something. But that is a very inconsistent animation shorthand for superior speed. The same goes for turning into a blur. ATLA doesn't have a huge speed gap in any of it's major fights, and when he "fights" civillians he moves much slower. The best speed feats for Naruto that CON brought up was when he moved so fast that he created waves and winds. Apart from Aang arguably doing the same with running on water and creating massive winds by just running faster than wind. But that also begs the question of why doesn't that happen in every Naruto fight. The Naruto KCM2 clones , when moving orders of magnitude quicker than 1-tail, actually faster than light, should be passively creating orcanoes with every step they make, and yet they don't. So it appears like "hyperspeed" effects is just some extra flare they add into the most important fights with the highest budget and that have to look good. Naruto is wildly inconsistent, while ATLA is grounded and consistent.
Thank you for voting.
Something that is my fault is I didn't link directly the moments of lightning movement. Here Zuko moves as fast as lightning, which we can see since both are moving in the same frame at the same time: https://youtu.be/rsrRdIh2WaQ?t=217. Here Aang jumps from one pillar to another, with at least 30% the speed of lightning, which we can see since both are moving in the same direction at the same time, but it doesn't immidiately hit him: https://youtu.be/rsrRdIh2WaQ?t=267. My interpretation is that lightning is just much slower in their universe, since that seems much more grounded than everything in the verse being relativistic in speed (moving in more than 1% of lightspeed). But with CON pulling Haku out to establish Naruto lightspeed I had to retaliate with maximum ATLA scaling.
Showing that, if you give Naruto the benefit of the doubt to have superhyperbolic speed, then you must also apply that lenience to Aangs feats, making them still equal.
But as you picked up on, neither of the characters are that fast.
Don't use AI-generated text, prefarably ever, but if you must, make sure to make that clear, don't post it as if you wrote it yourself.
Yes Wylted I do. I should post your sorry excuse for a karaoke song, that is sure to evoke pity in whoever hears it.
>Complains the entire debate that he doesn't have enough characters to do any rebuttals or framework or anything important.
>Writes practically nothing in R3.
Are you talking about my terrible singing voice? No, thats not a trick, thats the real deal.
Maybe it's a 200 IQ ten thousand steps ahead reverse psychology plan from PRO 🤔🤔🤔
Song name: Good 4 you
Top 10 comments on youtube:
>>Already an icon at 18. Imagine her 5 years from now, she's gonna be a superstar.
>>If you don't win the Grammy, there's something wrong with this award!
>>I love the "just about to completely lose it" vibe that Olivia always brings to her songs.
>>I'm totally not in her usual demographic of fans but this is such a great video and song.
Song name: Whats Tea?
Top 10 comments on youtube:
>>SOUNDS SO DAMN GOOD ON MUTE
>>I love your music when is the English version coming out
>>WE STARTED FROM THE BOTTOM AND KEPT DIGGIN DEEPER
>>can’t even describe the pain i feel in my entire body after hearing this
And last but not least:
HIDDEN TALENTTTT???
KEEP IT HIDDEN ️!!!
Vote bump.
"We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing".
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Burden of proof. Basically, both of us have to provide positive evidence not just disprove the other's argument.
Do I write my argument first or just pick topic and waive to you.
Vote bump
I work in the Norwegian torture department and have over time lost my ability to sing normally.
You should check out the original it's 10 times better singing and has a proper slavic accent, plus better music since the karaoke version was trash.
But that's not very interesting.
You don't think anyone can be worse? I'll prove you wrong.
Time to put on display my complete lack of musical talent.
You actually got a chukkle out of me with that one-
I should have done more research, used all my characters and added more sources in R1, and then been more focused and efficient in my back and forth rebuttals.
From the start I did not expect how good arguments and sources you could conjure up so that's my mistake for underestimating the challenge this debate posed. You did really well.
Congrats.
Thanks for the vote
Vote bump.
I look forward to seeing what you have to say on this.
At least being abused and abusing others on the regular has given you an impeccable knack for insults, perfect for a rap battle. Also a good opportunity to let some steam off.
Vote bump.
Vote bump.