Okay, I guess we can leave it at that. Its okay if you disagree with me. I just dont see how I am the only person you disagree with, but maybe I am missing something.
Anyway, person can be both good and evil. I dont think its beneficial to be completely good. Its best to be both good and evil.
No, you cant be evil without knowledge, since without knowledge, it is not possible to choose nor want to do something, thus being evil is impossible.
Also, you should probably talk to people other than me. I really dont like when people stalk me. I must warn you that I have great knowledge in the arts of black magic.
I mean, its a truism that tarrifs reduce competition, which increases prices or reduces supply of goods.
1. Cheap imports = local buisnesses cannot achieve same prices as cheap imports
2. No cheap imports = local buisnesses still cannot achieve same prices as cheap imports would
Basically, both of these are true, since if you agree with 1, you must logically agree with 2, because removing cheap imports in no way allows local buisnesses to copy their prices. If local buisnesses could produce same prices as cheap imports, you wouldnt need to say 1 in the first place.
1 is basically a truism if voters accept his definition of sickness, which I assume they will lol
2, 3 and 4 are, I guess somewhat debatable.
5 might be where the issue lies for Pro, but I dont really think its impossible to connect 1 and 2 to 3 and 4. All he needs to say is that transitioning doesnt cure sickness, with 2 being proven to support that claim.
But if a word "eternally" bothers people so much, which it shouldnt since they think God who tortures people forever is good, I can remove the word eternally and maybe replace it with some other time like decades or years. It doesnt affect my arguments that much.
Probably shouldnt make argument time 2 hours with 5 rounds. That means debate must be finished in less than 20 hours. Must skip some sleep if you want it to work.
"You're disgusting and I hope you get caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
Damn was that really necessary? I dont see why there are so many debaters who have to resort to this in a debate.
I guess the idea of formal and peaceful debate died long time ago.
There just needs to be made clear by rules if I am also allowed to use insults like these or not, or how much insults are allowed, because obviously these new people are not interested in formal and peaceful debates.
If they want to trade spam and insults as if this was YouTube, then they should probably come to forum and not pollute formal debates like this.
I have no problem with using spam and insults, but I was trying to distance myself from that for a long time to create better formal debates, but it seems some others still want for debate section to turn into sea of insults and spam as if that will help them somehow.
If you use any definition other than the one rules demand you to, you forfeit the debate because you are breaking the rules of debate which you agreed to when you accepted the debate.
Thus, to put it simply, you already agreed with the established definition when you accepted the debate.
But if you want to forfeit, who am I to stop you? I dont really care much if I win instantly with no effort. It just means I move to next debate to get next win.
I was hoping someone else will.
Thanks.
Trans people deserve to be whatever they want to be.
Well, finally, something I agree with from you.
Novice is back ^^
We are your puppets.
Prove to me that God isnt real!
Not all human population is a problem.
No, not all people are migrants.
No, you are not wrong. We are your slaves.
The best song in the world is probably Wild Drive or Miyasan.
I am not sure why someone would disagree.
Okay, I guess we can leave it at that. Its okay if you disagree with me. I just dont see how I am the only person you disagree with, but maybe I am missing something.
Anyway, person can be both good and evil. I dont think its beneficial to be completely good. Its best to be both good and evil.
"One can be evil without knowledge"
No, you cant be evil without knowledge, since without knowledge, it is not possible to choose nor want to do something, thus being evil is impossible.
Also, you should probably talk to people other than me. I really dont like when people stalk me. I must warn you that I have great knowledge in the arts of black magic.
If person refuses to learn anything, then he cannot be evil since he wont have any knowledge. To be evil requires knowledge.
But schools give knowledge which is used for evil, so schools should be abolished.
Also, I notice that I am the only person you talk to on this site. Is everyone else boring or are you a stalker?
So since refusing to learn isnt evil, and knowledge enables people to be evil, we can say that schools should be abolished.
Okay, so since helping others is not moral duty, then nothing makes you evil if you refuse to learn anything.
Thats irrelevant, as people have no moral duty to heal others.
So no arguments. Heh
Heh my bad, I forgot about this one.
Sorry, but I will stick with the debate in the actual debate.
Truism, since there is context where slavery is considered good and context where slavery is considered bad.
Sure. Delete it if AmericanDebater wants.
I mean, its a truism that tarrifs reduce competition, which increases prices or reduces supply of goods.
1. Cheap imports = local buisnesses cannot achieve same prices as cheap imports
2. No cheap imports = local buisnesses still cannot achieve same prices as cheap imports would
Basically, both of these are true, since if you agree with 1, you must logically agree with 2, because removing cheap imports in no way allows local buisnesses to copy their prices. If local buisnesses could produce same prices as cheap imports, you wouldnt need to say 1 in the first place.
Well?
1 is basically a truism if voters accept his definition of sickness, which I assume they will lol
2, 3 and 4 are, I guess somewhat debatable.
5 might be where the issue lies for Pro, but I dont really think its impossible to connect 1 and 2 to 3 and 4. All he needs to say is that transitioning doesnt cure sickness, with 2 being proven to support that claim.
Its fine. No rush.
I hope you can read my debate so you hear my arguments.
I dont think its okay to hate and torture people, because I wouldnt want to be hated and tortured.
Thanks. I will use that argument in last round so he cant respond to it.
I have removed the word eternally from topic and description. So see if anything else needs changing.
Well, which time do you want instead of eternally?
A week?
A month?
A year?
10 years?
Or just some torture present?
But if a word "eternally" bothers people so much, which it shouldnt since they think God who tortures people forever is good, I can remove the word eternally and maybe replace it with some other time like decades or years. It doesnt affect my arguments that much.
Its a popular opinion that sex offenders are worst people on Earth, so I dont see why would anyone hold back from defending such a popular opinion.
"Mentally tortured? Yeah.
Physically tortured? Maybe"
I dont know why you want to torture people, but sure, accept the debate.
This just depends on the definition of "a woman".
Now, my English isnt great enough to know if "a woman" means all women or just one lol
The fact that you are going to win this debate is amazing tho
This was a good debate, great on both sides, but probably should have had more rounds since character limit seems to have prevented some arguments.
Probably shouldnt make argument time 2 hours with 5 rounds. That means debate must be finished in less than 20 hours. Must skip some sleep if you want it to work.
"They literally just legalized pedophilia in California so I guess you got your wish"
Really? With 18 being the age of consent?
Heh yeah
"You're disgusting and I hope you get caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
Damn was that really necessary? I dont see why there are so many debaters who have to resort to this in a debate.
I guess the idea of formal and peaceful debate died long time ago.
There just needs to be made clear by rules if I am also allowed to use insults like these or not, or how much insults are allowed, because obviously these new people are not interested in formal and peaceful debates.
If they want to trade spam and insults as if this was YouTube, then they should probably come to forum and not pollute formal debates like this.
I have no problem with using spam and insults, but I was trying to distance myself from that for a long time to create better formal debates, but it seems some others still want for debate section to turn into sea of insults and spam as if that will help them somehow.
Did I just make a trap debate? Well, I guess we will see, but I dont usually do that.
If you use any definition other than the one rules demand you to, you forfeit the debate because you are breaking the rules of debate which you agreed to when you accepted the debate.
Thus, to put it simply, you already agreed with the established definition when you accepted the debate.
But if you want to forfeit, who am I to stop you? I dont really care much if I win instantly with no effort. It just means I move to next debate to get next win.
Is anyone going to accept the debate? If not, then I will delete it to make room for some other debates.
Common guys, at least this is an easy topic.
"You are the one ranting"
No, I am not the one ranting. If you wont accept debate, go away. Stop ranting.
Either accept debate or go away. I am not really interested in your comment ranting.
If child didnt exist, injury wouldnt happen in that case. Anyway, if you are not going to accept, stop wasting my time.
It fits the definition of evil in this debate, as harm was caused by the child.
"Do you mean "Evil = intentionally causing harm to other person"?"
No. Just any harm to any person.