Nah, Trump's honor bound to at best, send 1/1024 of a million dollars. Should send it as a giant publishers clearing house check for about 9,000 dollar. Also, since when was Central and Southern American(Hispanic) the same as Cherokee? Be careful, ur getting pretty close to racist A" territory if you hold 1/1024 of DNA matching the central and south american DNA that was used in that test, is the same as matching with DNA of a Cherokee 😏.
RFD: I sincerely enjoyed reading the debate, and truth be told, if not for this point, it would likely be a tie. Rational did well enough to illustrate that Paul compromised on his ideals plenty. That negated adherence to the ideology a split, as it sufficiently illustrated that neither was a purist in action. However, in Round 1 there was one point from the standpoint of ideological purity that went unaddressed directly, that being the core principle of the non aggression principle in
"Gary Johnson rejects [the NaP]"
"Our standard is one of ideological purity: the degree to which individuals hold to Libertarianism"
"Finally, the correctness or value of Libertarianism (whether one should adhere to Libertarianism), being separate to the issue of how much one does adhere to it, is totally irrelevant."
If this was a debate exclusively regarding who "acted the most" Libertarian, then Rational made a compelling case and sufficiently linked Paul to having compromised on his libertarian beliefs. However, despite winning fmpov the battle of adherence to beliefs with a litany of smaller details indepedent of the point previous, and a compelling case regarding how Johnson has positions that tend to acknowledge the proposed harms of an AnCap type libertarian system and adjusts accordingly, this doesn't change that he rejects a core principle of the philosophy nonetheless. And Libertarianism without the NaP may be close, but can't be considered true libertariaism anymore. Pro therefore fulfills the resolution by illustrating that Ron Paul is more libertarian, because Johnson fmpov can't be classified as one per a flat out rejection of a foundational principle.
Well done to both of you. Arguments to Pro, the rest is a tie. *applauds*.
I was unaware of this "fiat" you mentioned. I can see your point that with fiat you get to assume something *will* happen 🤔. That was my mistake in fleshing out resolution terms because my thinking was, if such an advocacy would require repealing multiple parts of the constitution, repeal laws, and overturn certain S.C. rulings, then that would be changing "The US" to something other than "The US". But, can see that's not the case 🤔
Im further curious though, cause as a lawyer yourself you likely have a keener eye on legal argumentation. "Legal arguments were a tie, both pro and con showed ways it would be constititional or unconstitutional"
Care to elaborate? Like I said, for someone with education in law, you likely can cogently detail this, and if my legal argumentation is not sound, I would keenly want to know specifically where it did. Also, that half of my constitutional arguments were dropped has me extremely confused how that was viewed as a tie, but, because I per your view did not fully address the proposed benefits, despite nullifying much of them, that means arguments on utility are de facto to Virtuoso. Seems an inconsistent application of weight to percieved dropped areas of argumentation 🤔.
As opposed to one where equal weight is afforded to both feasibility, utility, with a lesser weight given to purely moral argumentation, as should implies, and as was set forth in the details. "On balance, a UBC would be beneficial" is a resolution that fully prioritizes utility. "The US should require a UBC" is a resolution that prioritizes neither the laws of the US or the utility in such an action. It sets them on an equal playing field because the debate is in part centered around "The US" as an actor. If it were just, "a UBC should be required" sans US, this removes the component of constitutionality and legality because the US is no longer in the resolution, and turns it into an argument on utility and morality, with priority given to utility, because when "ought" is used, that's prioritizes and presumes moral authority. "You ought not do that because it's wrong(morally)."
Could prioritizes feasibility over all.
Should prioritizes feasibility and utility over morality.
Ought prioritizes morality over feasibility and utility.
There is indeed a difference between could and should, but how does feasibility not play a heavy hand in whether or not something should be done? For example, "you shouldn't bake that cake because you don't have all the ingredients" is a measure of practicality. "You shouldn't bake that cake because you don't know how to bake" "you shouldn't do that because it's against the law". You shouldnt jump off that cliff because you cant fly. These are all reflections of feasibility.
In a debate centered around the US that debate absolutely factors in constitutionality and lawfulness. For example, though "you shouldn't because its unconstitutional" could be responded to with, "well we will just repeal the constitution". But that in itself necessarily removes the component of "The US" in the resolution. No constitution, no US.
Or as an alternative, "we will repeal these specific parts" however, the repealing of such is an entirely seperate debate in and of itself and absolutely counts as extensive policy planning because qualifiers that need be accomplished, before the resolution can be accomplished, are presented. But whether or not they actually would is entirely up in the air and cannot be assumed as likely, particularly because it would necessarily involve repealing constititional amendments, something that is not likely to happen. General policy planning would be, "A UBC could be implemented in this manner" in specific regards to the UBC itself.
And, "the way I interpreted the debate"
This is where reading debate details comes into play because as a voter you very well know you don't get to set the debate criteria, that's set by the debaters, usually the one initiating the debate. What you've done basically amounts to ignoring full debate details set forth pre-debate and necessarily accepted by acceptance of the debate itself, because you would rather see another kind of debate in which a higher priority is placed on utility.
Oh well, its largely irrelevant, as he said the legal arguments were a tie to him. Its just irking me that he is attributing a narrow scope to the word 😂
"This isnt a debate on the validity of the framework itself, it is a debate on whether that framework and system would permit the implementation of a federally mandated universal background check for any and all transfers of ownership. As well as a debate upon the harms/benefits of any such implementation."
Practicality just seems a stock part of "should" in context of the debate. But its not like I didnt spell it out clearly in the full details anyways 😂😂😂
Well that should includes more than utility should have been understood with the resolution. It wasn't, "On balance a UBC would be more beneficial than not" it was "the us should implement a UBC" that prima facie includes practicality be necessity of being a nation, with laws therein limiting what practically can and cannot be done 🤔
Thanks for voting Bench! I must ask though, you mentioned that,
"but a vast majority of arguments were instead focused on the legality of UBC's rather than their potential effectiveness or ineffectiveness"
though I disagree they were purely legal arguments, my main question, is what you think "should" means?
It seems you are taking it as meaning purely utility(harms/benefits), but doesn't feasibility also play a factor? Should is a measure on feasibility(practicality) and desirability(harms/benefits). As opposed to "ought" which usually implies moral authority 🤔.
Hrmmm, so in an LD debate presentation of new evidence past construct, even if strictly applied to rebuttal counts as case construction. That would explain why I always got docked conduct points in LD debates in school 🤔
Has anybody else noticed it awards tie points to the side who was actually awarded the least points? Should it even be doing that? If a specific metric is a tie, shouldn't no points be awarded to either side regarding the specific metric?
Overall though, thanks for the thought out and reasoned vote. Regardless of whether it's for me or Virtuoso, I appreciate the due consideration given to the debate 👏👏
I can certainly see perhaps why "on the bemefits of a UBC was considered a new argument considering I put forth evidence not previously presented in regards to mental illness. However, being that it was claimed in construct by Aff that UBC's were extremely effective, evidence that shines light on that not quite being the case, imho ought to count as a rebuttal to the claim imho 🤔
After taking a nap. I'm sorry for the name-calling. Still consider it accurate, there was a better way to communicate what I was trying to regarding reciprocating what you fed me.
"Such as me questioning your reasoning behind SCOTUS being entitled to override what the other 2 branches agreed on? Yeah that was Devil's Advocate prodding at your side, not unethical I'm glad we can agree"
Bringing up Judicial Review was not unethical. "Devil's Advocate" is not an accurate defense of your actions, because I never said that was unethical. It was if anything humorous because you questioned SCOTUS authority to overturn law, when that authority was itself granted by legislation.
You admitted a total willingness to act unethically, actually did so in deciding to slander me regarding 1) implying I underestimate you(something you still claim)
2) claiming lack of good faith acting ("lack of effort"
"To some my ban may seem like luck, but others will know there's a strategy behind my madness"
"Don't you dare drop your guard against me"
"Its a war"
"I'll do what I need(to win)"
"Your lack of strategy"
Hoss, simmer down with the ego stroking and realize, the more you speak, the more you sound like you actually did cheat 😂.
It's absurd that you did, def some post facto justification, but oh boy, take a deep breath, maybe take a nap like I did? Did wonders for my crankiness 😂😂
"Never said you cheated here"
You did.
"are willing to act unethically and cheat to win."
never said you cheated *here*
*are willing to act*
>here(in debate)
>Are willing to
Thanks
You understand, thats not the same thing 🤔
Here's the thing. You are right, I'm being a dick, because I'm reciprocating what you gave me.
This debate started out fine, fairly respectful on both sides, total overuse of buzzwords when arguing aside. Then you get banned, it was disappointing. I asked why you were, pointed out in forums there didn't appear to be a good reason for doing so as of yet.
You then come back, attribute to me nefariousness and ill intent with "underestimating" and "think I'm crazy". Congrats, I actually do think that now, way to go bringing about the same outcome you complained about.
Then proceed to continue acting like a dick in attributing poor faith in debating, "lack of effort" despite there being clear and good reason to cancel/restart.
But no, ever the one to chase the W at all costs, you refuse to cancel the debate, and insist we continue this, AND restart anew simultaneous. Again, rather unethical considering the debate was derailed *by you getting banned*.
You then proceed to be a dick by stating in R3 that I said, despite never actually doing so, that I conceded due to your arguments being superior.
And you call me a liar despite me accurately paraphrasing? Here's the thing, you could've been respectful and been like, hey, this debate got derailed, my opponent has decided to concede due to starting this same debate up with another. Just couldn't do that could you? Just couldn't help but be a dick.
I'm calling you a dick because it is a 100% accurate term for your behavior. That I'm reciprocating it back unto you may be wrong on my part, but it is funny to watch you dance around admitting you are what im saying you are 😂
Sure thing bud, you do understand near any site has codes of conduct users are expected to follow? And you just admitted, again, to be fully willing to act as unethical, and do whatever you need(that would rationally include cheating if necessary) to win.
Even ignoring the latter implications, admission of willingness to act as unethically as necessary is probably going to fly in the face of any terms of service or ethical code of conduct.
You need not have cheated here to show your hand. You've given every indication to hold that you would, if given the opportunity and means to do so, while consequentially getting away with it.
Just as with being unethical, you had the opportunity, the means, and figured you could get away with it and get a W, so you did it.
You can have the W, I would reserve judgement on potential consequences for admitting willingness to act in such a manner 🤔
"You accuse me of projection but every time you call me a dick, it tends to be that the post before and after you calling me a dick make it quite blatant which of the two of us is more so a 'dick'."
I'm calling you one for more than good reason, for which ive clearly elaborated. "Your calling me a dick, and im not!"
Is so lulz. What are you 5? Consider: I'm calling you as such because you actually are in this situation,
mr, "lack of effort and strategy".
"There is no cheating, playing devil's advocate is not cheating."
Never said you cheated here, said you acted highly unethically. While also admitting you would willingly cheat to obtain a W.
" I will do what I need"
"Debate is a war, its a battle"
"To many my ban and unban will be luck. To those who know, there is strategy behind my insanity."
Yes, that strategy is taking advantage of yourself getting banned and how that consequentially that derailed the debate. This clearly implies if you could, you would take such a course of action to derail a debate as a means to do what you need to secure a W.
Also, newsflash, "There is no cheating, playing devil's advocate is not cheating"
Devil's advocate is when you argue for something you disagree with. Devil's advocate is not, however, acting in an unethical manner when debating.
And if it's ok to you to do whatever it takes, why take personal offense to my rebuttal, as denoted by the whining about people underestimating you and thinking ur crazy.
If you wanna know why they think the latter, look at this conversation right here, this is your answer. thanks for fully admitting you are willing to act unethically and cheat to win. 😂😂
Lol @ you trying to be like, "I never said that" you didn't have to outright state it, it was clear thats what you were doing. Also, paraphrasing also uses quotations too. Like I said, that's some hella wit you got there 😂😂😂
"So what Prop (The side of Proposition) is actually saying is shockingly that the legislation that was clearly approved by the Legislative branch and then enacted into Law instead of just a Bill by the President of the United States (POTUS) is having enough grounds to be overturned by SCOTUS..."
This is a clear questioning of Judicial Review itself. "the grounds" in relation to "legislation" "enacted into law" clearly illustrates, again, a questioning of Judicial Review. You don't need to outright say it for it to be exactly what you did
Says the guy who asked, "what authority does SCOTUS have to overturn legislation passed into law?
Despite that being established in legislation for a little over 200 years, and further codified into an actual amendment to the Constitution that makes it the supreme law of the US, and the Supreme Court being the highest adjudicator in the court system by consequence the absolute authority on the constititionality of law and criminal charges 🤔
Honestly, take me my resscindence as you will, it is sure to be taken negatively and ascribed as being nefarious. When calling somebody out for being a dick, isnt nefarious, especially when that person has a slew of issues with loads of people in social interaction, yet never seems to look in the mirror regarding that. Its always everybody else being dicks, totally not ever you acting like a dick because you presume everyone to be an enemy
Im just gonna rescind my offer to debate you period. Depsite being a good debater and a rigorous challenge, your perspective of others inherently precludes even being able to get a sense of enjoyment or entertainment from such a debate.
And honestly I would've preferred to respectfully decline, but your lack of respect towards me in acknowledgement of a willingness to act unethically and in Ill faith kinda erased me doing that. If you wanna sling shit at people, be warned that they might start throwing rocks back
Never said that, if you want to keep attributing actions to people that arent there, allow me to actually elaborate more upon why I decided to forfeit.
Because to be frank, I don't feel like debating someone who has a victimhood complex and constantly tries to paint the other participant as nefarious despite zero evidence being present to attribute such nefariousness and I'll intent.
Furthermore, you want to paint my character negatively, then turn right around and imply you being "banned" was intentional and some sort of strategy to achieve victory. You do understand you just implied you cheated right? 😂😂
Like Jesus Christ dude, you have such a victimhood complex that demands you view everyone as nefarious and out to get you, all as a means to justify that you yourself are quite in fact being the dick in most situations unjustifiably.
As I said, the W obviously means more to you because you are willing to abandon ethics and good faith acting to achieve it. That doesnt mean your right when somebody notices that and goes, nah dude, just take the W, that means you were being a massive dick and acting like a chode.
FR, you need to get over yourself and your blatant narcissistic victim complex thats on full display here 😂. I'm not even angry, this has just been absurdly comedic the extent you've deluded yourself at this point 😂😂😂
Cx is just asking questions regarding your opponent's case, to which they provide answers. Simple enough to carry over to a debate online in comments fmpov
Its ok you didn't compile your entire case initially btw. I see no issues with doing R1+R2 as rounds where constructs are permissed. Because of the size limitations, and the scope of what's being argued, it makes little sense to me to limit constructs to solely one round. Constructs wouldn't be nearly detailed enough at that point. Like my R1 was the main part, but theres no way I could have squeezed my entire construct in one Round xD
If you want to debate something else, being that I just has my second debate accepted, I would reasonably ask we wait till I finish one of the two. Three debates at once, plus mafia series is a quite a bit on the plate and i dont wanna do something where I'm gonna be so swamped by things that the quality of all activities drops consequentially 🤔.
Like I said, W is yours for this debate, getting the W isnt of particular importance to me so its no skin off me bones 👏👏
LD has Cx rounds in between rebuttal, but Cx can be done in comments. And yeah, usually LD has a live audience and select judges, but so long as voters are voting according to LD standards, it should be fine fmpov 🤔
Oh, sorry I figured my outlaying of rounds in the brief details would impart what position I was specifically. 2nd half of rounds is Aff. As the Instigator I have the first part, thus I'm Neg.
I also am not planning to run a K by way of going, "UBC is pointless if we just ban all guns". My argument does involve registries, but it's not advocating for one 🤔
"people underestimate me and call me tons of things, but one thing I am not is a mentally ill moron that Zeichen said i was"
simmer down man, I'm not Zeichen and I never said those things. Take a breather, realize you are attributing nefarious and Ill intent to that which was not nefarious or ill in intent.
You look at my R2 and go, "he didnt take my argument seriously because he underestimates me and thinks I'm crazy" no, I do not. If I thought as such we wouldn't have been debating to begin with. I would have respectfully declined and ceded the W.
After consideration, with that being said, have the W 👏. I'll just leave this debate to being done with Virtuoso as arguing the same topic twice simultaneously is just something that will melt my brain tbh and I consequentially won't be giving my full effort.
However, I'd gladly debate you on another ruling? 👌 Perhaps one that pertains to another realm of SCOTUS purview in jurisprudence? There are loads of landmark rulings to pick from 🔥🔥. Take your pick, or perhaps a crucial concept that underpins the rulings themselves. I made a thread about Citizens United v FEC in the forums, perhaps you are interested? 🤔
Nah, Trump's honor bound to at best, send 1/1024 of a million dollars. Should send it as a giant publishers clearing house check for about 9,000 dollar. Also, since when was Central and Southern American(Hispanic) the same as Cherokee? Be careful, ur getting pretty close to racist A" territory if you hold 1/1024 of DNA matching the central and south american DNA that was used in that test, is the same as matching with DNA of a Cherokee 😏.
RFD: I sincerely enjoyed reading the debate, and truth be told, if not for this point, it would likely be a tie. Rational did well enough to illustrate that Paul compromised on his ideals plenty. That negated adherence to the ideology a split, as it sufficiently illustrated that neither was a purist in action. However, in Round 1 there was one point from the standpoint of ideological purity that went unaddressed directly, that being the core principle of the non aggression principle in
"Gary Johnson rejects [the NaP]"
"Our standard is one of ideological purity: the degree to which individuals hold to Libertarianism"
"Finally, the correctness or value of Libertarianism (whether one should adhere to Libertarianism), being separate to the issue of how much one does adhere to it, is totally irrelevant."
If this was a debate exclusively regarding who "acted the most" Libertarian, then Rational made a compelling case and sufficiently linked Paul to having compromised on his libertarian beliefs. However, despite winning fmpov the battle of adherence to beliefs with a litany of smaller details indepedent of the point previous, and a compelling case regarding how Johnson has positions that tend to acknowledge the proposed harms of an AnCap type libertarian system and adjusts accordingly, this doesn't change that he rejects a core principle of the philosophy nonetheless. And Libertarianism without the NaP may be close, but can't be considered true libertariaism anymore. Pro therefore fulfills the resolution by illustrating that Ron Paul is more libertarian, because Johnson fmpov can't be classified as one per a flat out rejection of a foundational principle.
Well done to both of you. Arguments to Pro, the rest is a tie. *applauds*.
I was unaware of this "fiat" you mentioned. I can see your point that with fiat you get to assume something *will* happen 🤔. That was my mistake in fleshing out resolution terms because my thinking was, if such an advocacy would require repealing multiple parts of the constitution, repeal laws, and overturn certain S.C. rulings, then that would be changing "The US" to something other than "The US". But, can see that's not the case 🤔
Im further curious though, cause as a lawyer yourself you likely have a keener eye on legal argumentation. "Legal arguments were a tie, both pro and con showed ways it would be constititional or unconstitutional"
Care to elaborate? Like I said, for someone with education in law, you likely can cogently detail this, and if my legal argumentation is not sound, I would keenly want to know specifically where it did. Also, that half of my constitutional arguments were dropped has me extremely confused how that was viewed as a tie, but, because I per your view did not fully address the proposed benefits, despite nullifying much of them, that means arguments on utility are de facto to Virtuoso. Seems an inconsistent application of weight to percieved dropped areas of argumentation 🤔.
As opposed to one where equal weight is afforded to both feasibility, utility, with a lesser weight given to purely moral argumentation, as should implies, and as was set forth in the details. "On balance, a UBC would be beneficial" is a resolution that fully prioritizes utility. "The US should require a UBC" is a resolution that prioritizes neither the laws of the US or the utility in such an action. It sets them on an equal playing field because the debate is in part centered around "The US" as an actor. If it were just, "a UBC should be required" sans US, this removes the component of constitutionality and legality because the US is no longer in the resolution, and turns it into an argument on utility and morality, with priority given to utility, because when "ought" is used, that's prioritizes and presumes moral authority. "You ought not do that because it's wrong(morally)."
Could prioritizes feasibility over all.
Should prioritizes feasibility and utility over morality.
Ought prioritizes morality over feasibility and utility.
There is indeed a difference between could and should, but how does feasibility not play a heavy hand in whether or not something should be done? For example, "you shouldn't bake that cake because you don't have all the ingredients" is a measure of practicality. "You shouldn't bake that cake because you don't know how to bake" "you shouldn't do that because it's against the law". You shouldnt jump off that cliff because you cant fly. These are all reflections of feasibility.
In a debate centered around the US that debate absolutely factors in constitutionality and lawfulness. For example, though "you shouldn't because its unconstitutional" could be responded to with, "well we will just repeal the constitution". But that in itself necessarily removes the component of "The US" in the resolution. No constitution, no US.
Or as an alternative, "we will repeal these specific parts" however, the repealing of such is an entirely seperate debate in and of itself and absolutely counts as extensive policy planning because qualifiers that need be accomplished, before the resolution can be accomplished, are presented. But whether or not they actually would is entirely up in the air and cannot be assumed as likely, particularly because it would necessarily involve repealing constititional amendments, something that is not likely to happen. General policy planning would be, "A UBC could be implemented in this manner" in specific regards to the UBC itself.
And, "the way I interpreted the debate"
This is where reading debate details comes into play because as a voter you very well know you don't get to set the debate criteria, that's set by the debaters, usually the one initiating the debate. What you've done basically amounts to ignoring full debate details set forth pre-debate and necessarily accepted by acceptance of the debate itself, because you would rather see another kind of debate in which a higher priority is placed on utility.
I don't mind 🤔
Oh well, its largely irrelevant, as he said the legal arguments were a tie to him. Its just irking me that he is attributing a narrow scope to the word 😂
"This isnt a debate on the validity of the framework itself, it is a debate on whether that framework and system would permit the implementation of a federally mandated universal background check for any and all transfers of ownership. As well as a debate upon the harms/benefits of any such implementation."
Practicality and Utility in essence 🤔
Practicality just seems a stock part of "should" in context of the debate. But its not like I didnt spell it out clearly in the full details anyways 😂😂😂
Well that should includes more than utility should have been understood with the resolution. It wasn't, "On balance a UBC would be more beneficial than not" it was "the us should implement a UBC" that prima facie includes practicality be necessity of being a nation, with laws therein limiting what practically can and cannot be done 🤔
Am I wrong on that? Have I been reading practicality falsely into the word? I hope not, its how ive taken it for years and my life would be a lie 😂😂
Thanks for voting Bench! I must ask though, you mentioned that,
"but a vast majority of arguments were instead focused on the legality of UBC's rather than their potential effectiveness or ineffectiveness"
though I disagree they were purely legal arguments, my main question, is what you think "should" means?
It seems you are taking it as meaning purely utility(harms/benefits), but doesn't feasibility also play a factor? Should is a measure on feasibility(practicality) and desirability(harms/benefits). As opposed to "ought" which usually implies moral authority 🤔.
Hrmmm, so in an LD debate presentation of new evidence past construct, even if strictly applied to rebuttal counts as case construction. That would explain why I always got docked conduct points in LD debates in school 🤔
Has anybody else noticed it awards tie points to the side who was actually awarded the least points? Should it even be doing that? If a specific metric is a tie, shouldn't no points be awarded to either side regarding the specific metric?
Overall though, thanks for the thought out and reasoned vote. Regardless of whether it's for me or Virtuoso, I appreciate the due consideration given to the debate 👏👏
I can certainly see perhaps why "on the bemefits of a UBC was considered a new argument considering I put forth evidence not previously presented in regards to mental illness. However, being that it was claimed in construct by Aff that UBC's were extremely effective, evidence that shines light on that not quite being the case, imho ought to count as a rebuttal to the claim imho 🤔
Boi, I almost didn't get this in on time. Was typing it up, page auto-refreshed and deleted it when I was almost done xD.
Yeah, if any questions are needed 🤔
I'm totes down for a 2a debate 🤔
I posted about Citizens United earlier in the forums, down for that too. just one at a time though 🤔
Thanks to you as well! If you wanna do another. Ur pick on case and position
I'll hold off on posting my R3 to the deadline for ya 👌👏
nice R1 👏👏
Isnt it 1 construct + 2 rebuttals each? Cx is done post each construct round? 🤔
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Douglas_debate_format
After taking a nap. I'm sorry for the name-calling. Still consider it accurate, there was a better way to communicate what I was trying to regarding reciprocating what you fed me.
"Such as me questioning your reasoning behind SCOTUS being entitled to override what the other 2 branches agreed on? Yeah that was Devil's Advocate prodding at your side, not unethical I'm glad we can agree"
Bringing up Judicial Review was not unethical. "Devil's Advocate" is not an accurate defense of your actions, because I never said that was unethical. It was if anything humorous because you questioned SCOTUS authority to overturn law, when that authority was itself granted by legislation.
You admitted a total willingness to act unethically, actually did so in deciding to slander me regarding 1) implying I underestimate you(something you still claim)
2) claiming lack of good faith acting ("lack of effort"
"To some my ban may seem like luck, but others will know there's a strategy behind my madness"
"Don't you dare drop your guard against me"
"Its a war"
"I'll do what I need(to win)"
"Your lack of strategy"
Hoss, simmer down with the ego stroking and realize, the more you speak, the more you sound like you actually did cheat 😂.
It's absurd that you did, def some post facto justification, but oh boy, take a deep breath, maybe take a nap like I did? Did wonders for my crankiness 😂😂
"Never said you cheated here"
You did.
"are willing to act unethically and cheat to win."
never said you cheated *here*
*are willing to act*
>here(in debate)
>Are willing to
Thanks
You understand, thats not the same thing 🤔
Here's the thing. You are right, I'm being a dick, because I'm reciprocating what you gave me.
This debate started out fine, fairly respectful on both sides, total overuse of buzzwords when arguing aside. Then you get banned, it was disappointing. I asked why you were, pointed out in forums there didn't appear to be a good reason for doing so as of yet.
You then come back, attribute to me nefariousness and ill intent with "underestimating" and "think I'm crazy". Congrats, I actually do think that now, way to go bringing about the same outcome you complained about.
Then proceed to continue acting like a dick in attributing poor faith in debating, "lack of effort" despite there being clear and good reason to cancel/restart.
But no, ever the one to chase the W at all costs, you refuse to cancel the debate, and insist we continue this, AND restart anew simultaneous. Again, rather unethical considering the debate was derailed *by you getting banned*.
You then proceed to be a dick by stating in R3 that I said, despite never actually doing so, that I conceded due to your arguments being superior.
And you call me a liar despite me accurately paraphrasing? Here's the thing, you could've been respectful and been like, hey, this debate got derailed, my opponent has decided to concede due to starting this same debate up with another. Just couldn't do that could you? Just couldn't help but be a dick.
I'm calling you a dick because it is a 100% accurate term for your behavior. That I'm reciprocating it back unto you may be wrong on my part, but it is funny to watch you dance around admitting you are what im saying you are 😂
Sure thing bud, you do understand near any site has codes of conduct users are expected to follow? And you just admitted, again, to be fully willing to act as unethical, and do whatever you need(that would rationally include cheating if necessary) to win.
Even ignoring the latter implications, admission of willingness to act as unethically as necessary is probably going to fly in the face of any terms of service or ethical code of conduct.
You said I was lying, "or your lies"
Last i checked, "you are a liar" =\= you are a dick. There's that wit of yours shining through again 😂😂
You need not have cheated here to show your hand. You've given every indication to hold that you would, if given the opportunity and means to do so, while consequentially getting away with it.
Just as with being unethical, you had the opportunity, the means, and figured you could get away with it and get a W, so you did it.
You can have the W, I would reserve judgement on potential consequences for admitting willingness to act in such a manner 🤔
"You accuse me of projection but every time you call me a dick, it tends to be that the post before and after you calling me a dick make it quite blatant which of the two of us is more so a 'dick'."
I'm calling you one for more than good reason, for which ive clearly elaborated. "Your calling me a dick, and im not!"
Is so lulz. What are you 5? Consider: I'm calling you as such because you actually are in this situation,
mr, "lack of effort and strategy".
"There is no cheating, playing devil's advocate is not cheating."
Never said you cheated here, said you acted highly unethically. While also admitting you would willingly cheat to obtain a W.
" I will do what I need"
"Debate is a war, its a battle"
"To many my ban and unban will be luck. To those who know, there is strategy behind my insanity."
Yes, that strategy is taking advantage of yourself getting banned and how that consequentially that derailed the debate. This clearly implies if you could, you would take such a course of action to derail a debate as a means to do what you need to secure a W.
Also, newsflash, "There is no cheating, playing devil's advocate is not cheating"
Devil's advocate is when you argue for something you disagree with. Devil's advocate is not, however, acting in an unethical manner when debating.
"or your lies"
Phew, classic projection,
" I will do what I need to in order to bring as much doubt onto your side and confidence in my side."
Ive not lied here, but you sure have and admitted to having zero issue doing so 🔥
Sure bud, whatever you gotta tell yourself to justify you being a dick 😂😂
And if it's ok to you to do whatever it takes, why take personal offense to my rebuttal, as denoted by the whining about people underestimating you and thinking ur crazy.
If you wanna know why they think the latter, look at this conversation right here, this is your answer. thanks for fully admitting you are willing to act unethically and cheat to win. 😂😂
"it is a war, a battle"
No, its not. You want it to be that way to delude yourself into thinking acting unethically in a debate is justified.
Also, highly convenient, "I wasn't saying that"
"You clearly were"
"Well I wasn't being serious"
Lol how convenient 😂😂
Lol @ you trying to be like, "I never said that" you didn't have to outright state it, it was clear thats what you were doing. Also, paraphrasing also uses quotations too. Like I said, that's some hella wit you got there 😂😂😂
Yes, I am because of this,
"So what Prop (The side of Proposition) is actually saying is shockingly that the legislation that was clearly approved by the Legislative branch and then enacted into Law instead of just a Bill by the President of the United States (POTUS) is having enough grounds to be overturned by SCOTUS..."
This is a clear questioning of Judicial Review itself. "the grounds" in relation to "legislation" "enacted into law" clearly illustrates, again, a questioning of Judicial Review. You don't need to outright say it for it to be exactly what you did
Some impressive wits right there 🔥
Says the guy who asked, "what authority does SCOTUS have to overturn legislation passed into law?
Despite that being established in legislation for a little over 200 years, and further codified into an actual amendment to the Constitution that makes it the supreme law of the US, and the Supreme Court being the highest adjudicator in the court system by consequence the absolute authority on the constititionality of law and criminal charges 🤔
Honestly, take me my resscindence as you will, it is sure to be taken negatively and ascribed as being nefarious. When calling somebody out for being a dick, isnt nefarious, especially when that person has a slew of issues with loads of people in social interaction, yet never seems to look in the mirror regarding that. Its always everybody else being dicks, totally not ever you acting like a dick because you presume everyone to be an enemy
Im just gonna rescind my offer to debate you period. Depsite being a good debater and a rigorous challenge, your perspective of others inherently precludes even being able to get a sense of enjoyment or entertainment from such a debate.
And honestly I would've preferred to respectfully decline, but your lack of respect towards me in acknowledgement of a willingness to act unethically and in Ill faith kinda erased me doing that. If you wanna sling shit at people, be warned that they might start throwing rocks back
Prop has said what I said is worthy of forfeit.
Never said that, if you want to keep attributing actions to people that arent there, allow me to actually elaborate more upon why I decided to forfeit.
Because to be frank, I don't feel like debating someone who has a victimhood complex and constantly tries to paint the other participant as nefarious despite zero evidence being present to attribute such nefariousness and I'll intent.
Furthermore, you want to paint my character negatively, then turn right around and imply you being "banned" was intentional and some sort of strategy to achieve victory. You do understand you just implied you cheated right? 😂😂
Like Jesus Christ dude, you have such a victimhood complex that demands you view everyone as nefarious and out to get you, all as a means to justify that you yourself are quite in fact being the dick in most situations unjustifiably.
As I said, the W obviously means more to you because you are willing to abandon ethics and good faith acting to achieve it. That doesnt mean your right when somebody notices that and goes, nah dude, just take the W, that means you were being a massive dick and acting like a chode.
FR, you need to get over yourself and your blatant narcissistic victim complex thats on full display here 😂. I'm not even angry, this has just been absurdly comedic the extent you've deluded yourself at this point 😂😂😂
Cx is just asking questions regarding your opponent's case, to which they provide answers. Simple enough to carry over to a debate online in comments fmpov
How about R1= Constructs
R2 = Construct+Rebuttal
R3= Rebuttal+Closing statement
?
Its ok you didn't compile your entire case initially btw. I see no issues with doing R1+R2 as rounds where constructs are permissed. Because of the size limitations, and the scope of what's being argued, it makes little sense to me to limit constructs to solely one round. Constructs wouldn't be nearly detailed enough at that point. Like my R1 was the main part, but theres no way I could have squeezed my entire construct in one Round xD
I did state I was arguing neg in basic details btw, and outlined round sequence so as to adhere to LD debate format 🤔
If you want to debate something else, being that I just has my second debate accepted, I would reasonably ask we wait till I finish one of the two. Three debates at once, plus mafia series is a quite a bit on the plate and i dont wanna do something where I'm gonna be so swamped by things that the quality of all activities drops consequentially 🤔.
Like I said, W is yours for this debate, getting the W isnt of particular importance to me so its no skin off me bones 👏👏
Instigator = Negative
Contender = Affirmative
R1: Neg- Waive / Aff- First Construct
R2: Neg- Construct+Rebuttal / Aff- Rebuttal
R3: Neg- 2nd Rebut / Aff- Final rebuttal
LD has Cx rounds in between rebuttal, but Cx can be done in comments. And yeah, usually LD has a live audience and select judges, but so long as voters are voting according to LD standards, it should be fine fmpov 🤔
As stated Virtuoso gets first construct as affirmative. I will waive the first round accordingly to maintain LD debate format 👏
Oh, sorry I figured my outlaying of rounds in the brief details would impart what position I was specifically. 2nd half of rounds is Aff. As the Instigator I have the first part, thus I'm Neg.
I also am not planning to run a K by way of going, "UBC is pointless if we just ban all guns". My argument does involve registries, but it's not advocating for one 🤔
"people underestimate me and call me tons of things, but one thing I am not is a mentally ill moron that Zeichen said i was"
simmer down man, I'm not Zeichen and I never said those things. Take a breather, realize you are attributing nefarious and Ill intent to that which was not nefarious or ill in intent.
You look at my R2 and go, "he didnt take my argument seriously because he underestimates me and thinks I'm crazy" no, I do not. If I thought as such we wouldn't have been debating to begin with. I would have respectfully declined and ceded the W.
After consideration, with that being said, have the W 👏. I'll just leave this debate to being done with Virtuoso as arguing the same topic twice simultaneously is just something that will melt my brain tbh and I consequentially won't be giving my full effort.
However, I'd gladly debate you on another ruling? 👌 Perhaps one that pertains to another realm of SCOTUS purview in jurisprudence? There are loads of landmark rulings to pick from 🔥🔥. Take your pick, or perhaps a crucial concept that underpins the rulings themselves. I made a thread about Citizens United v FEC in the forums, perhaps you are interested? 🤔
Nice round! 😰🔥This is gonna be fun 💯