You would be allowed to do that. That is in your full control. You can make any debate you want. You can set any rules you want. However, if someone accepts the debate, then they clearly a acknowledge the harsh rules and will abide by them.
So it doesn't matter that I said "no kritiks, agree to definitions" in my rules? So I might as well not have written rules? I've seen many top debaters on this cite that have the same format, including rules.
I believe the vote to be improper. After getting my definitions shifted and rules broken, and even after my opponents admitting they will use kritiks and ignore my rules, they somehow pull through with the vote? Does my opponent not bear any consequence for accepting a debate and then complaining about it? Not to mention that the BoP was not proved by con, what so ever.
Con has agreed to debate against the topic To worship God is to worship a murderer. That is what they will be doing. Not doing so will be a breach of the rules and poor debating ethics.
It's worth noting that I got this idea from a debate conducted by seldiora, to which his opponent believes that God has not even broken a single law. I thought that was a certain win for seldiora, but apparently someone thought better. I do not see the issue with this debate.
Unfortunately, as if you agreed to the terms, you shall be abiding by them. Though you have opinions about my debate, you have taken part in it willingly. I have the freedom to set up any debate I want with whatever terms I see fit, and you also have the freedom to accept of reject my debate. However, upon acceptance, you have acknowledged the terms of this debate and will be abiding by them.
Break the rules if you want, but that will be poor conduct and a breach in an agreement.
You have accepted this debate, and therefore have agreed to comply with the rules. You may use kritiks if you wish, but that will simply be against the rules, to which you will be penalised.
If I add the word "unjust"', a religious person may argue that God cannot act unjustly and that all the murders were justified as God is Omnibenevolent. The point is that God has murdered period, no emotive words.
It seems you provided a description which would suggest you wanted to vote for me. Yet you didn't?
vote bump
bump
I will take this debate if you agree that murder is immoral.
I may consider taking this in a few days time.
Voters, anyone?
Voters, anyone?
*bump*
*bump*
Why is this even a debate? Con can just say the LGBTQ community accepts homosexuality...
Bump
Bump
We'll see.
whos this wylted person? It there an issue with me questioning the votes that have been put through?
You would be allowed to do that. That is in your full control. You can make any debate you want. You can set any rules you want. However, if someone accepts the debate, then they clearly a acknowledge the harsh rules and will abide by them.
So it doesn't matter that I said "no kritiks, agree to definitions" in my rules? So I might as well not have written rules? I've seen many top debaters on this cite that have the same format, including rules.
You can make an affirmative action debate.
I believe the vote to be improper. After getting my definitions shifted and rules broken, and even after my opponents admitting they will use kritiks and ignore my rules, they somehow pull through with the vote? Does my opponent not bear any consequence for accepting a debate and then complaining about it? Not to mention that the BoP was not proved by con, what so ever.
Con has agreed to debate against the topic To worship God is to worship a murderer. That is what they will be doing. Not doing so will be a breach of the rules and poor debating ethics.
It's worth noting that I got this idea from a debate conducted by seldiora, to which his opponent believes that God has not even broken a single law. I thought that was a certain win for seldiora, but apparently someone thought better. I do not see the issue with this debate.
Unfortunately, as if you agreed to the terms, you shall be abiding by them. Though you have opinions about my debate, you have taken part in it willingly. I have the freedom to set up any debate I want with whatever terms I see fit, and you also have the freedom to accept of reject my debate. However, upon acceptance, you have acknowledged the terms of this debate and will be abiding by them.
Break the rules if you want, but that will be poor conduct and a breach in an agreement.
Well someone accepted the debate so clearly they believe God has not killed.
You have accepted this debate, and therefore have agreed to comply with the rules. You may use kritiks if you wish, but that will simply be against the rules, to which you will be penalised.
What's wrong with my definition of murder.
If I add the word "unjust"', a religious person may argue that God cannot act unjustly and that all the murders were justified as God is Omnibenevolent. The point is that God has murdered period, no emotive words.
I don't think I made this possible to loose for myself.