As for the article, you’re right. I posted the wrong one after doing excruciating research to find a single source online that will openly defend anti-vaxxers. Regardless, the article isn’t meant to directly back up any claims I made, but is (or would have been) there for you to get a clear idea about the movement and it’s motivations.
So I’ll bite the bullet on that. It shouldn’t enough to make me lose though.
With all due respect, even though TheJackle’s sources might be credible they don’t back up an argument. His entire side of the debate consisted of giving us sources and simply saying he’s right. He has the warranted information, but has never made any claim or impact whatsoever.
This is how a proper argument should be crafted: “Vaccines are safe, because they are a key contributor to strengthening our immune systems against terrible diseases. According to (insert source here) it shows (insert statistic here), and shows vaccines are safe. Because of this, everyone can be healthier and more prepared against any detrimental diseases.”
Notice how the first sentence makes a claim, the second one backs up the claim with evidence, and the third one tells you why this argument matters. Hardly any of that is seen on Pro’s side of the debate. Regardless if it’s something a lot of people do (which I still find hard to believe myself) you can’t just use sources and expect them to do your arguing for you.
Also, given that RationalMadman got to express his concerns with the RFD, I feel as though that I should do the same. I know the bank robbery was an example but please bear in mind that immunity policies exist only within the confines of the college.
When you vote this time, please read the debate in it's entirety before doing so. I'd be inclined to say that I made my best points in the later rounds, and the same can be said for RationalMadman.
I mean, there are other movements that some would argue to be influential. BLM is a very good example. Women's suffrage was considered to be grassroots at the time...
it was just an example of a potential argument to be made; I don't expect anyone to make it single-handedly. I just think this topic would make for an interesting debate is all.
I don't think it would be that hard to falsify per se. I don't want to explicitly give away any strategies/talking points as it would make the debate not as fun but you could approach it from a "grassroots movements are inevitably good" angle or something. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people on this platform who stand with Antifa considering the diverse array of ideology I've seen thus far.
Lol you had your chance to define freedom in the first round and you didn't so don't be surprised if you lose the debate as a whole solely because of that. And you can cite as many sources as you want but it doesn't even apply to your argument. Let the votes speak for themselves.
With all due respect, you have it wrong entirely. There is a difference between men who rape and men who are accused of rape. Immunity policy only propagates an unfair system against someone who is accused.
As for the article, you’re right. I posted the wrong one after doing excruciating research to find a single source online that will openly defend anti-vaxxers. Regardless, the article isn’t meant to directly back up any claims I made, but is (or would have been) there for you to get a clear idea about the movement and it’s motivations.
So I’ll bite the bullet on that. It shouldn’t enough to make me lose though.
With all due respect, even though TheJackle’s sources might be credible they don’t back up an argument. His entire side of the debate consisted of giving us sources and simply saying he’s right. He has the warranted information, but has never made any claim or impact whatsoever.
This is how a proper argument should be crafted: “Vaccines are safe, because they are a key contributor to strengthening our immune systems against terrible diseases. According to (insert source here) it shows (insert statistic here), and shows vaccines are safe. Because of this, everyone can be healthier and more prepared against any detrimental diseases.”
Notice how the first sentence makes a claim, the second one backs up the claim with evidence, and the third one tells you why this argument matters. Hardly any of that is seen on Pro’s side of the debate. Regardless if it’s something a lot of people do (which I still find hard to believe myself) you can’t just use sources and expect them to do your arguing for you.
The definition is stripped right out of Wikipedia, and the definition is up for debate anyway.
I’m not anti-bad but I read the debate you and DrSpy has and I’m willing to play devil’s advocate. Brace yourself.
Bump for voting.
There wasn't any reasoning as to why Con won over Pro in arguments. This is a vote bomb.
Then why did you accept?
Ergo, Kira warrants involvement of the UN lol
Voting started, would appreciate your inputs!
I finally got my first loss out of the way on this platform lol. Congrats RM.
Bump for voting
You both have my respect good sirs ;)
Your votes would be greatly appreciated. And thank you Christen for reuploading your vote and providing a thoughtful RFD.
Also, given that RationalMadman got to express his concerns with the RFD, I feel as though that I should do the same. I know the bank robbery was an example but please bear in mind that immunity policies exist only within the confines of the college.
That said, use your best judgement.
When you vote this time, please read the debate in it's entirety before doing so. I'd be inclined to say that I made my best points in the later rounds, and the same can be said for RationalMadman.
Yeah I’m aware that I have to argue pro-vaping. Thanks anyway.
I expect a full commitment to this
I mean, there are other movements that some would argue to be influential. BLM is a very good example. Women's suffrage was considered to be grassroots at the time...
it was just an example of a potential argument to be made; I don't expect anyone to make it single-handedly. I just think this topic would make for an interesting debate is all.
I don't think it would be that hard to falsify per se. I don't want to explicitly give away any strategies/talking points as it would make the debate not as fun but you could approach it from a "grassroots movements are inevitably good" angle or something. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people on this platform who stand with Antifa considering the diverse array of ideology I've seen thus far.
Idk I think it would make a great debate.
gOtTa FiGhT tHe MaN xD
Lol you had your chance to define freedom in the first round and you didn't so don't be surprised if you lose the debate as a whole solely because of that. And you can cite as many sources as you want but it doesn't even apply to your argument. Let the votes speak for themselves.
I know he's wrong in his RFD but why are you disappointed lol. He gave you more points.
Bump for voting
Damn I wish I saw this sooner, cuz I would have totally taken you up on this debate. Sorry bro.
If you lower the voting period to one week then I'll take you up on this debate. This isn't troll is it?
I did my best lol. He didn't define the context of freedom... which he should have done. Comparing other nations to America is a lost cause.
Don’t worry about it bro, I appreciate the consideration!
Could I get a link to the COC?
Thanks! Looking forward to many great discussions!
With all due respect, you have it wrong entirely. There is a difference between men who rape and men who are accused of rape. Immunity policy only propagates an unfair system against someone who is accused.