I don't like replying to shit. Funny how the loudest voices in this debate are allergic to logic, obsessed with outdated manuals, and still somehow think condescension is a valid argument. But sure, tell me more about ‘ethics’ from your dusty moral archives. I’ll wait
Sick sadists who also probably have religious parents and that's why, even in 2025, they think it's ethical for parents to change their child's homosexuality.
Sick sadists who believe it's ethical to prevent homosexuality. They think pro's argument is more practical because kids have religious parents but completely misses on the ethical sense of it. Some mods are hitting new lows everyday, they think that if somebody has voted biasedly twice, they won't the next time. To get this straight: the moment someone votes for me with clarity, stats, and a moral compass, y’all suddenly find a problem, not with their reasoning, but with their tone and sarcasm?
I’m sorry, but if you think that vote was valid and UmbrellaCorp’s wasn’t, either you didn’t read the debate, or you read it and couldn’t handle that somebody called a spade a spade. Either way, I don’t need your validation, and I sure as hell don’t need to beg for fairness from a group that clutches its pearls over the word ‘darling’ but lets blatant bias slide because it fits the narrative. Anyone who removes my votes or votes for the pro for whatever dumbass reason is just agreeing to the fact that it's ethical to tamper with someone's identity.
You can keep your rigged system. I’ll keep my backbone. Fucking dumbasses.
'Calm down baby’- said the man whose entire argument just got folded like some paper napkin. If that’s all you’ve got left, you’re not debating anymore, you’re flirting with defeat.
Also, if pointing out that your beliefs don’t belong in a logic-based debate makes you this fragile, maybe don’t bring them to one. I'm not angry, I'm just watching your argument crumble & frankly, it's adorable that you think condescension can cover for that.
Ughh even if umbrellacorp is saying he hasn't said that your religion is absurd, let me do it. Your religious beliefs are absurd and irrelevant in the debate.
So lemme get this straight. You're defending the removal of a legitimate vote because the voter used the words ‘darling’ and ‘honey’? That's not moderation, that’s pearl-clutching disguised as policy.
You say tone matters, but tone only seems to matter when it's mine. Sarcasm is a crime, but blatant religious stereotyping, passive dismissal of lived trauma, and platform-wide bias? Crickets. If we’re talking about what’s ‘respectful,’ maybe start with the voter who implied religion is the only excuse for the Pro’s ethics and called the entire topic itself absurd. You conveniently skipped that part huh?
And the line about letting ‘your points speak for themselves’? They did. That’s why the vote went my way. I explained exactly why your argument lacked ethical footing, relied on fear and emotional coercion, and defaulted to religious doctrine when nothing else held up. It wasn’t a tone vote — it was a logic win. The tone was just the seasoning. You’re mad about the spice because you couldn’t handle the substance.
You also said, ‘If you really think there was cultural mockery or endorsement of child abuse, report it.’ Babe, I did. You know what happened? You minimized it. The way you’re minimizing it again now. So maybe don’t preach ‘civility’ when the platform itself is tolerating people who make jokes about Indian carnivals and say kids should be physically punished to fix their personalities.
This isn’t about me being rude. This is about you being uncomfortable that I didn’t say it with a smile. Newsflash: fighting for dignity and truth doesn’t require a gentle tone. Respect doesn’t mean rolling over when someone belittles your identity and gets away with it in a more “civilized” font.
So no, I won't calm down.
I won't be ‘nicer’ for the comfort of people who are allergic to confrontation but addicted to condescension.
And I won’t accept that a vote grounded in fact, ethics, and clear judgment was tossed just because it came with too much personality for your taste.
I’m here to debate, not to babysit fragile egos. “but when you’re debating something as personal and serious as a kid’s identity and their relationship with their parents, that tone can come off as dismissive or even mocking”. Exactly. When we are debating a kid's future, it's serious, and it's for the kid to decide their gender, religion has nothing do with that.
Oh, I see — so we’re removing votes now not based on logic, but based on tone? Let me get this straight: the vote literally says that trying to change your child’s sexuality is ignorant, unethical, and that even asking the question is absurd. That is a solid stance, backed with clarity, moral reasoning, and on-topic critique. But what’s the issue here? That I called u ‘darling’ and ‘honey’? Really?
So just to confirm shane Roy's comment was removed because it racist, based on her own biases and personal opinion about me. Someone can mock Indian culture, endorse child abuse, and suggest forced mental health treatment- and that gets removed. But someone who uses soft sarcasm and pet names while completely staying on-topic with actual ethical logic and critique? That’s too far?
Call me confused, or just call this what it really is: a desperate attempt to censor a vote that didn’t align with your feelings.
I can't help but laugh. Stop throwing tantrums on me ans lucystarfire. There it is. The fragile masculinity manifesto disguised as feedback. Tell me, did you write that before or after crying into your ‘Debate Champion 2017’ certificate from Model UN?
Let’s start with your ‘critique’, if you can call that deeply unhinged monologue critique. You didn’t just miss the point; you boarded a flight out of the realm of relevance, crash-landed into casual racism, and built a hut out of insecurity.
Saying my parents should’ve hit me?
You just confessed to fantasizing about child abuse, and you think I’m the unfit one to debate? What you need isn’t a vote button — it’s a therapist with a cancellation policy tough enough to handle your projection issues.
Calling me a brat with an over-inflated ego?
You wrote a full essay with emotional breakdown energy, spat out slurs, and still somehow sounded like a rejected Philosophy major trying to prove his IQ with Grammarly on. Spoiler: it didn’t work.
And oh, the 'Indian carnivals' jab?
Cute. Racism and cultural elitism, the last resort of someone who knows they lost the argument but wants to feel like they won the war. Keep the fake generosity, and don’t act like your “rupees in the mail” wasn’t laced with colonial-level condescension. Do send it, will frame them besides your “failed to be relevant certificate”, you don’t sound superior. You sound like a 19th-century missionary trapped in a Discord mod’s body.
As for dragging my bio? The fact that you had to scroll down to quote it means I left an impact. You can call it ego. I call it not being a doormat for strangers who wear fake civility like it’s deodorant. Spoiler: it doesn’t cover the stench. I can only imagine how low your esteem is, that you are explaining you entire bio just because I mentioned it once. Get a life!
You said I don’t belong here? Darling, I don’t belong in your version of a debate space — where emotion is weakness, logic is gatekept by bigotry, and fragile boys with internet access pretend their tantrums are TED Talks. You think you ended me, but all you did was showcase how low people stoop when they can’t handle being challenged.
And no, I’m not silencing myself. You don’t get to tell me when to stop speaking. You’re not my judge or my intellectual equal. You’re just background noise. Have
And maybe you can also use the therapy to understand the pain of children who suicide because of pressure by their parents to change their homosexuality.
Oh, look, a voter trying so hard to sound scholarly, they ended up sounding like ChatGPT having a superiority complex. Your entire feedback was basically an insecure fanfiction about how calm the Pro was and how personally offended you were that I didn’t speak like a TED Talk intern.
Calling my argument ‘adolescent’? you’re out here writing 300 words dissecting my tone like a rejected drama critic with a WiFi connection. If this debate gave you emotional whiplash, maybe the issue isn’t the argument: it’s your paper-thin threshold for discomfort.
You want citations for lived reality? Should I quote peer-reviewed trauma too, or will you need subtitles for that as well?
And dragging my bio into it? That’s not critique, that’s you rage-scrolling my profile because deep down you realized — I said what you were too polite, too sanitized, and too spineless to say.
Keep your backhanded “kind gestures.” TalkToAngel? Sweetheart, I suggest you go first — and ask them why you confuse confidence with arrogance and compassion with ‘carnival.’
Next time you vote, try using your brain instead of your biases. Maybe use those therapy links to learn how to be unbiased, I will pay for it. I give as good as I get.
Pro insists that atheism is irrational because it lacks evidence that God doesn’t exist, while completely ignoring that theism also lacks evidence that God does exist. But Con flips that on its head with a killer point: in rational thinking, belief should follow evidence—not precede it.
Just like you don’t believe a ghost slammed your door when you know wind exists, you don’t need proof that God doesn’t exist to withhold belief. That’s not irrational—it’s responsible. Atheism, especially the “weak” form, isn’t a claim—it’s the default absence of belief when no compelling evidence has been presented.
Pro’s attempt to paint agnosticism as more rational backfires when Con demonstrates that agnosticism, in many cases, is just fence-sitting when the probabilities are skewed. If the evidence (or lack thereof) overwhelmingly supports one conclusion, it is more rational to accept it than remain perpetually undecided.
Perhaps some agnostics want to avoid being wrong, albeit at the cost of making any conclusion at all. But Con shows that rationality isn’t about perfection—it’s about best judgment with current knowledge. And on that front, Con wins—marbles, metaphors, and all.
I had participated in 2 rounds while my opponent did in none. He forfeited all the three rounds. In this case, how can you give him a single point for anything? He hasn't even said a word and you are giving him 2 points for sources and all that stuff. That's not the right way to vote.
Jonrohith,
I exposed how you were using AI to draft your arguments. I have blocked you on DART. I had rejected your friend request. Anyone with even an inch of self respect would have stopped from commenting on one's debate but what can I even say.
Sure, there are other schemes, but none as historically grounded, morally urgent, or globally recognized as reparations.
Reparations aren't just a "scheme." They're an acknowledgement of a systematic and violent injustice: debt written in blood and gold. You don’t get to loot a country for two centuries, cause famines, deindustrialize its economy, extract $45+ trillion (Patnaik, 2018), and then throw in some charity programs or symbolic development aid 70 years later and call it even.
Other schemes like aid, trade agreements, or cultural exchanges are forward-looking tools—they don't rectify the foundational crimes of colonialism. Reparations do. That’s why Germany paid Holocaust survivors. That’s why the US apologized and compensated Japanese-Americans interned during WWII. That’s why countries like Australia and Canada are offering.
So no, it's not about “other schemes”. It’s about accountability.
You can’t rob someone blind, burn down their home, and then hand them a band-aid and say, “Let’s look ahead.”
You fix the past before you move forward.
And there ends a debate in which the pro tried to win by hook or by crook and succeeded. He's known to be using AI in crafting arguments and can't even form single coherent sentences in English. What a shame!
With all due respect, I feel compelled to point out a glaring issue with your judgment. You acknowledge that Pro was previously warned for attempting to influence votes—a serious violation of fair debate ethics. Yet, when this behavior is repeated again, your response is simply to "note" it? This isn’t just a minor infraction. It’s a deliberate attempt to skew the outcome and manipulate the platform's integrity. If warnings are ignored, what message are we sending? That rules are optional? That fairness is secondary to familiarity? You mention that it's "up to the voters" to decide whether grammar or AI use matters. But who is making the voters decide—Pro himself, with repeated and direct attempts to sway them? That’s not voter independence. That’s coercion. A debater trying to game the voting process after being cautioned should not be rewarded with a win—on moral, ethical, and procedural grounds. I urge you to reconsider whether a vote in Pro’s favor is justifiable when he has disregarded the very rules that preserve the platform’s credibility. If moderation does not mean enforcement, then what does it mean?
So Rohith can't write sentences in proper english. He agrees on using AI in this debate. He id asking people in their DMs to vote for him and this is ok? Mods please take note.
Jonrohith, blocking me won't help you in framing grammatically correct sentences.
Oh, look — another CLASSIC example of someone losing an argument and then whining about how their opponent made it. Let me spell this out for you: using technology does not mean you outsource your brain to it. There's a difference between refining your ideas and replacing them. You think you're edgy calling people “uncles” for expecting you to string a coherent sentence together in the language you're debating in? It’s not being an uncle, it’s being educated. If basic grammar hurts your ego, maybe the real problem isn’t the platform — it’s your inability to use it well. You're ranting about “people who oppose technology” while failing to realise it’s not the tool, it’s the user. A debate is not won by who used ChatGPT — it’s won by who knew what they were doing. And clearly, you didn’t. Also, news flash: calling someone out for being illogical, incoherent, or for plagiarising content without understanding it is not being old-school — it’s being honest. So don’t deflect with your prehistoric “stone age” comment. We’re not in the stone age, but clearly, your arguments still are. So next time, before you accuse someone of using tools — learn to sharpen your own. Because right now, you’re swinging around a blunt stick and calling it a sword.
So let me get this straight — the con wants to debate constitutional rights and serious issues like free speech, but struggles to frame a single coherent sentence in English? If we're here to debate in English, the bare minimum expectation is clarity of language. This isn’t a WhatsApp group argument — this is a debate platform where your command over the language you choose to debate in actually matters.
If your base essay needs to be rewritten entirely by AI to make sense to readers, maybe spend more time understanding the language before entering high-stakes debates on constitutional logic. Debate is not just about throwing around buzzwords like “tool” and “knife” — it’s abomut structuring thoughts clearly, presenting rational arguments, and yes, knowing the language you’re speaking in.If you can't even express a point without grammatical chaos, why exactly are you debating its importance?
If the debate is over, let it stay over. Resorting to personal comments after the discussion has ended only proves one thing — you’re trying to swing the votes by creating noise, not by offering substance. I haven’t commented on your arguments post-debate because I believe in respecting the process. Maybe try doing the same.
You say I only focused on my point of view — of course I did. It’s a debate, not a group therapy session. I defended my stance with logic, evidence, and conviction. If standing firm on reason bothers you, maybe the problem isn’t my argument — maybe it’s your inability to counter it.
You say “speech is a weapon” — then thank free speech for giving you the mic to make that ridiculous claim in the first place. You want to curtail rights and dress it up as “protection”? That’s not policy — that’s paranoia parading as patriotism.
And let’s not pretend this is all about principles either — the sudden comments, the desperate tone, the timing... it’s clear: you didn’t think you could win clean, so you tried to bait me into reacting. That way, you could paint me as the aggressor and sway the undecided.
Let the audience decide. Not your edits. Not your DMs. Not your platform history.
Why are you so happy! Did you ask her yo vote for you?
I don't like replying to shit. Funny how the loudest voices in this debate are allergic to logic, obsessed with outdated manuals, and still somehow think condescension is a valid argument. But sure, tell me more about ‘ethics’ from your dusty moral archives. I’ll wait
Sick sadists who also probably have religious parents and that's why, even in 2025, they think it's ethical for parents to change their child's homosexuality.
Sick sadists who believe it's ethical to prevent homosexuality. They think pro's argument is more practical because kids have religious parents but completely misses on the ethical sense of it. Some mods are hitting new lows everyday, they think that if somebody has voted biasedly twice, they won't the next time. To get this straight: the moment someone votes for me with clarity, stats, and a moral compass, y’all suddenly find a problem, not with their reasoning, but with their tone and sarcasm?
I’m sorry, but if you think that vote was valid and UmbrellaCorp’s wasn’t, either you didn’t read the debate, or you read it and couldn’t handle that somebody called a spade a spade. Either way, I don’t need your validation, and I sure as hell don’t need to beg for fairness from a group that clutches its pearls over the word ‘darling’ but lets blatant bias slide because it fits the narrative. Anyone who removes my votes or votes for the pro for whatever dumbass reason is just agreeing to the fact that it's ethical to tamper with someone's identity.
You can keep your rigged system. I’ll keep my backbone. Fucking dumbasses.
'Calm down baby’- said the man whose entire argument just got folded like some paper napkin. If that’s all you’ve got left, you’re not debating anymore, you’re flirting with defeat.
Also, if pointing out that your beliefs don’t belong in a logic-based debate makes you this fragile, maybe don’t bring them to one. I'm not angry, I'm just watching your argument crumble & frankly, it's adorable that you think condescension can cover for that.
Ughh even if umbrellacorp is saying he hasn't said that your religion is absurd, let me do it. Your religious beliefs are absurd and irrelevant in the debate.
Mieky, anyone with an inch of self respect wouldn't have voted again after their vote being removed once for being vague and biased.
So lemme get this straight. You're defending the removal of a legitimate vote because the voter used the words ‘darling’ and ‘honey’? That's not moderation, that’s pearl-clutching disguised as policy.
You say tone matters, but tone only seems to matter when it's mine. Sarcasm is a crime, but blatant religious stereotyping, passive dismissal of lived trauma, and platform-wide bias? Crickets. If we’re talking about what’s ‘respectful,’ maybe start with the voter who implied religion is the only excuse for the Pro’s ethics and called the entire topic itself absurd. You conveniently skipped that part huh?
And the line about letting ‘your points speak for themselves’? They did. That’s why the vote went my way. I explained exactly why your argument lacked ethical footing, relied on fear and emotional coercion, and defaulted to religious doctrine when nothing else held up. It wasn’t a tone vote — it was a logic win. The tone was just the seasoning. You’re mad about the spice because you couldn’t handle the substance.
You also said, ‘If you really think there was cultural mockery or endorsement of child abuse, report it.’ Babe, I did. You know what happened? You minimized it. The way you’re minimizing it again now. So maybe don’t preach ‘civility’ when the platform itself is tolerating people who make jokes about Indian carnivals and say kids should be physically punished to fix their personalities.
This isn’t about me being rude. This is about you being uncomfortable that I didn’t say it with a smile. Newsflash: fighting for dignity and truth doesn’t require a gentle tone. Respect doesn’t mean rolling over when someone belittles your identity and gets away with it in a more “civilized” font.
So no, I won't calm down.
I won't be ‘nicer’ for the comfort of people who are allergic to confrontation but addicted to condescension.
And I won’t accept that a vote grounded in fact, ethics, and clear judgment was tossed just because it came with too much personality for your taste.
I’m here to debate, not to babysit fragile egos. “but when you’re debating something as personal and serious as a kid’s identity and their relationship with their parents, that tone can come off as dismissive or even mocking”. Exactly. When we are debating a kid's future, it's serious, and it's for the kid to decide their gender, religion has nothing do with that.
Oh, I see — so we’re removing votes now not based on logic, but based on tone? Let me get this straight: the vote literally says that trying to change your child’s sexuality is ignorant, unethical, and that even asking the question is absurd. That is a solid stance, backed with clarity, moral reasoning, and on-topic critique. But what’s the issue here? That I called u ‘darling’ and ‘honey’? Really?
So just to confirm shane Roy's comment was removed because it racist, based on her own biases and personal opinion about me. Someone can mock Indian culture, endorse child abuse, and suggest forced mental health treatment- and that gets removed. But someone who uses soft sarcasm and pet names while completely staying on-topic with actual ethical logic and critique? That’s too far?
Call me confused, or just call this what it really is: a desperate attempt to censor a vote that didn’t align with your feelings.
I can't help but laugh. Stop throwing tantrums on me ans lucystarfire. There it is. The fragile masculinity manifesto disguised as feedback. Tell me, did you write that before or after crying into your ‘Debate Champion 2017’ certificate from Model UN?
Let’s start with your ‘critique’, if you can call that deeply unhinged monologue critique. You didn’t just miss the point; you boarded a flight out of the realm of relevance, crash-landed into casual racism, and built a hut out of insecurity.
Saying my parents should’ve hit me?
You just confessed to fantasizing about child abuse, and you think I’m the unfit one to debate? What you need isn’t a vote button — it’s a therapist with a cancellation policy tough enough to handle your projection issues.
Calling me a brat with an over-inflated ego?
You wrote a full essay with emotional breakdown energy, spat out slurs, and still somehow sounded like a rejected Philosophy major trying to prove his IQ with Grammarly on. Spoiler: it didn’t work.
And oh, the 'Indian carnivals' jab?
Cute. Racism and cultural elitism, the last resort of someone who knows they lost the argument but wants to feel like they won the war. Keep the fake generosity, and don’t act like your “rupees in the mail” wasn’t laced with colonial-level condescension. Do send it, will frame them besides your “failed to be relevant certificate”, you don’t sound superior. You sound like a 19th-century missionary trapped in a Discord mod’s body.
As for dragging my bio? The fact that you had to scroll down to quote it means I left an impact. You can call it ego. I call it not being a doormat for strangers who wear fake civility like it’s deodorant. Spoiler: it doesn’t cover the stench. I can only imagine how low your esteem is, that you are explaining you entire bio just because I mentioned it once. Get a life!
You said I don’t belong here? Darling, I don’t belong in your version of a debate space — where emotion is weakness, logic is gatekept by bigotry, and fragile boys with internet access pretend their tantrums are TED Talks. You think you ended me, but all you did was showcase how low people stoop when they can’t handle being challenged.
And no, I’m not silencing myself. You don’t get to tell me when to stop speaking. You’re not my judge or my intellectual equal. You’re just background noise. Have
I have got standards so I will not go on and brag about your bio in which you claim to be hating gays
And maybe you can also use the therapy to understand the pain of children who suicide because of pressure by their parents to change their homosexuality.
Oh, look, a voter trying so hard to sound scholarly, they ended up sounding like ChatGPT having a superiority complex. Your entire feedback was basically an insecure fanfiction about how calm the Pro was and how personally offended you were that I didn’t speak like a TED Talk intern.
Calling my argument ‘adolescent’? you’re out here writing 300 words dissecting my tone like a rejected drama critic with a WiFi connection. If this debate gave you emotional whiplash, maybe the issue isn’t the argument: it’s your paper-thin threshold for discomfort.
You want citations for lived reality? Should I quote peer-reviewed trauma too, or will you need subtitles for that as well?
And dragging my bio into it? That’s not critique, that’s you rage-scrolling my profile because deep down you realized — I said what you were too polite, too sanitized, and too spineless to say.
Keep your backhanded “kind gestures.” TalkToAngel? Sweetheart, I suggest you go first — and ask them why you confuse confidence with arrogance and compassion with ‘carnival.’
Next time you vote, try using your brain instead of your biases. Maybe use those therapy links to learn how to be unbiased, I will pay for it. I give as good as I get.
Pro insists that atheism is irrational because it lacks evidence that God doesn’t exist, while completely ignoring that theism also lacks evidence that God does exist. But Con flips that on its head with a killer point: in rational thinking, belief should follow evidence—not precede it.
Just like you don’t believe a ghost slammed your door when you know wind exists, you don’t need proof that God doesn’t exist to withhold belief. That’s not irrational—it’s responsible. Atheism, especially the “weak” form, isn’t a claim—it’s the default absence of belief when no compelling evidence has been presented.
Pro’s attempt to paint agnosticism as more rational backfires when Con demonstrates that agnosticism, in many cases, is just fence-sitting when the probabilities are skewed. If the evidence (or lack thereof) overwhelmingly supports one conclusion, it is more rational to accept it than remain perpetually undecided.
Perhaps some agnostics want to avoid being wrong, albeit at the cost of making any conclusion at all. But Con shows that rationality isn’t about perfection—it’s about best judgment with current knowledge. And on that front, Con wins—marbles, metaphors, and all.
I understand. Can I just make my argument this round and you publish a longer argument?
Hmm okieee, I felt you were fake account but nvm.
I had participated in 2 rounds while my opponent did in none. He forfeited all the three rounds. In this case, how can you give him a single point for anything? He hasn't even said a word and you are giving him 2 points for sources and all that stuff. That's not the right way to vote.
Jonrohith,
I exposed how you were using AI to draft your arguments. I have blocked you on DART. I had rejected your friend request. Anyone with even an inch of self respect would have stopped from commenting on one's debate but what can I even say.
Sure, there are other schemes, but none as historically grounded, morally urgent, or globally recognized as reparations.
Reparations aren't just a "scheme." They're an acknowledgement of a systematic and violent injustice: debt written in blood and gold. You don’t get to loot a country for two centuries, cause famines, deindustrialize its economy, extract $45+ trillion (Patnaik, 2018), and then throw in some charity programs or symbolic development aid 70 years later and call it even.
Other schemes like aid, trade agreements, or cultural exchanges are forward-looking tools—they don't rectify the foundational crimes of colonialism. Reparations do. That’s why Germany paid Holocaust survivors. That’s why the US apologized and compensated Japanese-Americans interned during WWII. That’s why countries like Australia and Canada are offering.
So no, it's not about “other schemes”. It’s about accountability.
You can’t rob someone blind, burn down their home, and then hand them a band-aid and say, “Let’s look ahead.”
You fix the past before you move forward.
And there ends a debate in which the pro tried to win by hook or by crook and succeeded. He's known to be using AI in crafting arguments and can't even form single coherent sentences in English. What a shame!
I did realise that. But what johnrohith taking help of AI and all has deeply pained me. Nothing personal against you.
Give it a rest. Of course you would for him you like AI generated responses better.
With all due respect, I feel compelled to point out a glaring issue with your judgment. You acknowledge that Pro was previously warned for attempting to influence votes—a serious violation of fair debate ethics. Yet, when this behavior is repeated again, your response is simply to "note" it? This isn’t just a minor infraction. It’s a deliberate attempt to skew the outcome and manipulate the platform's integrity. If warnings are ignored, what message are we sending? That rules are optional? That fairness is secondary to familiarity? You mention that it's "up to the voters" to decide whether grammar or AI use matters. But who is making the voters decide—Pro himself, with repeated and direct attempts to sway them? That’s not voter independence. That’s coercion. A debater trying to game the voting process after being cautioned should not be rewarded with a win—on moral, ethical, and procedural grounds. I urge you to reconsider whether a vote in Pro’s favor is justifiable when he has disregarded the very rules that preserve the platform’s credibility. If moderation does not mean enforcement, then what does it mean?
So Rohith can't write sentences in proper english. He agrees on using AI in this debate. He id asking people in their DMs to vote for him and this is ok? Mods please take note.
Jonrohith, blocking me won't help you in framing grammatically correct sentences.
Oh, look — another CLASSIC example of someone losing an argument and then whining about how their opponent made it. Let me spell this out for you: using technology does not mean you outsource your brain to it. There's a difference between refining your ideas and replacing them. You think you're edgy calling people “uncles” for expecting you to string a coherent sentence together in the language you're debating in? It’s not being an uncle, it’s being educated. If basic grammar hurts your ego, maybe the real problem isn’t the platform — it’s your inability to use it well. You're ranting about “people who oppose technology” while failing to realise it’s not the tool, it’s the user. A debate is not won by who used ChatGPT — it’s won by who knew what they were doing. And clearly, you didn’t. Also, news flash: calling someone out for being illogical, incoherent, or for plagiarising content without understanding it is not being old-school — it’s being honest. So don’t deflect with your prehistoric “stone age” comment. We’re not in the stone age, but clearly, your arguments still are. So next time, before you accuse someone of using tools — learn to sharpen your own. Because right now, you’re swinging around a blunt stick and calling it a sword.
So let me get this straight — the con wants to debate constitutional rights and serious issues like free speech, but struggles to frame a single coherent sentence in English? If we're here to debate in English, the bare minimum expectation is clarity of language. This isn’t a WhatsApp group argument — this is a debate platform where your command over the language you choose to debate in actually matters.
If your base essay needs to be rewritten entirely by AI to make sense to readers, maybe spend more time understanding the language before entering high-stakes debates on constitutional logic. Debate is not just about throwing around buzzwords like “tool” and “knife” — it’s abomut structuring thoughts clearly, presenting rational arguments, and yes, knowing the language you’re speaking in.If you can't even express a point without grammatical chaos, why exactly are you debating its importance?
If the debate is over, let it stay over. Resorting to personal comments after the discussion has ended only proves one thing — you’re trying to swing the votes by creating noise, not by offering substance. I haven’t commented on your arguments post-debate because I believe in respecting the process. Maybe try doing the same.
You say I only focused on my point of view — of course I did. It’s a debate, not a group therapy session. I defended my stance with logic, evidence, and conviction. If standing firm on reason bothers you, maybe the problem isn’t my argument — maybe it’s your inability to counter it.
You say “speech is a weapon” — then thank free speech for giving you the mic to make that ridiculous claim in the first place. You want to curtail rights and dress it up as “protection”? That’s not policy — that’s paranoia parading as patriotism.
And let’s not pretend this is all about principles either — the sudden comments, the desperate tone, the timing... it’s clear: you didn’t think you could win clean, so you tried to bait me into reacting. That way, you could paint me as the aggressor and sway the undecided.
Let the audience decide. Not your edits. Not your DMs. Not your platform history.