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.
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.