Incel-chud

I haven't read the debate, but yeah pro is on the correct side here.

I actually posted my round and the system glitched. I am done with debates here

"Free speech does not apply to things I disagree with"

Great take, genius

I am telling you, it doesn't matter what side you take in a thought exercise.

I am telling you, it doesn't matter what side you take in a thought exercise.

If you can't debate both sides of a position well enough to defeat baseline competent opponents, you don't know the subject well enough where you should even be holding an opinion on it.

Thank you for extending

I don't have a main drafte. I have hundreds of pieces of papers I have scribbled notes on when in hypermanic states that I am trying to make sense of and put in this debate

I am unlikely to win, because I am doing a combination of those things. I have been working on an ideal for a while, and have secretly written about 500 pages on it, and it is quite muddled and I am trying to make sense of it now. I am honestly more interested in honing my ideal here, than I am in winning. I think RM has some great ideals and would like to see the winner replicate this debate with him, if he is willing

Thanks, good job analyzing the debate. I think you made some mistakes but we can't always separate bias from our analysis and I can tell you tried real hard. Thanks

I wrote the resolution in the description. The title of the debate is not the resolution and anyone who accepts a debate is required to read the descruption

Not that interested to talk in dms but I enjoyed out conversation so far.

You don't have to ask Ragnar. Your vote was within the rules. This is a philosophical argument as to how to vote not an argument as to whether you voted wrong or not.

"The default is just disproving your resolution."

If he actually disproved it that would be fine. He only mitigated the points. In order to overcome my arguments he had to completely destroy them or atleast have a bigger impact with some positive argumentation

You don't specify BOP in the rules. There is a way too figure out who has BOP that is entirely independent of the rules, in topics like this it is shared. Con has to show why most men should stand to pee. And I have to show why they should sit more often than not. I thought about altering the BOP because I know voters here are incompetent but ultimately I don't care much because I will be leaving the site within 48 hours anyway

Don't vote if you are too incompetent to do a proper impact analysis

So far I think I secured the conduct point, so I won't be risking it with any slurs.

When can we start a voting block? I need votes. I plan on putting some in myself later.

I wouldn't describe you as clever either. I'm just going to copy and paste something I wrote in another debate and this should be smooth sailing

They will punish him for it. He is also about to learn he isn't as clever as he thinks he is.

Well, I guess you are right. He already fucked up though with his first round though. So it's cool

Cowardly not to accept a debate because you are unsure of your opponents arguments

Rm, use common sense. You know he means like black people or Hispanics etc

Thinking about playing Devil's advocate here

Here is what I just read from the first post of benjamin

"My opponent admits three things:

Religious and scientific thinking are different and disharmonious
Religion is illogical and has to use trickery and indoctrination to convince people
The so called value of religion is comfort and meaning, not ultimate truth"

RM, said none of this. I wish you guys would seriously read your opponents arguments, and instead of just shitting out a response, actually take the time to understand it, so you can argue against it effectively.

Thank you for debating this with me. It was fun. Hopefully you find some more fun debates to engage in here.

This debate is finished and you guys cared enough to comment, so I am requesting some votes fif you guys feel like taking the time to do so.

Thanks for taking time out of your day to vote.

I'll be reading this debate, as it seems very interesting. Unfortunately if I do vote, I'll have to award zero points as I might not be able to overcome my own biases

Thanks for taking the time to vote

Yes, I agree with you to a certain extent

fair enough

Thanks for your vote. I disagree they won though, everything they listed as a benefit can be done in the current format, without exception

Exactly ;)

I am the one guy people can leave their girlfriend with, without having to worry if their girlfriend will have consensual sex behind theur back

Thanks

Vote n word, please

I think when you do settings for what opponent can accept, you can put the elo score all the way up and other things where nobody will easily be able to accept.

Thanks about the kid

I thought about shaving for the video and taking it from a better angle because it makes me look fat, but I am too lazy

If nobody accepts in a couple of hours, I will. Don't worry

I will have the argument up later. Thank you

That is not the resolution of the debate. UT is the title

I know it would have changed. I think we cause as many humanitarian problems as we solve, so it would probably work itself out. Didn't the United States just a few months ago drone some civilians. Not in a way where they were collateral damage, but actually targeting them?

Besides, becoming isolationist would mean zero blow back. Blow back is caused by actions, therefore end actions and end blowback from actions. 9/11 was blow back for example. 9/11 happened because of American presence helping Israel in the middle east. There is literally zero reason. To attack the United States if no reason is given for attacking the United States.

Besides, being ready to launch a nuke at any attack and erase a country from existence, is a really strong motivator of making sure America stays safe.

I refuse to debate that until I read the book "the case for israel" by Alan derschowitz.

See below. But how do you think that Iraq fighting Kuwait would effect the global stage? Shit is just between them.

I don't understand how this debate was close. Bmd rocks could have made the debate more precise, and avoided just turning this into an excuse to bash Israel 's past actions.

I would have worded it something like

"America should stop sending foreign aid to Israel"

It would be more fun to argue the ethics of creating pedophile rings to entrap American politicians like mossad did with ghislaine maxwell.

Usually I can find a way to argue any position, but I think I would have a hard time arguing that Muslims would stop being violent extremists if Israel siezed to exist. At least they would just turn that violence inwards if Israel disappeared and America took an isolationist approach. We could just put a fence around that part of the world and forget about it.

Would you like to debate whether it was ethical for mossad to have ghislaine maxwell blackmail American politicians by setting them up to be filmed having sex with minors?

Also you claim that technique us no worse than what is used by American spies. Can you name one instance of American spies doing something similar to what ghislaine maxwell did?

Further more, do you think Israel spying on the United States is worse than visa versa because of their techniques. For example epstein's lover being connected with mossad and them bringing politicians on pedophile Island to black mail?