It becomes a truism. I could literally just argue how Pro's argument supports Pro's ideology and why Pro believes that. Why is this expression even an expression used in debates?
Wait...dogs? What about the ones that has established a bond of connection between him and the owner? Shouldn't they be spared, if they don't do anything wrong with the dogs?
“It's a valid point that that information must be somewhere, but it is not presented by the individuals being vaccinated.”
But there is still a needed proof for who took the vaccines and who did not. There is never a proposition of that the patients must give the ID, just that the proof must be somewhere.
Neither produced any arguments at all that helped their side. Neither used any sources. However, Type1's R3 is offensive, thus conduct taken off and "Pro" "wins".
So we are arguing for a version of
hitler that suddenly turned more rational once the war started? If so, would the war even happen? Wouldn’t he aim for a more peaceful diplomatic strategy instead of war if he suddenly turned calm?
Bump vote
He had zero arguments. How can I vote for him?
6 million seems a stretch. Why couldn't it be 5,999,999?
You don’t. You respawn.
Because they taste yummy. Next question.
I don’t know if you get it, but these are jokes, not serious.
Bulp
Now that you have your main back...how about just move on and create no more alts?
Just play a game of mafia
This house believes that?
It becomes a truism. I could literally just argue how Pro's argument supports Pro's ideology and why Pro believes that. Why is this expression even an expression used in debates?
Please read what you have wrote again.
Didn't notice it? Read it again.
Read it again and again until you notice something wrong.
"Psychologists and psychiatrists are self-deluded con-artists preying on the gullibility and scientific naïvité of the public."
You seem to be using your brain when typing this statement. Now use it a bit more and think about others who actually know how to deal with it.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.
It does make sense as in the sense that it is logically sound and not self-contradictory, but like communism, it is extremely hard to get a move on.
And I am that terrible monster who's never had any dogs ever. I am curious of how this debate will go.
Wait...dogs? What about the ones that has established a bond of connection between him and the owner? Shouldn't they be spared, if they don't do anything wrong with the dogs?
What is a pitbull?
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-cultural-history-of-the-rat
Now what?
Interested?
“It's a valid point that that information must be somewhere, but it is not presented by the individuals being vaccinated.”
But there is still a needed proof for who took the vaccines and who did not. There is never a proposition of that the patients must give the ID, just that the proof must be somewhere.
Bump
Compelling arguments. Looks like a tie to me as both arguments are equally strong.
Sorry for not seeing this notification soon enough, but feel free.
The REAL question is: What happens if an intersex person suddenly becomes fit and decides to join a sport?
I believe that "argument" belongs more on Reddit than this place. What do you think?
Even then, that doesn't work. It is an ad-hominem fallacy.
I don't know if you are playing a laugh, but just in case if you are being serious.
No, he should have not won.
Neither produced any arguments at all that helped their side. Neither used any sources. However, Type1's R3 is offensive, thus conduct taken off and "Pro" "wins".
I would say that nobody at the rate of 1516 would accept the same topic now, except for new users who didn't know what he is walking himself into.
Almost ending. Vote?
In less than a day, preferably in 4-6 hrs.
Which side are you?
Undefeatable
I know this is taken, but to clarif, I am Con also.
Will get it in a day.
Living in a country that has barely any cruise ships but an extensive array of holidays, I think I can win this.
Change the argumentation time to 1 week and I will accept it.
Define cruise ship holidays.
Argument coming in less than 24 hrs.
If it is created using existing matter, then did he “create” it though?
I agree.
Outlawing abortion means all clinics related are illegal, which would cause more waste in humanity.
We are aiming for less waste, that is why abortion is bad in the first place.
To make less waste, simply invest in better contraception and healthcare.
I have said it and I will say it again.
Some do and some don’t. Monument Valley and Minecraft is definitely better than some shady browser game.
You are clearly superior.
Define unknown and then we talk.
So we are arguing for a version of
hitler that suddenly turned more rational once the war started? If so, would the war even happen? Wouldn’t he aim for a more peaceful diplomatic strategy instead of war if he suddenly turned calm?
Argument 3 incoming in 1 day.
Don't care about strangers entering school with guns, care if when they shoot!
Seeing semantical monsters like this, I don't know what to think.
I think I can get a response of this in a day.
Bop on pro, be careful
Con can use evidence after 1900 alright. It is not like Con could provide any examples that actually stands.
Can’t have disparities if there is no healthcare ;)
You're right.