Fine, I admit that I am using my own interpretations in my last comment, but that statement is a false dichotomy. Just because I succeed 0% when I don't do anything, doesn't mean I miss 100%. I also miss 0%. A person who never plays basketball doesn't lose 100% of his NBA games. He wins none and he loses none.
No. You miss 0% of the shots you don't take because there is nothing for you to miss at the start. This dude is acting like as if I am SUPPOSED to take shots indefinitely but I have no moral obligations to take shots. I don't miss them if I don't take any. I don't get rejected by girls when I don't even ask them out. Simple logic.
There is no way I can win a debate when my whole mindset is telling me no. It is like debating that Holocaust wasn't bad at all or the world is a triangular prism.
Also, I am Con. In America, any person who takes Pro would be cancelled immediately after the match, should it be broadcasted. People in China are nationally supporting and when it comes to social rights, centrists. They are not really exposed to western opinions so it would still make sense for them to argue this. Not here in America though.
The only reason Con lost in the original is because he wasn't even a pro at debating then. He was a fashion designer. He is there to give a speech about himself rather than to argue. In reality, if you take up this topic with any sociologist in the United States you'd be clapped.
"Oh yeah because no government is yet doing a perfect job thus the concept of government itself is bad!"
Wait till you hear that Anarchism can't even reach the glory of government-based society. In fact, anarchism will either die out or there will be a leader, which turns into a government.
Obviously no. Lockdowns prevent a portion of spreading cases, but when one sneezes in the home or in the hospital, the transmission speed of Covid-19 is still the same. Sneezing in home isn't any slower than sneezing in public.
No, actually don't, if you are afraid of losing. If you still think you are undefeatable on this topic even after over 3 losses at my own witness, then go ahead. You can delete this if you want, it is nearly impossible to even prove this.
Funny enough, your profile picture is Anti-Centrism from Jreg videos, and the extremes of all four would probably support the notion you have.
Authleft has Marx saying that Seizing firearm from the workers is wrong and should not be done.
Authright advocates for freedom of firearms because the 2nd amendment says so.
Libleft allows any weapon as long as it can be used to bring down the unjust establishment.
Libright allows guns because they should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as they own it.
Then you have the centrists, which even though frown upon the idea of using guns to kill people, could still shoot air-projectile guns as a hobby.
Looks like that the comment noticed this before I did, but I firmly believe that the case I have built upon is indestructible: as a result, instigating this exact topic is the same as asking to be shot.
Kritiks that can make you win this debate:
1: Argue that "is" stands for the present tense, hence past debates matters nothing(especially if presentism is possible to be justified); then say that I am able to destroy his argument put ready for this debate, hence he isn't great
2: Argue that since all traits are needed, and it is impossible to say if Undefeatable is able to utilize body language, thus it is impossible to say that Undefeatable is a good debater
3: Argue, definition-wise, that Undefeatable and Good Debater means different things, and the two doesn't necessarily mean the same thing so that the use of "is" could be validated
Maybe I am just a debater with the utmost goal of winning debates, but if I were to accept a debate as “offensive” as you would see this one, the first reaction would be to laugh because it would be so easy to win standing on the “right side” of morality.
That said, this is a debating ground, not a political filibuster. I am just making conclusions upon sources, whether I believe in them or not.
Just remember how easy it is for you to win this, TheWeakeredge.
Accepting this debate means that RM loves you. The resolution means that Con did not acknowledge/appreciate pro’s love for him, and not “Pro is not in love with Con”.
I am a man of definitions, and facts matter more than feelings. I am not saying that "they chose to be gay" in the form you said, I am just playing by the definitions provided.
Rather, saying “you should change back to straight because you being gay is a choice” is homophobic. Just saying being gay is a choice is a neutral stance, not homophobic.
Fine, I admit that I am using my own interpretations in my last comment, but that statement is a false dichotomy. Just because I succeed 0% when I don't do anything, doesn't mean I miss 100%. I also miss 0%. A person who never plays basketball doesn't lose 100% of his NBA games. He wins none and he loses none.
No. You miss 0% of the shots you don't take because there is nothing for you to miss at the start. This dude is acting like as if I am SUPPOSED to take shots indefinitely but I have no moral obligations to take shots. I don't miss them if I don't take any. I don't get rejected by girls when I don't even ask them out. Simple logic.
"I have never been rejected from a girl... because I never tried dating any."
--Numerous boys, All of human civilization
What if it is some kind of rare mutation within the apes?
So, are you a CIA researcher? If your "evidence" is just some online articles or videos, then I suggest don't get so erratic.
I would suggest use hyperlinkable sources in your arguments.
I mean, just because the space agencies are lying doesn't mean the Earth IS flat.
Vote.
“Category:Religion”
Why would anyone want the forfeiter to win? Implementing this is almost equivalent to auto-loss at forfeit.
I wish that to be true.
This is the 3000th debate...
Sounds like communism.
Should?
More moral, or more effective? Is your goal to harm as little as possible or as much as possible?
There is no way I can win a debate when my whole mindset is telling me no. It is like debating that Holocaust wasn't bad at all or the world is a triangular prism.
7 days left? Gosh time really flies.
You have 5000 characters, not 500.
I have literally won you on this topic as Con. You literally have free arguments.
Ironic that Andrei Sator is currently on my TV right now. Instant disproof.
Also, I am Con. In America, any person who takes Pro would be cancelled immediately after the match, should it be broadcasted. People in China are nationally supporting and when it comes to social rights, centrists. They are not really exposed to western opinions so it would still make sense for them to argue this. Not here in America though.
"Intelligence/Benjamin hesitated to make a weird kritik of this topic."
When did I
The only reason Con lost in the original is because he wasn't even a pro at debating then. He was a fashion designer. He is there to give a speech about himself rather than to argue. In reality, if you take up this topic with any sociologist in the United States you'd be clapped.
"Oh yeah because no government is yet doing a perfect job thus the concept of government itself is bad!"
Wait till you hear that Anarchism can't even reach the glory of government-based society. In fact, anarchism will either die out or there will be a leader, which turns into a government.
Obviously no. Lockdowns prevent a portion of spreading cases, but when one sneezes in the home or in the hospital, the transmission speed of Covid-19 is still the same. Sneezing in home isn't any slower than sneezing in public.
Agreed.
Swahili. Using this language you will teach less people about quantum mechanics and in turn it is less useful.
Guess who was one of them? Hitler.
This statement probably made millions of homeless women upset.
Extend the argument time to 1 week.
No, actually don't, if you are afraid of losing. If you still think you are undefeatable on this topic even after over 3 losses at my own witness, then go ahead. You can delete this if you want, it is nearly impossible to even prove this.
Are you guys using this as a training ground?
If you have completely ruled out the critics, then you might have a chance to win.
Funny enough, your profile picture is Anti-Centrism from Jreg videos, and the extremes of all four would probably support the notion you have.
Authleft has Marx saying that Seizing firearm from the workers is wrong and should not be done.
Authright advocates for freedom of firearms because the 2nd amendment says so.
Libleft allows any weapon as long as it can be used to bring down the unjust establishment.
Libright allows guns because they should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as they own it.
Then you have the centrists, which even though frown upon the idea of using guns to kill people, could still shoot air-projectile guns as a hobby.
Looks like that the comment noticed this before I did, but I firmly believe that the case I have built upon is indestructible: as a result, instigating this exact topic is the same as asking to be shot.
You are now at the gunpoint of someone who has the experience of winning the exact same topic.
Kritiks that can make you win this debate:
1: Argue that "is" stands for the present tense, hence past debates matters nothing(especially if presentism is possible to be justified); then say that I am able to destroy his argument put ready for this debate, hence he isn't great
2: Argue that since all traits are needed, and it is impossible to say if Undefeatable is able to utilize body language, thus it is impossible to say that Undefeatable is a good debater
3: Argue, definition-wise, that Undefeatable and Good Debater means different things, and the two doesn't necessarily mean the same thing so that the use of "is" could be validated
What
Thought this was a debate that can move the might of my Video games in schools debate, until:
“Forfeited”
Imminent downfall did this once with me about meat industry, and I almost fell for it.
However, Theweakeredge is no such person as he would just take the upper hand and make Pro cry on the ground.
The speed he puts his arguing is comparable to “senna”. Yes.
However, I bet that 100% MrFarright will lose.
If the reason is the same reason, then I must be terrible.
Define denial and outlaw. I am not sure how a belief could be outlawed, is this thoughtcrime or am I interpreting it incorrectly?
Define Holocaust denial.
Maybe I am just a debater with the utmost goal of winning debates, but if I were to accept a debate as “offensive” as you would see this one, the first reaction would be to laugh because it would be so easy to win standing on the “right side” of morality.
That said, this is a debating ground, not a political filibuster. I am just making conclusions upon sources, whether I believe in them or not.
Just remember how easy it is for you to win this, TheWeakeredge.
Accepting this debate means that RM loves you. The resolution means that Con did not acknowledge/appreciate pro’s love for him, and not “Pro is not in love with Con”.
Imagine if this is open challenge though.
Some what winnable? You can take it. I am all Pro. I actually agree.
There is literally no evidence. I don't know if Pro can win in any way possible.
Caused? I think since the world is first formed the air is dirty. Humans just added to that, that's all.
I am a man of definitions, and facts matter more than feelings. I am not saying that "they chose to be gay" in the form you said, I am just playing by the definitions provided.
Rather, saying “you should change back to straight because you being gay is a choice” is homophobic. Just saying being gay is a choice is a neutral stance, not homophobic.
...fine, just don’t vote with bias. I promise I am not trying to be homophobic, but whatever you think, don’t get carried away when voting.