In other words, there is no human to interpretation. When someone is convicted of murder, since science tells us that space does not exist, the murder didn't happen, even though our consciousness decided it happened.
It hasn't passed a single second since Earth was created, and it just felt to us it was a long time, even though it is not at all.
Again, We are talking about how old the Earth REALLY IS, not how it felt to humans.
How does Con get get the args? You were the guy who voted against me because i have made an argument a bit off the track, and now you are voting args upon someone who literally conceded?
Sources for R3:
[1]https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/09/12/Yes-Video-Games-Really-Are-Ruining-Your-Kid-s-Social-Skills
[2]https://www.parentingscience.com/Effects-of-video-games-on-school.html
Also I forgot to change the 2nd and 3rd point of the syllogism after I have discovered that the past doesn't exist. The correct version should be:
"Quantum mechanics suggests that reality is an illusion, and that the past is an illusion too"
"Thus, Earth is 0 years old"
1. You have dropped that a fight can exist without anyone scoring anything, and you have dropped the point that a fight can exist by simple scheduling a scenario.
2. The fact “humans will die within 5 minutes in space” is false is because by definition, the place we actually live is still a part of a space, and we don’t die there.
To prevent future voters from misinterpreting my argument:
1. My opponent has literally dropped the point about that a fight that exists does not require anything with an element of scoring points. The fight exists when it’s concept exists, and if both fighters do nothing on average, it is a tie, which means the bear did not win if they don’t meet.
2. My opponent has dropped the point about that neither animals can meet each other, meaning the average outcome is a tie, and any concept of the fight between the two, as a result, the average result is a tie.
3. I do not have to prove that Gorillas are as strong as bears to win. The 2 above suffices.
4. I am just summarizing the points I have said. I genuinely do not believe my opponent’s sources did anything whatsoever, especially since he dropped most of my points.
"Young earth creationism: The idea that the universe was created in 6 days."
Oh come on. We know the universe is created in the blink of an eye. It just exists. The rest are just adding to the universe. The universe is the universe that is created in the beginning of the first day and it still is if so.
Created in 6 days? If you are saying that the major contents of our universe are created within 6 days, that is Young-earth creationism. Created in 6 days is impossible as the universe already existed before the end of the first day.
If you have played “educational video games” I assure it is terrible unless it is about programming and computer science. I would rather listen to an Indian guy explaining stuff on YouTube.
You lose because they have active advertising. If both products have the same quality the one with more advertising wins. And you are talking as if you are the righteous one here.
I think the righter way of life is to create pills with massive amounts of nutrients so you don’t need to eat for a day or a week so on. Eating delicacies then becomes just a luxury and entertainment and isn’t mandatory. Reduce the costs and then hungry poor people will more likely to be full again and will be happy.
I know this sounds like a Akhenaten proposal, but being vegan is hurting plants after all.
Kritik-wise, if you redefine “suck”, and you prove that There is no evidence that Trump sucked anything the way a medical needle sucked blood, Con wins easily, or called, “a foregone conclusion”.
I have a hard time deciphering what Pro is trying to say. I want Pro to give the central information to me, in contentions, what she is trying to make.
Sorry R3 [4] was wrong, it is this
https://youtu.be/87h7pTkf6nA
The human mind is wired to think that there is time when there isn't.
Also, just because humans "experience" time, it doesn't mean that time exists. In objectivity, Earth is not over 10,000 years.
In other words, there is no human to interpretation. When someone is convicted of murder, since science tells us that space does not exist, the murder didn't happen, even though our consciousness decided it happened.
It hasn't passed a single second since Earth was created, and it just felt to us it was a long time, even though it is not at all.
Again, We are talking about how old the Earth REALLY IS, not how it felt to humans.
I find the vote fallacious.
We are arguing about how old Earth REALLY IS, not how old it feels like to human researchers. I have proved my BoP.
Are you still here?
How does Con get get the args? You were the guy who voted against me because i have made an argument a bit off the track, and now you are voting args upon someone who literally conceded?
Well it is not her profile picture, so we can never confirm that it is her.
Even an FF is a win. What is going on?
Who are they?
I can see that you have visited the Neo article in the Matrix Wiki at least 13 hours ago.
To what? To dogs? To cargo ships? To mousetraps?
The BoP is so confusing. Either that or the topic is misleading.
Sources for R3:
[1]https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/09/12/Yes-Video-Games-Really-Are-Ruining-Your-Kid-s-Social-Skills
[2]https://www.parentingscience.com/Effects-of-video-games-on-school.html
Argument that is so simple but so few can think of yet it can prove something = absurd
That is also absurd.
Also I forgot to change the 2nd and 3rd point of the syllogism after I have discovered that the past doesn't exist. The correct version should be:
"Quantum mechanics suggests that reality is an illusion, and that the past is an illusion too"
"Thus, Earth is 0 years old"
If you can think what I am thinking, then perhaps you really are undefeatable.
Nah. Not young earth creationism.
1. You have dropped that a fight can exist without anyone scoring anything, and you have dropped the point that a fight can exist by simple scheduling a scenario.
2. The fact “humans will die within 5 minutes in space” is false is because by definition, the place we actually live is still a part of a space, and we don’t die there.
Sources for R2:
[1]https://www.parentingscience.com/Effects-of-video-games-on-school.html
[2]https://www.pblworks.org/why-project-based-learning
[3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incorporate
[4]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curriculum
To prevent future voters from misinterpreting my argument:
1. My opponent has literally dropped the point about that a fight that exists does not require anything with an element of scoring points. The fight exists when it’s concept exists, and if both fighters do nothing on average, it is a tie, which means the bear did not win if they don’t meet.
2. My opponent has dropped the point about that neither animals can meet each other, meaning the average outcome is a tie, and any concept of the fight between the two, as a result, the average result is a tie.
3. I do not have to prove that Gorillas are as strong as bears to win. The 2 above suffices.
4. I am just summarizing the points I have said. I genuinely do not believe my opponent’s sources did anything whatsoever, especially since he dropped most of my points.
Sources for R1:
[1]https://hechingerreport.org/is-making-a-game-out-of-learning-bad-for-learning/
[2]ibid
Y did u make it 3000 :(
Let us begin.
You have proven to possess the power of a true hero. In the name of the Goddess Hylia... I offer this final trial.
Scientists have created matter from energy by accelerating a particle to the speed of light. Con has already lost.
Scientists have created matter from energy by accelerating a particle to the speed of light. Con has already lost.
"Young earth creationism: The idea that the universe was created in 6 days."
Oh come on. We know the universe is created in the blink of an eye. It just exists. The rest are just adding to the universe. The universe is the universe that is created in the beginning of the first day and it still is if so.
Created in 6 days? If you are saying that the major contents of our universe are created within 6 days, that is Young-earth creationism. Created in 6 days is impossible as the universe already existed before the end of the first day.
If you have played “educational video games” I assure it is terrible unless it is about programming and computer science. I would rather listen to an Indian guy explaining stuff on YouTube.
Robots almost had. They starred in Wall-e.
How about we have robots acting and starring in disney movies? What about dishwashers and bottles, and iron bars as well as bumper cars??
What are you trying to make?
Alright, alright, this is truism, unless...??
Bruh HOW
Con’s argument is of a simple yet deadly flaw.
Hmm...
I figured as power-hungry as I am, I can effectively use him as an Elo farm pasting the same arguments.
So can I interpret the resolution as “On balance, the user known as Jasmine, will cut her hair at least once in her life”?
Mosquitoes??
You lose because they have active advertising. If both products have the same quality the one with more advertising wins. And you are talking as if you are the righteous one here.
Define “I”, “cut”, and “hair”.
I am top 10 and you are below average... Dunno how correct you are about that.
I am in school where I can only get access to my phone in the weekends. In reality writing an argument takes less than 1 day.
Challenge me on or after Jan 23 and I can defeat you with any length of argumentation time.
Change the time to a week, if you want yourself proven wrong. I have ample evidence at the footstep.
Just because they are less smart than animals allow us to slaughter them with ease?
Nonsense. If we don’t cultivate land with animals ever, we would have little to no wheat and rice on the planet.
I think the righter way of life is to create pills with massive amounts of nutrients so you don’t need to eat for a day or a week so on. Eating delicacies then becomes just a luxury and entertainment and isn’t mandatory. Reduce the costs and then hungry poor people will more likely to be full again and will be happy.
I know this sounds like a Akhenaten proposal, but being vegan is hurting plants after all.
Argument is basically ready, will post when it is needed
We should do whatever we want! We should do drugs, commit murder and commit suicide because we should be able to do them!
Kritik-wise, if you redefine “suck”, and you prove that There is no evidence that Trump sucked anything the way a medical needle sucked blood, Con wins easily, or called, “a foregone conclusion”.
I have a hard time deciphering what Pro is trying to say. I want Pro to give the central information to me, in contentions, what she is trying to make.