I consider him a floppy disk without memory storage once it is pulled out. What he learns in the debate stays in the debate and the same lessons cannot be cross-applied in different debates on the exact same topic.
But he isn't not trying. He is just simplistic, in my opinion.
Maybe it is just because where I am from but the first thought when I saw this was "Ugh, ungrateful Americans." Sorry for thinking about this.
But you guys really have it easier than us. You guys can take an AP exam for less money than in here, the same goes for SAT and many other opportunities, competitions, activities, etc.
The fact that the US use application essays as a significant part of college entrance is already better than in Asia where it is determined by a single standardized test.
We used to consider him an Elo printer until we don't because we would have to wait 5 rounds of frustrating and gruesome repetition that just makes debating unfun all of a sudden. Looks like he is ok with it and he is fine with himself not "winning" any of them. Truly a man true to his disclaimers.
Well, media on the Mainland of China tend to only report one side of the issue because how the entire west is factored against China and people need to hold a specific point of view for reasons.
That said, based on my knowledge which is just common sense in local news and newspaper, the status quo is that Taiwanese people are losing confidence due to a lack of organization of the current government. I firmly hold the CON position, as well as the belief that you are going to throw links that I can't open if I accept.
I am not interested in this because I am literally morally obligated to use "normal" approaches because I am actually Chinese. Nobody in my country would like it if I win it with dozens of
"well actually" moments.
Leave it to those who has ink in their internals, not a railgun.
"The political and media obsession with "misinformation"
"is"
Or we can argue since this is a topic in present tense, how much the obsession is affects how harmful it is. If we prove that there is no obsession here, that means the harm is null, or that the Pro side is being disproven.
Curious to see that both sides agree on that political media are obsessed with misinformation, especially when no defintions on what misinformation or what obsession are are given here.
Needless to say, that is possibly the best execution I have seen on this topic. Hating all people equally including homosexuals never even crossed my mind, or the mind of several others before who would rather argue this position from a religo-societal standpoint.
Were this a 4-measures voting count, he probably wouldn't say so. The forseeable reason I can see the construction of this sentence is that taking or leaving a conduct point does not affect CON winning because Pro said basically nothing at all.
Of course, If which corporation actually make people fight to their death for money directly and not just figuratively, fastly and not slowly, they would be cancelled to death, lol.
I don't consider personally that using AI to write one's argument is an amoral thing intrinsically. For the most part, well, neither ChatGPT nor New Bing can defeat me in an argument. AI points are just generic because they are intended to mimic human talk/messaging/emails, and most humans, well, aren't text-based debaters. As shown, surely it looks like AI-talk as much as it seems like just any new debater, including me 3 years ago(yes, I just realized, happy birthday to my presence on the site).
Again, I don't use AI is because it doesn't do shit, just like abortion for the most cases does not solve shit. Either it does something or it does nothing, and defeating AI's arguments like this is simple enough that it is not worth using.
That is what happens when everything is standard, people don’t wanna vote anymore. Were this a part of last year, at least 2 votes saying FF and voting me would have popped up.
Children do have the right, as well they have the right of choosing to starve oneself or slice oneself in the wrist. Still, most children choose to not use these rights due to external reasons.
is basically asking for exploitation here. Without definitions for clarification, this means you are going to fill no holes even if they are drilled within.
Might as well reject the entire concept of limits, integrals, derivatives, series, the entire field of calculus and everything else based on that.
If you can't comprehend infinity, like the average 5th grader in the US, there is a possibility that you will flunk every other math exam because you don't know what dx means.
I am not towards either side, but merely to "finitism" as descriped. Such a thought would be in itself absurd.
Props for using the plural for "woman" after the singular article, "the", aside from the fact that the intended topic is not something yes/no or is between arguing which policy of the two is better.
I would argue that this topic cannot be argued as Pro, even if it could be argued at all.
I do what I am always good at. That is what happens when there is a prize for winning, for all ELO systems. Chess grandmasters develop moves that can hardly be grasped unless you are also one.
At least that is what it was until the update striked and everything went standard and unrated as if nothing happened.
Obviously, because it is an abstract claim. No one will know what the “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is until you explain it.
Without the description describing which interpretation and seeing how messy the claim is in of itself just politically, it will not be treated as “an” argument, let alone a good one.
I began using this site only because I am bored in online classes. I just debate for fun, and that is a hobby that will (probably) go on my college application.
I never took debate training. Well maybe I did a year ago, but I treat everything there with spite.
“ Try to imagaine school when all of your actions and behavior course is reviewed,developed,studied,If this can happen we can understand every indivdual differences.”
Sounds a lot like prison, more than the present and more “liberal” state of school. Trust me, people will turn the school into prison if this is the requirement, at least some will.
My R1 left details out and many issues are unresolved by the time posted but because there is only a few hrs left I don’t have much time to create a new model. I however believe I am on the right track.
I knew I was probably going to lose when I realized how bad my R1 is. To be fair, Pro R2 was less of an impact than I anticipated but by Con R2 I have forgot what kind of improvements I thought I had, and ended up backing up nearly nothing.
“This isn’t a sufficient explanation, as Con neither has a source nor any argument for why this is a fundamental rule. Indeed, it seems to me -- as Pro points out implicitly, in R2 -- that people make bad decisions all the time, or decisions that don’t consider harms to third parties, like non-users.”
Indeed. I thought of the same too. Sadly I can’t revert to the first round.
Looks like I have lost. No worries, that is what happens when the debate is unrated. Looks like the method have a long way to go and this application is far from its potential. I will keep on adding on to the model when appropriate.
I consider him a floppy disk without memory storage once it is pulled out. What he learns in the debate stays in the debate and the same lessons cannot be cross-applied in different debates on the exact same topic.
But he isn't not trying. He is just simplistic, in my opinion.
Maybe it is just because where I am from but the first thought when I saw this was "Ugh, ungrateful Americans." Sorry for thinking about this.
But you guys really have it easier than us. You guys can take an AP exam for less money than in here, the same goes for SAT and many other opportunities, competitions, activities, etc.
The fact that the US use application essays as a significant part of college entrance is already better than in Asia where it is determined by a single standardized test.
We used to consider him an Elo printer until we don't because we would have to wait 5 rounds of frustrating and gruesome repetition that just makes debating unfun all of a sudden. Looks like he is ok with it and he is fine with himself not "winning" any of them. Truly a man true to his disclaimers.
"I haven't had sex! Why am I not marrying?"
A cell is alive, meiosis creates more cells, ________________________.
Due to what they are they can hardly be called "anti-gay laws". That is in of itself sufficient to disprove Pro position.
"By the west"
Not sure if Russia is west enough to be considered West... I mean, their easternmost part is more eastern than Japan and China.
We all know the answer to this, because "isreal" is not a real country.
Well, media on the Mainland of China tend to only report one side of the issue because how the entire west is factored against China and people need to hold a specific point of view for reasons.
That said, based on my knowledge which is just common sense in local news and newspaper, the status quo is that Taiwanese people are losing confidence due to a lack of organization of the current government. I firmly hold the CON position, as well as the belief that you are going to throw links that I can't open if I accept.
I am not interested in this because I am literally morally obligated to use "normal" approaches because I am actually Chinese. Nobody in my country would like it if I win it with dozens of
"well actually" moments.
Leave it to those who has ink in their internals, not a railgun.
Resorting to the common approach when something looks uncommon is something that I despise.
What is lim(x->0) 1/xx ?
Exactly.
"The political and media obsession with "misinformation"
"is"
Or we can argue since this is a topic in present tense, how much the obsession is affects how harmful it is. If we prove that there is no obsession here, that means the harm is null, or that the Pro side is being disproven.
Curious to see that both sides agree on that political media are obsessed with misinformation, especially when no defintions on what misinformation or what obsession are are given here.
Needless to say, that is possibly the best execution I have seen on this topic. Hating all people equally including homosexuals never even crossed my mind, or the mind of several others before who would rather argue this position from a religo-societal standpoint.
Were this a 4-measures voting count, he probably wouldn't say so. The forseeable reason I can see the construction of this sentence is that taking or leaving a conduct point does not affect CON winning because Pro said basically nothing at all.
Of course, If which corporation actually make people fight to their death for money directly and not just figuratively, fastly and not slowly, they would be cancelled to death, lol.
I don't consider personally that using AI to write one's argument is an amoral thing intrinsically. For the most part, well, neither ChatGPT nor New Bing can defeat me in an argument. AI points are just generic because they are intended to mimic human talk/messaging/emails, and most humans, well, aren't text-based debaters. As shown, surely it looks like AI-talk as much as it seems like just any new debater, including me 3 years ago(yes, I just realized, happy birthday to my presence on the site).
Again, I don't use AI is because it doesn't do shit, just like abortion for the most cases does not solve shit. Either it does something or it does nothing, and defeating AI's arguments like this is simple enough that it is not worth using.
What is pro and what is con?
You just assigned the int value 1 to the variable 0.99999… and what are we supposed to argue about?
That is what happens when everything is standard, people don’t wanna vote anymore. Were this a part of last year, at least 2 votes saying FF and voting me would have popped up.
As if that matters, lol.
It is for some parts, though, both sides and the represented on their behalf ought to sign a form to accept the terms and conditions.
Is my R2 speech a better trolling attempt?
That is a good ChatGPT mimicry, if that even exists.
Though some humans are reptilian. At least some people want you to believe so.
Make the time a week and I can accept.
I do, and not trolling would be trolling if everyone is "trolling".
I think Chess Quest is a better progression line, with cereal made in the shape of chess pieces obviously.
*proceeds to inflate US$ to the point where even if the nominal wages are raised up to $25 the real income per capita changes by basically nothing*
Are we trying to prove that there is a holy spirit, or are we assuming there just is?
Children do have the right, as well they have the right of choosing to starve oneself or slice oneself in the wrist. Still, most children choose to not use these rights due to external reasons.
Define happiness and life.
AI models are not advancements to technology just as the troops are not victorious battles. There.
"Super explanatory"
is basically asking for exploitation here. Without definitions for clarification, this means you are going to fill no holes even if they are drilled within.
Might as well reject the entire concept of limits, integrals, derivatives, series, the entire field of calculus and everything else based on that.
If you can't comprehend infinity, like the average 5th grader in the US, there is a possibility that you will flunk every other math exam because you don't know what dx means.
I am not towards either side, but merely to "finitism" as descriped. Such a thought would be in itself absurd.
I am not even trying. He challenged me this so he could "lose a debate". Obviously it can't be that easy.
Props for using the plural for "woman" after the singular article, "the", aside from the fact that the intended topic is not something yes/no or is between arguing which policy of the two is better.
I would argue that this topic cannot be argued as Pro, even if it could be argued at all.
Just stop asking us to ask questions. If your setup is flawed, it is.
Slightly? Enough!
I do what I am always good at. That is what happens when there is a prize for winning, for all ELO systems. Chess grandmasters develop moves that can hardly be grasped unless you are also one.
At least that is what it was until the update striked and everything went standard and unrated as if nothing happened.
Obviously, because it is an abstract claim. No one will know what the “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is until you explain it.
Without the description describing which interpretation and seeing how messy the claim is in of itself just politically, it will not be treated as “an” argument, let alone a good one.
The latter.
I began using this site only because I am bored in online classes. I just debate for fun, and that is a hobby that will (probably) go on my college application.
I never took debate training. Well maybe I did a year ago, but I treat everything there with spite.
Define Abortion.
Disproving a disproof is not a proof.
“ Try to imagaine school when all of your actions and behavior course is reviewed,developed,studied,If this can happen we can understand every indivdual differences.”
Sounds a lot like prison, more than the present and more “liberal” state of school. Trust me, people will turn the school into prison if this is the requirement, at least some will.
My R1 left details out and many issues are unresolved by the time posted but because there is only a few hrs left I don’t have much time to create a new model. I however believe I am on the right track.
I knew I was probably going to lose when I realized how bad my R1 is. To be fair, Pro R2 was less of an impact than I anticipated but by Con R2 I have forgot what kind of improvements I thought I had, and ended up backing up nearly nothing.
“This isn’t a sufficient explanation, as Con neither has a source nor any argument for why this is a fundamental rule. Indeed, it seems to me -- as Pro points out implicitly, in R2 -- that people make bad decisions all the time, or decisions that don’t consider harms to third parties, like non-users.”
Indeed. I thought of the same too. Sadly I can’t revert to the first round.
Looks like I have lost. No worries, that is what happens when the debate is unrated. Looks like the method have a long way to go and this application is far from its potential. I will keep on adding on to the model when appropriate.
Course they are sharing a road if there are sidewalks. What you are talking about is “sharing the same lane”.
Guess what? This is “Type: Standard”. In theory, I could forfeit it all and lose nothing.
Insert mandatory remark on how lame this change is.
Wrong, Systemic Racism is not a claim, so it cannot be “disproved”.