I am basically here to test out an "old" model that I have barely used because of the specificity of the topics here. It is okay, it is unrated.
It is entirely surprising that I have won some of the debates when I have gone for entirely unorthodox strategies, but whatever gets your sail flowing.
We only rule out a special kind of abortion(which may encompass most abortions) because the harm it potentially causes, not because it removes a fetus.
I think the better thing to do is just keeping the UI and revert the rules. Force-converting voting period debates into unrated ones just because the user was new makes it annoying, given that it was rated and agreed from the start.
(Seizes coal from local rural cooking pot)
"What the hell? Why do you get to just take my fuel?"
"Sorry, but I am afraid that I am required to do so. Haven't you heard that fossil fuels are all banned?"
Once Again, I deserve the increment of points because people voted for me. Does it change anything? Probably no. Does it make me feel angry? Possibly yes.
Oh god, this is terrible performance. Well, guess that is what you get when you forget it for a week and later type this up when the mister in the English class thinks you are typing his essay assignment.
No threat intended, although the wording may be a little strange... You know, being considerate of people while using language was never my strong suit, that is why I am here, and not Twitter or blogging. That is just normal roasting, more figuratively than literally, I guess.
Something I have noticed here is that my name, upon being tagged, shows up as "@<<<Intelligence_06>>>", dunno if that is intended or a bug.
Hopefully, he would be actually losing weight while the count downs, it is just hoped that he doesn't lose weight by attacking minorities or something. Maybe he would have his limbs beaten and removed by people because they were offended and had enough with his vicious language. Limbs weigh something, so I would call that weight loss.
I guess burning calories with a fire blowtorch is better after all.
Still not as effective as a quick slice through the waist, it reduces about 50% of your entire mass no matter how you look at it.
"Feel free to comment with questions for me to understand more if it's not clear."
If it isn't clear, it is exploitable. Unless they really don't even want a win, they will accept it knowing how not clear it is. There is a reason debate topics on formal tournaments are so throughout and cannot be revised by either party officially before the tournament officially begins.
If you are really that cocky about the description, I will literally accept it and show that you conceded before the debate started because your description aligns with the Pro position, not CON.
It is 3 days until the end of winter break so I don't have exactly time for elegant arguments, but because this debate is not "on balance" and counterexamples do exist...
Yeah, I think you can add "on balance" to make it fairer.
Well, empirical evidence is sort of an access pack towards logic. Kind of like the matplotlib pack for Python. Without either, you have nearly nothing compared to what we do have now.
Now to reveal the answer: The "must" can mean that "There has to be a maximum and minimum in voting age". The existence of at least one voter guarantees that the voting age has a maximum value and a minimum value, which means the topic can be interpreted as true.
Darkness is a state of being instead of an object, because darkness is an absence of something. Still, God "can" create darkness if suddenly he wanted to retract the photons he made. It is as theoretically possible as God creating poverty, war, hopelessness among people if God is equally and coherently omnipotent.
"Natural diamonds have a timeless look to them that is a effortless masterpiece."
The greedy producers who wanted to grab your wallet don't care about if what they use is natural or artificial. It is just what you believe. And guess what? Since diamonds are mostly carbon, mostly you can't even tell the difference!
"Let's start a world-scale war, shall we?" Said the prime minister of UK by then.
"Alright!" Responded the president of America, after the two have spent a night on the same bed, in the white house preferably.
Don't. If someone is employing sarcasm in a text-based debating site where everything and only anything in text form matters, treat it literally. In that case, it is entirely justified of you to treat it as a concession, which is what you did.
This is a debate topic and we debate all and only those all that can be interpreted to be on the topic. Such restrictions are futile and limit those who believe in it, rather than the other party.
Such topics can be interpreted in more than one ways. Just because Pro has not tooted all their guns does not mean you have the right to tell debaters in the debate what it means.
Frankly, I could make a case of this with less than 3500 characters, literally. Try rephrasing the title.
Thanks to you, I have become the contender of whatever this is.
I am basically here to test out an "old" model that I have barely used because of the specificity of the topics here. It is okay, it is unrated.
It is entirely surprising that I have won some of the debates when I have gone for entirely unorthodox strategies, but whatever gets your sail flowing.
Subjective morality. You guys figure out the rest.
We only rule out a special kind of abortion(which may encompass most abortions) because the harm it potentially causes, not because it removes a fetus.
I think the better thing to do is just keeping the UI and revert the rules. Force-converting voting period debates into unrated ones just because the user was new makes it annoying, given that it was rated and agreed from the start.
Still better than putting durians or chocolates on Pizza, which both of these are better than putting both on the same one.
(Seizes coal from local rural cooking pot)
"What the hell? Why do you get to just take my fuel?"
"Sorry, but I am afraid that I am required to do so. Haven't you heard that fossil fuels are all banned?"
Once Again, I deserve the increment of points because people voted for me. Does it change anything? Probably no. Does it make me feel angry? Possibly yes.
Oh god, this is terrible performance. Well, guess that is what you get when you forget it for a week and later type this up when the mister in the English class thinks you are typing his essay assignment.
No threat intended, although the wording may be a little strange... You know, being considerate of people while using language was never my strong suit, that is why I am here, and not Twitter or blogging. That is just normal roasting, more figuratively than literally, I guess.
Something I have noticed here is that my name, upon being tagged, shows up as "@<<<Intelligence_06>>>", dunno if that is intended or a bug.
Hopefully, he would be actually losing weight while the count downs, it is just hoped that he doesn't lose weight by attacking minorities or something. Maybe he would have his limbs beaten and removed by people because they were offended and had enough with his vicious language. Limbs weigh something, so I would call that weight loss.
I guess burning calories with a fire blowtorch is better after all.
Still not as effective as a quick slice through the waist, it reduces about 50% of your entire mass no matter how you look at it.
Well, one thing or another, I don't care, but I gotta say, burgers taste much, much better than borgers.
Well, forfeiting sure is a weight loss plan, if it is one at all.
I gained nothing by winning this one even though it was rated from the start. Is this a bug worth fixing?
This debate is posted less than 1 hour ago and the system has already considered the instigate to be gone.
"Feel free to comment with questions for me to understand more if it's not clear."
If it isn't clear, it is exploitable. Unless they really don't even want a win, they will accept it knowing how not clear it is. There is a reason debate topics on formal tournaments are so throughout and cannot be revised by either party officially before the tournament officially begins.
And I wouldn't call this a good bait if anything.
"God created light and that therefore God didnt create the darkness"
"Therefore"
I am sorry, but "God created light" and "God didn't create darkness" are two statements with no necessary connections.
I would suggest keeping only the last sentence of your description if anything.
If you are really that cocky about the description, I will literally accept it and show that you conceded before the debate started because your description aligns with the Pro position, not CON.
It is 3 days until the end of winter break so I don't have exactly time for elegant arguments, but because this debate is not "on balance" and counterexamples do exist...
Yeah, I think you can add "on balance" to make it fairer.
I will say it first. Since the topic is of incorrect grammar, it means nothing practically and is overall impossible to uphold.
And because this "spelling error", it changes everything.
Reminds me of the "Opinions" feature of the late DDO.
Well yes, but I was just pointing out that I did win this topic in the so-called "regular" way.
Well, empirical evidence is sort of an access pack towards logic. Kind of like the matplotlib pack for Python. Without either, you have nearly nothing compared to what we do have now.
Using an analogy, if that is real feminism, then national socialism is real communism.
How dare you misspell my name! /
It would be much better if you link websites of Quran passages. We, as secular people don't know it as well as you do.
Your outer description is at war with the stance of the topic.
Wylted is famous for instigating troll debates.
Now to reveal the answer: The "must" can mean that "There has to be a maximum and minimum in voting age". The existence of at least one voter guarantees that the voting age has a maximum value and a minimum value, which means the topic can be interpreted as true.
Sadly my opponent didn't see it.
Depends on what a year is. If you work near a black hole, then to earth folks, you can easily live over 200 years.
a vote would be appreciated.
"Make the draft illegal"
I don't think making it illegal is the word choice to go as the draft is issued by a governmental agency.
Not quite, but yes.
Darkness is a state of being instead of an object, because darkness is an absence of something. Still, God "can" create darkness if suddenly he wanted to retract the photons he made. It is as theoretically possible as God creating poverty, war, hopelessness among people if God is equally and coherently omnipotent.
Bump for some votes, shall we?
Is not "a" problem.
If it causes more than two, of course it is not "a" problem.
"Natural diamonds have a timeless look to them that is a effortless masterpiece."
The greedy producers who wanted to grab your wallet don't care about if what they use is natural or artificial. It is just what you believe. And guess what? Since diamonds are mostly carbon, mostly you can't even tell the difference!
Fast forward to the time of future-history where being trans helps your application into College and people knows it.
--Decades have passed.--
"Let's start a world-scale war, shall we?" Said the prime minister of UK by then.
"Alright!" Responded the president of America, after the two have spent a night on the same bed, in the white house preferably.
...
Don't. If someone is employing sarcasm in a text-based debating site where everything and only anything in text form matters, treat it literally. In that case, it is entirely justified of you to treat it as a concession, which is what you did.
In R2, this is one of the most savage extendations I have ever seen.
Define "large family". As an only child, having 2 kid is pretty large for me sooo...
Well, there have always been proofs, regardless of how good they are at doing the job they are supposed to do.
Regardless.
This is a debate topic and we debate all and only those all that can be interpreted to be on the topic. Such restrictions are futile and limit those who believe in it, rather than the other party.
Such topics can be interpreted in more than one ways. Just because Pro has not tooted all their guns does not mean you have the right to tell debaters in the debate what it means.
“A” problem? No. A lot of them.
Wrong, he meant "disillusioned".