Quite the opposite actually. Unlike those "traditional debaters" who have the arrogance to tell me what the topic is "really about" without having evidence on the topic itself to back it up, I always debate exactly the topic, always.
Also, the definition for “fetus” is oxymoronic. “Babies” usually apply to human individuals briefly after birth, not before. Pretty sure the dictionary used not this one.
The topic can easily be interpreted as a truism, given how ambiguous it is. "Cars are harmful", yes, even if it is or is not "net harmful". As long as it has done some harm out of everything, it is technically "harmful" to an extent. As to "should be banned before more people die", "should" can be interpreted as marking a tendency similarly to the usage in "Dr. Cooper should return home by next friday". If the entirety of Earth gets destroyed in the future, which is almost certain due to the Sun's potential expansion into a red giant, when everyone is dead and there is no one to die, there are no cars anymore, the same state of existence for cars compared to it being banned at any moment.
I am not joking, if you do not provide context on what the topic means, you can interpret it as anything as the instigator, as long as you have sources backing up not only what it means but why it can be used in this way. That doesn't mean you can define a verb structurally as a noun entry for the same verb because it violates how people use it, but any verb entry on said term suffices.
Masculine? No, the word you are looking for is probably Charismatic. Maybe RM has an even better word, but right now, defining "masculine" like that may even be interpreted as sexist.
You can accelerate evolution for us, thanks, but really it is and was and should be this slow. The reason we don’t grasp how slowly other animals or plants evolved is because we don’t have to ever live for millions of years in the Cretaceous period or something to watch stuff grow and die.
Being handsome with big dicks induces mating behavior due to sexual selection. That is still evolution. Being handsome with big dicks is being fit in modern society.
I admit the kritik was suboptimal, because the 'girl' can just peel the penis 'she' has. I've got a better one: There are kids who are circumcised before the age of 10, you can't tell them to be circumcised again because they have no foreskin. Everything else is the same. Impossible cases are attempted access.
To be fair, and I can't believe I am saying this, the quality(or a lack thereof) for this topic is at a degree where the interpretation of the INDEFINITE ARTICLE would ultimately decide the position of one.
What government? What counts as education? "Self explanatory" my ass, nobody should win by purposely knowing something they wouldn't give to their opponent.
I see a way Pro can absolute crush my argument by seeing something I have seen but have not used because it would kill my side absolutely. Try to find it.
Hopefully not all of us are like that. I am not that, because unlike how brave he is, I have a blatant fear of murdering people, or having people murdered before my eyes, or being murdered.
This site has members that try everything you can think of. I am pretty sure someone will pick a fight when you post a debate on a topic that has round restrictions of 100 characters and only video links are allowed to be posted.
I was responding to Austin, as intended.
Does "outside" even mean anything? I mean, every space is interconnected except that airtight.
Quite the opposite actually. Unlike those "traditional debaters" who have the arrogance to tell me what the topic is "really about" without having evidence on the topic itself to back it up, I always debate exactly the topic, always.
"if and only if the fetus's life is called into dispute"
Discredit me if you want, but oh well that is definitely not the "only" way.
Well, the presidential debate.
The "proving that I am myself a bad debater" series continues after 2 years of pause since Seldiora left being usual on the site.
Also, the definition for “fetus” is oxymoronic. “Babies” usually apply to human individuals briefly after birth, not before. Pretty sure the dictionary used not this one.
Please revise the definition of “abortion” so it specifically applies to human beings. I don’t want the same thing done twice.
Exaggerated? Compared to what? Without a comparison, I cannot be sure that anyone will or will not pull an almighty trigger.
Because humans are the only organisms capable of abortion. Understood. You are totally correct.
The topic can easily be interpreted as a truism, given how ambiguous it is. "Cars are harmful", yes, even if it is or is not "net harmful". As long as it has done some harm out of everything, it is technically "harmful" to an extent. As to "should be banned before more people die", "should" can be interpreted as marking a tendency similarly to the usage in "Dr. Cooper should return home by next friday". If the entirety of Earth gets destroyed in the future, which is almost certain due to the Sun's potential expansion into a red giant, when everyone is dead and there is no one to die, there are no cars anymore, the same state of existence for cars compared to it being banned at any moment.
I am not joking, if you do not provide context on what the topic means, you can interpret it as anything as the instigator, as long as you have sources backing up not only what it means but why it can be used in this way. That doesn't mean you can define a verb structurally as a noun entry for the same verb because it violates how people use it, but any verb entry on said term suffices.
You aren't the instigator. Maybe the comment would have worked better if I tagger Sir.lancelot.
That said, being comfortable with any topic you accept is a valuable asset mentally when you are debating.
Masculine? No, the word you are looking for is probably Charismatic. Maybe RM has an even better word, but right now, defining "masculine" like that may even be interpreted as sexist.
Bump.
"essentially conceding that there are 2 genders."
In the vote, I meant "that there are more than 2 genders." Sorry for forgetting to type a phrase there.
Thanks for helping me.
Sure, plainly to increment my comment quantity, an affirmative tone is intended.
I wasn't aware that people are comparing me to some sort of a computer processor, but thanks?
/s
You can accelerate evolution for us, thanks, but really it is and was and should be this slow. The reason we don’t grasp how slowly other animals or plants evolved is because we don’t have to ever live for millions of years in the Cretaceous period or something to watch stuff grow and die.
You are on a site with about 200 users and like 20 active users. Being hated or not plays nearly nothing here.
Really?
https://www.verywellhealth.com/fitzpatrick-classification-scale-1069226
I heard only 2 dimensions were used, not six.
Being handsome with big dicks induces mating behavior due to sexual selection. That is still evolution. Being handsome with big dicks is being fit in modern society.
Made me think of the good old days where I won this topic without knowing what a kritik is...Maybe I unconsciously used one, who knows.
I admit the kritik was suboptimal, because the 'girl' can just peel the penis 'she' has. I've got a better one: There are kids who are circumcised before the age of 10, you can't tell them to be circumcised again because they have no foreskin. Everything else is the same. Impossible cases are attempted access.
nvm. You have purposefully defined God as something inherently contradictory in the outer description. I see what you did there.
Define "existence" or I will crush you on the basis that you didn't define it in the description. You have 24 hours.
To be fair, and I can't believe I am saying this, the quality(or a lack thereof) for this topic is at a degree where the interpretation of the INDEFINITE ARTICLE would ultimately decide the position of one.
1 day left. Something please?
If you think that is cruel and troll, try a 1000-character debate.
The correct option is to embed the links.
Don’t reveal your plans in the comment section. It could strengthen the opposing case. You want to be stronger than your opponent.
What government? What counts as education? "Self explanatory" my ass, nobody should win by purposely knowing something they wouldn't give to their opponent.
God shows no subjective intentions. Even if God exists, whenever an antivaxxer dies, he probably would sigh, "another one bites the dust."
Hands down the hardest topic I have accepted in 2022 because it is usually easier to prove a negative than a positive.
Great, my skin color is #1f1e33. Don't use general color terms like "white" or "red", use your phone and check the hex code instead!
(I made up that hex code, idk what it is)
Put them in Syria or Afghanistan and see if they complain.
One way Pro can win is if Pro proves that Bible believers should not use the Gregorian calendar.
3 days left, a vote would be desirable.
5 days left, a vote would be great.
Liberals? Wrong, authoritarians.
How is probability measured here?
Good, so it is not a hint to any side in the debate.
Wrong. Clearly it rhymes with itself.
4 days left. A vote is helpful.
I see a way Pro can absolute crush my argument by seeing something I have seen but have not used because it would kill my side absolutely. Try to find it.
Can't have imagined how you have survived over the past years...unless you are joking, yeah.
So you both believe in God and Juche... Lemme guess, you don't want either, you just want authoritarianism.
Hopefully not all of us are like that. I am not that, because unlike how brave he is, I have a blatant fear of murdering people, or having people murdered before my eyes, or being murdered.
This argument(R1) proves something not the topic if outright disproves the topic.
No, it is not going to. The title, the entirety of it, will.
This site has members that try everything you can think of. I am pretty sure someone will pick a fight when you post a debate on a topic that has round restrictions of 100 characters and only video links are allowed to be posted.