Unless it is an outlawed name, Pro technically wants to strip the right of anyone called "Seifenblasen". As to the sheer amount of people with names as ridiculous as "Puppy" or "Cherry", etc. theoretically such an individual would exist.
If you understand what a debate topic is, you will understand that this question is not needed to be answered for Con to win.
As for my own opinion, yeah, the big bang theory. It is the most plausible as of yet. I don't have more opposing evidence than the most advanced research agencies so I will not propose anything else.
There has been no location where I intended to mention the Big Bang theory, because it would be grouped with the set of theories in which God didn't "create" the world as the big bang theory would first have a milky way, then a solar system, then having rocks collide with each other to form a giant ball of rock for billions of years.
Outlawing cancer is redundant at best. They will still die even if you do nothing.
Are you suggesting that not offering cancer treatment when demanded should be decriminalized, or are you suggesting that treating cancer should be illegal?
I am poking the debate's resolution, seriously, like I always do. Unless people can actually prove me wrong on all fronts or I am just being a dumbasss I am usually correct. The advantage of that is I always argue exactly what the resolution is, exactly.
Having the description typed in a language that I do not know an amounting vocabulary of surely decreases the chances of me grappling it on for semantic maneuvres, eh. /srs
I am reporting your vote because you are not being clear enough. If you still think I won this debate, you can write the same verdicts with a little bit more details, hmm.
You might have stuck on caps lock. Click the caps lock key on your computer keyboard once, if it yields lowercase characters like this "adfsgsgdfggszxgnvbmgdfhnngfhnmghnmnfb", you can keep using it. If it does nothing, it is advised that you go to a repair & restore shop for computers.
As a high-school student, I have been asked with both opinions asking me to play fortnite and requesting me to avoid that game as early as 2018. Today, however, the Fortnite community has struck me as a small self-sustainable community, one very much like Undertale and Deltarune(if these games are still being played despite there has been 1.5 years without any updates, unlike Fortnite). It doesn't try to invade the masses unlike what they did back in 2018.
At this point I am not even going to hide the fact that I am mad at Novice. He is FFing various debates that he is 100% capable of winning. The only beneficiary to this interaction is Pro, who didn't even take this seriously.
No one blames you if the opponent doesn't give his sources, and no one other than the ranking system blames the opponent for failing to provide any sources.
Well, I am not trying to scold you, but in doing so, you haven't restored as much faith as the potential loss you have caused due to you enabling the opponent a headstart going into a new round.
#10(and #14) is an active attempt at weakening the relative strength of your arguments. You don't want your opponent to back anything outside the confinements of the rounds if you aren't going to do the same.
I bet 3 dollars that Pro will just make some Pros of being the 2nd kid in the family while not comparing it to the aggregate benefits for being the other siblings.
When you come to think about it, doesn't every great leader become an actor? I mean, they just become the mascot, the symbol of whatever they are leading. Few examples include Uncle Sam, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc.
Ironically, that was one of the few debates where I intended no semantic maneuvers at all. I eventually included it because there is just 1000 characters remaining and I don't know what to do with it.
After glossing at the description after R2 submission, yes, pretty sure you have confused "did not slow" with "sped". I am pretty sure that is a form of ignoratio elenchi.
And yes, "CON shall only argue that The Coronavirus mRNA Vaccines DID Slow The Spread Of COVID-19", I always argue EXACTLY what the phrased topic wants me to argue.
We don't need to argue. As soon as a strict pro-lifer walks in to the Con position the claim is proven false. Con wins with victory. That is how the wording sounds like. Luckily(or disappointingly) both parties didn't see this.
“Online education refers to the use of technology and the internet to facilitate learning, while traditional education refers to face-to-face instruction in a physical classroom.”
Wait until you hear that some high school and university courses allow computers in for personal usage.
Never start a debate with a defined topic without the topic defined.
No, we absolutely should not vote for Lancelot, it is blasphemeous to vote for someone that doesn't exist! Vote for Sir.Lancelot!
Now that is a refresher.
In the description section, you should define all key terms in the topic and possibly ONLY those.
Is the battle of Verdun a war? No, because it is a part of WWI.
Would you like to vote again?
Unless it is an outlawed name, Pro technically wants to strip the right of anyone called "Seifenblasen". As to the sheer amount of people with names as ridiculous as "Puppy" or "Cherry", etc. theoretically such an individual would exist.
Sadly the answer probably is yes because men in the past have built social structures that prevent women from getting smart.
Wouldn't be surprised if the Islam extreme terrorists started the war if it existed.
"THen what created the world??"
If you understand what a debate topic is, you will understand that this question is not needed to be answered for Con to win.
As for my own opinion, yeah, the big bang theory. It is the most plausible as of yet. I don't have more opposing evidence than the most advanced research agencies so I will not propose anything else.
"wow you are younger than me!
how can you be so smart?"
And Terence Tao was smarter than the average college student at 13. I am far from his level of intelligence.
There has been no location where I intended to mention the Big Bang theory, because it would be grouped with the set of theories in which God didn't "create" the world as the big bang theory would first have a milky way, then a solar system, then having rocks collide with each other to form a giant ball of rock for billions of years.
Per my own rules you are supposed to say this in your R1. Oh well I have seen this one round too late, so the first round is wasted.
Outlawing cancer is redundant at best. They will still die even if you do nothing.
Are you suggesting that not offering cancer treatment when demanded should be decriminalized, or are you suggesting that treating cancer should be illegal?
You wouldn’t, and that is good.
Outlawing miscarriages. Might as well outlaw cancer, since we can’t treat them lol. /ss
At least you are efficient. You don’t forfeit.
Tell that to Kamikaze pilots.
I am poking the debate's resolution, seriously, like I always do. Unless people can actually prove me wrong on all fronts or I am just being a dumbasss I am usually correct. The advantage of that is I always argue exactly what the resolution is, exactly.
Having the description typed in a language that I do not know an amounting vocabulary of surely decreases the chances of me grappling it on for semantic maneuvres, eh. /srs
I am reporting your vote because you are not being clear enough. If you still think I won this debate, you can write the same verdicts with a little bit more details, hmm.
You might have stuck on caps lock. Click the caps lock key on your computer keyboard once, if it yields lowercase characters like this "adfsgsgdfggszxgnvbmgdfhnngfhnmghnmnfb", you can keep using it. If it does nothing, it is advised that you go to a repair & restore shop for computers.
As a high-school student, I have been asked with both opinions asking me to play fortnite and requesting me to avoid that game as early as 2018. Today, however, the Fortnite community has struck me as a small self-sustainable community, one very much like Undertale and Deltarune(if these games are still being played despite there has been 1.5 years without any updates, unlike Fortnite). It doesn't try to invade the masses unlike what they did back in 2018.
You can embed website links into text on this place.
The bed surface, if flat enough, can indeed be argued as a form of floor.
At this point I am not even going to hide the fact that I am mad at Novice. He is FFing various debates that he is 100% capable of winning. The only beneficiary to this interaction is Pro, who didn't even take this seriously.
Really? There is a sport called "Grappling"?
No one blames you if the opponent doesn't give his sources, and no one other than the ranking system blames the opponent for failing to provide any sources.
Well, I am not trying to scold you, but in doing so, you haven't restored as much faith as the potential loss you have caused due to you enabling the opponent a headstart going into a new round.
#10(and #14) is an active attempt at weakening the relative strength of your arguments. You don't want your opponent to back anything outside the confinements of the rounds if you aren't going to do the same.
Given that no executions of death penalty are being made currently, the Pro position is heavily limited by including "does".
That, along with other reasons, made these dishes unseen in over 99.999% of diners and even outlawed in some countries. Oh.
Jokes on you, some of us actually eat live beings(we probably shouldn't, lol), and let me tell you it was painful.
I bet 3 dollars that Pro will just make some Pros of being the 2nd kid in the family while not comparing it to the aggregate benefits for being the other siblings.
Not as much as purposely making fallacious topics and annoy people, I guess, lol
Sounds like you should care, because at this point I don't even think that you think this topic is right for yourself.
At this point, your recent few debates are literally set up for failure lol.
When you come to think about it, doesn't every great leader become an actor? I mean, they just become the mascot, the symbol of whatever they are leading. Few examples include Uncle Sam, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc.
Ironically, that was one of the few debates where I intended no semantic maneuvers at all. I eventually included it because there is just 1000 characters remaining and I don't know what to do with it.
Well, welcome to DART, lad.
Leader of what? A theatre? An Actor's Union? A southern railroad firm?
After glossing at the description after R2 submission, yes, pretty sure you have confused "did not slow" with "sped". I am pretty sure that is a form of ignoratio elenchi.
And yes, "CON shall only argue that The Coronavirus mRNA Vaccines DID Slow The Spread Of COVID-19", I always argue EXACTLY what the phrased topic wants me to argue.
That would assume the US never loosen up immigration laws on this topic.
You specifically said "WHAT is love", meaning there could be infinitely many sides as human knowledge goes.
We don't need to argue. As soon as a strict pro-lifer walks in to the Con position the claim is proven false. Con wins with victory. That is how the wording sounds like. Luckily(or disappointingly) both parties didn't see this.
This is a truism, because it concerns something that directly relates to the instigator.
Or it is a falsism, if somehow we can kritik the definition on "<3".
Pretty sure Christmas Eve was a thing. In other words, the celebrations associated with Christmas has already begun in the 24th.
"What is love? You choose your side and belief of the topic."
This is like picking a blind box. We don't know your view here. You are vaguely setting a trap, even.
“Online education refers to the use of technology and the internet to facilitate learning, while traditional education refers to face-to-face instruction in a physical classroom.”
Wait until you hear that some high school and university courses allow computers in for personal usage.
Please give a fetus a firearm. /j
There is actually a way that your argument is absolutely undefeatable, I will not tell you how but it exists.