This is a very poorly-structured title. It creates problems such as:
1. If the school organizes a field trip to the beach where kids can swim there, are they required to swim while wearing school uniforms?
2. If a student is sick on school session time(for example, 10:00AM Thursday) and is unable to go to school, is he required?
3. Are students required to don uniforms in online classes?
What should be added to the topic statement is self-evident.
Can't vote if the moment I see the topic I am biased.
Either way, I am disappointed in Pro, either for him typing a topic that is clearly a truism or not seeing how easy it is to argue his position. Mostly the latter.
It is indeed biological advantages that made men the rulers instead of women dominantly over the past three millenia, that made the first chess clubs exclusive to gentlemen and not ladies, which eventually lead to more men grandmasters at play than women due to traditions affected by even older traditions, affected by bodily advantages that once actually did matter.
How secure is secure and how open is open? I believe essentially what you are trying to argue for is that a measurable value under a threshold is more fit than if the value is over. Without defining how this value can be calculated would bring forth numerous models that are not only different but conflicting.
Don't ask, if you think it is irrelevant, disprove it. This argument was typed late at night after 3 hours worth of attempts for fixing my own computer.
Course you are smarter than chess. Chess is some pieces of wood laying around without sentience. What you are not smarter than is a chess grandmaster quite possibly.
Comparing an IRL debate format with one solely designed for text-based discussion is like comparing a top fuel dragster with an endurance hypercar. Which one is better? IDK!
Everything is dangerous. You can kill someone with an apple by smashing it over one's nape. Yet these greedy fruit companies are keep selling those damn apples, how dare they!
Everything is dangerous. You can kill someone with an apple by smashing it over one's nape. Yet these greedy fruit companies are keep selling those damn apples, how dare they!
The wage gap theoretically is negligible currently. However, the reality, if we assume the existence, depends on statistical amounts. If we find any one instance where women are being paid less than men for doing the same work at any stage of society ever, the "not real" part is negated.
Unfortunately a modeling contest took away most of my free time resulting in me unable to find large chunks of time to type it here, which would take over an hour at least. It is highly likely that I will forfeit the second round although I do have ideas for rebuttals.
That is not saying I "will not" respond. If I do, that just means time cleared up, although it is highly unlikely.
Is it possible, maybe 1 in 100,000 chance, that Barney doesn't really care about how "good", "vicious" or "competitive" he is? If he really is, he would have at least 50 debates by now seeing he has been a user since the very beginning over 3 years ago. Barney has no moral obligation to argue with you, he just does because he wants.
I wouldn't cram all my attention on every school test, sacrificing meals, sleeps and social interactions(if I have any important ones). If you really think Barney is worse than you, then get a life. Nobody spends all their time debating. Well... maybe I do back then, but doing it long term is unsustainable.
I thought this was one of those things where you have to leave the topic in the comments and have to have the instigator agree to debate the topic before actually moving on.
What count as a site? Less than 20% of the sites contain more than 80% information, such as youtube, Google, Wikipedia, etc. in reality most sites are inaccessible in the dark web, with the rest of them mostly being small sites with perhaps a couple pages.
Then the topic is a falsism. You believe China SHOULD be the owner of Taiwan. The topic on the other hand would be disagreed by even most Chinese people.
As a literal Chinese, I can confirm that China does not “own” Taiwan just yet, the reunification will come as planned in a couple of years. That is when the Chinese government truly own Taiwan.
Even if you could, arguably no one shall mold it outside in doing it for them. Unless they specifically choose to abstain from homosexual activities, even internally, people seriously either do or should have things better to do than to unmold them in this way.
Well, in a point of view, applying critically thinking to everyone, then deem the trustworthy ones as trustworthy, this approach is passable, I guess. Not just potential White Racists.
The real question is that: should we? We never are unable to murder, it is just that the law discouraged that. People shouldn’t kill themselves on average.
Almost no one asks the question that you do. You are quite literally trapping by leaving it out in the open.
This is a very poorly-structured title. It creates problems such as:
1. If the school organizes a field trip to the beach where kids can swim there, are they required to swim while wearing school uniforms?
2. If a student is sick on school session time(for example, 10:00AM Thursday) and is unable to go to school, is he required?
3. Are students required to don uniforms in online classes?
What should be added to the topic statement is self-evident.
To be fair, I can see how Pro can pull a kritik that may decimate the topic itself, just maybe not the mainstream view of the topic.
Can't vote if the moment I see the topic I am biased.
Either way, I am disappointed in Pro, either for him typing a topic that is clearly a truism or not seeing how easy it is to argue his position. Mostly the latter.
The Topic is a truism.
"rather to be a obedient puppet that works and listen"
Except this is the future many people needs. Unless you argue for that unemployment is somehow superior to having a job in the factory.
My mind is really mixing with me. I would write the argument more elaborately if I remembered yesterday that this debate is 2 rounds.
Sure it sucks something, namely the dust. I mean, what is a school without an employed janitor?
It is indeed biological advantages that made men the rulers instead of women dominantly over the past three millenia, that made the first chess clubs exclusive to gentlemen and not ladies, which eventually lead to more men grandmasters at play than women due to traditions affected by even older traditions, affected by bodily advantages that once actually did matter.
This is basically a truism. We can't be reading the same bible by Prophet Muhammed if the language didn't exist back then.
As a former trapsetter, yes, I can't trust you if you are going to define everything once this debate is accepted.
How secure is secure and how open is open? I believe essentially what you are trying to argue for is that a measurable value under a threshold is more fit than if the value is over. Without defining how this value can be calculated would bring forth numerous models that are not only different but conflicting.
Believe me when I say that I can barely open Wookiepedia pages with the internet I have.
Don't ask, if you think it is irrelevant, disprove it. This argument was typed late at night after 3 hours worth of attempts for fixing my own computer.
You are Con...
That is impossible. The fact that the Quran has been translated into multiple languages automatically prevents the title from being true.
The correct answer is yes. "Fei hua" appears to imply an affirmative position. That is all. Nothing you mentioned is actually nonsense.
Guess what made more males participate in chess in the first place?
Ah yes, contemplating about life is meaningless, you say, sire?
Being the foundation of possibly the entire algorithm utilized by computers, calling "1+1=2" nonsense is a disrespect to the entire IT field.
Course you are smarter than chess. Chess is some pieces of wood laying around without sentience. What you are not smarter than is a chess grandmaster quite possibly.
Comparing an IRL debate format with one solely designed for text-based discussion is like comparing a top fuel dragster with an endurance hypercar. Which one is better? IDK!
Useful? For what?
Everything is dangerous. You can kill someone with an apple by smashing it over one's nape. Yet these greedy fruit companies are keep selling those damn apples, how dare they!
Everything is dangerous. You can kill someone with an apple by smashing it over one's nape. Yet these greedy fruit companies are keep selling those damn apples, how dare they!
The wage gap theoretically is negligible currently. However, the reality, if we assume the existence, depends on statistical amounts. If we find any one instance where women are being paid less than men for doing the same work at any stage of society ever, the "not real" part is negated.
Unfortunately a modeling contest took away most of my free time resulting in me unable to find large chunks of time to type it here, which would take over an hour at least. It is highly likely that I will forfeit the second round although I do have ideas for rebuttals.
That is not saying I "will not" respond. If I do, that just means time cleared up, although it is highly unlikely.
I would take Con on this topic if I were less busy. How about a reservation on such a topic later?
Tell me the topic within a single sentence.
Due to the vicious style developed here, I have been barred to enter any in-school or national debate tournaments until my graduation by the school.
Is it possible, maybe 1 in 100,000 chance, that Barney doesn't really care about how "good", "vicious" or "competitive" he is? If he really is, he would have at least 50 debates by now seeing he has been a user since the very beginning over 3 years ago. Barney has no moral obligation to argue with you, he just does because he wants.
I wouldn't cram all my attention on every school test, sacrificing meals, sleeps and social interactions(if I have any important ones). If you really think Barney is worse than you, then get a life. Nobody spends all their time debating. Well... maybe I do back then, but doing it long term is unsustainable.
You know what, just challenge me this topic in person if you are interested. I don’t have time in a week but after 11/4 everything is clear.
I thought this was one of those things where you have to leave the topic in the comments and have to have the instigator agree to debate the topic before actually moving on.
@K_Michael
?
The establishment of the federal reserve system in the US is more beneficial than harmful. Let me in. I am CON.
Let me in. I wanna accept.
What count as a site? Less than 20% of the sites contain more than 80% information, such as youtube, Google, Wikipedia, etc. in reality most sites are inaccessible in the dark web, with the rest of them mostly being small sites with perhaps a couple pages.
Then the topic is a falsism. You believe China SHOULD be the owner of Taiwan. The topic on the other hand would be disagreed by even most Chinese people.
That is, internationally, most countries consider Taiwan a part of China.
As a literal Chinese, I can confirm that China does not “own” Taiwan just yet, the reunification will come as planned in a couple of years. That is when the Chinese government truly own Taiwan.
Even if you could, arguably no one shall mold it outside in doing it for them. Unless they specifically choose to abstain from homosexual activities, even internally, people seriously either do or should have things better to do than to unmold them in this way.
Well, in a point of view, applying critically thinking to everyone, then deem the trustworthy ones as trustworthy, this approach is passable, I guess. Not just potential White Racists.
The matrix is present in every mitochondria in every cell.
You aren't Gugigor, are you?
To be fair, I think Mall is basically me, but with even less knowledge about society.
Make it 1 week and I will accept.
Yoda he may be, and Yoda he may be not. Like a Sith, you are absolutely doing. Not so sure you are, hmm?
In that case, This is the WORST argument I have seen to prove a truism.
Yes.
The real question is that: should we? We never are unable to murder, it is just that the law discouraged that. People shouldn’t kill themselves on average.
Almost no one asks the question that you do. You are quite literally trapping by leaving it out in the open.
Ah yes, everyone has the right to kill themselves.
1 day left.
Agreed.