I guess that’s a perk to being rank #1. Noobs challenge you thinking they can just beat the biggest guy like it’s a prison. If they decide not to stay on the site, it’s a free win.
I assume this was a concession and I voted with that in mind. If this was not a concession, let me know and I will delete my vote or ask a mod to do so.
I’ve wondered about this. Obviously Derek Chauvin deserved to be tossed in jail, but given that we can’t see inside the heart, we don’t really know his true motivation.
So I guess this debate is based on likelihood. Con needs has multiple ways to prove this, but Pro potentially can have some good counter-evidence. I might vote on this.
The joke here isn’t bad, but you should have specified the definition in the description, which is why people are saying this is a a semantic trap. They would be correct, too.
I must say I do like this topic. While it’s not an issue I have historically cared too much about, the topic itself is kinda interesting.
I have one side I would favor here, but if I were to vote on this I would base it off of the question: what side would I pick if I came into the topic knowing nothing about it?
"I do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" Well maybe you should. There's a reason why those concepts exist. To prevent tyranny.
Second, if the standard is different on this site then you should have told me, which you didn't.
The way it was on DDO was if your opponent conceded, you win. Period. The rule change isn't what bothered me, it's the lack of openness about it that bothers me.
And yes, this isn't a court case. But maybe you should alter your policies so that the concepts apply. You are the government of DART.
Do you want to review these concepts? because you really should start following them.
NO, I had no idea I had to post arguments in Rounds 4 and 5 AFTER my opponent conceded the debate. I was acting off of Airmax's interpretation of the rules, and you rejected the common DDO interpretation and substituted it with your own.
you say that because I didn't post in the first three rounds means that I wasn't interested in this debate. You don't know that. you can't see inside my head. I was interested; I was just busy. You assummed I was already guilty of being uninterested based off of only 3/5ths proof, which is the "guilty until proven innocent" logic, when it should be "innocent until proven guilty".
I had no idea that I even needed to post an argument. On DDO, I would've won this debate. But you changed the rules without telling me, which unfairly screwed me over.
I assumed that since my opponent conceded in the thread, that I didn't have to post an argument, and that the win would be mine. If I had known I still had to post an argument, I would have. you guys screwed me over by not telling me I needed to post an argument. For this reason, I should be handed the win.
Nvm, I forgor. Maybe next day off
Yeah next day I get off work I'm voting on this
Both of these votes are honestly vote bombs. Might vote on this myself just so this debate gets at least one good vote.
I guess that’s a perk to being rank #1. Noobs challenge you thinking they can just beat the biggest guy like it’s a prison. If they decide not to stay on the site, it’s a free win.
If you get the meme reference
Ok then the joke can be changed to:
Hmm today I fight Oromagi.
Damn Oromagi got hands.
“Oh, boy! My first debate! This will be a casual and fun experi- Oromagi has accepted your debate challenge!
I do like the choice of topic here.
I assume this was a concession and I voted with that in mind. If this was not a concession, let me know and I will delete my vote or ask a mod to do so.
I’ve wondered about this. Obviously Derek Chauvin deserved to be tossed in jail, but given that we can’t see inside the heart, we don’t really know his true motivation.
So I guess this debate is based on likelihood. Con needs has multiple ways to prove this, but Pro potentially can have some good counter-evidence. I might vote on this.
oh dang i missed it. oops
what
get well soon. you'll get through it
oh. Yeah I'll vote tie
Just delete your vote and make a new one. If you can’t delete it anymore, ask a site moderator to.
This is the true heavyweight bout of the first Round now.
No. Congrats on your advancement to the next round. You got my vote is what I'm saying.
I consider a no-show for 2/3 rounds an FF.
right now I'm only looking at the tournament debates
I'll vote in a bit
Only one round was forfeited, so I'm not calling this one an FF
Well it won't be if David doesn't post any arguments...
This is Round 1’s main event to me
The joke here isn’t bad, but you should have specified the definition in the description, which is why people are saying this is a a semantic trap. They would be correct, too.
I must say I do like this topic. While it’s not an issue I have historically cared too much about, the topic itself is kinda interesting.
I have one side I would favor here, but if I were to vote on this I would base it off of the question: what side would I pick if I came into the topic knowing nothing about it?
If I have time will cast a vote in the event of a rematch on the issue.
Wut
not what i thought this was
reducto ad Hitlerum
Canada has a higher land mass.
Wylted did say he was taking a break from the site.
"I do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" Well maybe you should. There's a reason why those concepts exist. To prevent tyranny.
Second, if the standard is different on this site then you should have told me, which you didn't.
The way it was on DDO was if your opponent conceded, you win. Period. The rule change isn't what bothered me, it's the lack of openness about it that bothers me.
And yes, this isn't a court case. But maybe you should alter your policies so that the concepts apply. You are the government of DART.
Do you want to review these concepts? because you really should start following them.
NO, I had no idea I had to post arguments in Rounds 4 and 5 AFTER my opponent conceded the debate. I was acting off of Airmax's interpretation of the rules, and you rejected the common DDO interpretation and substituted it with your own.
you say that because I didn't post in the first three rounds means that I wasn't interested in this debate. You don't know that. you can't see inside my head. I was interested; I was just busy. You assummed I was already guilty of being uninterested based off of only 3/5ths proof, which is the "guilty until proven innocent" logic, when it should be "innocent until proven guilty".
I had no idea that I even needed to post an argument. On DDO, I would've won this debate. But you changed the rules without telling me, which unfairly screwed me over.
I assumed that since my opponent conceded in the thread, that I didn't have to post an argument, and that the win would be mine. If I had known I still had to post an argument, I would have. you guys screwed me over by not telling me I needed to post an argument. For this reason, I should be handed the win.
Woah wtf? My opponent conceded the debate. This should be my win.
this is basically a definition debate
why was this a tie
Pro should win this.
That Santa rap lol
I tried to juggle too many things in my life at once.
Dang it.
Devil's Advocate?
I wanted to debate the definition of left wing as part of this debate.
Of what?
I will vote in this one. I have the time for that. Don’t have the time for debating, as evidenced by the past debates I have forfeited.
Thank you.
Plz don't have this reset. I posted my argument with less than 20 seconds left on the clock.
OH SHIT
I forgot the copy and paste" I request that voters follow the rules and definitions of this debate."
Can I please do it in the second without resetting this debate?
Then how about we do this debate again some time.