The thing is, I didn’t even think of Googling it. Sometimes, obvious ideas are right in front of us, but we miss them. There’s nothing wrong with that. It might be embarrassing, but it’s certainly not any sort of intellectual negligence.
I don’t see it as a problem to be asked a question. Asking questions is part of conversation. It shows an interest in the topic.
Tip for Mall: If you're going to let your opponent choose the topic, you should make sure you know what topic they have selected before starting the debate. Otherwise, you get stuck with resolutions like this where you have a huge disadvantage.
Tip for Novice: If this debate were to have had more rounds, it would have been beneficial to your argument to provide at least one (preferably multiple) counties better than North Korea. That way, if Mall wanted to argue anything good about North Korea or argue that every country is equally bad (making it a tie between every country for the title of "best"), you would have specific countries where you could prove their positives outweigh their negatives more than what would be the case for North Korea.
It ultimately wasn't necessary at all for this debate, but my advice is good for a "just in case" scenario in the event you find yourself debating the same resolution again.
Well I wasn't done reading and pondering all the points of the debate, so I couldn't even decide who I thought won. If I had done that in time, I would've made a placeholder vote and explained my voting decision later in the comments. Oh well. It seems like somebody was able to vote in time, so it doesn't bother me.
I really do not think this is a winnable topic for Pro here. If you think he's in some kind of "emotional state" for this debate, then you and Vici are severely underestimating him. I think you guys would understand just how good Barney is if you saw him on DDO.
Interesting. I've always held the position that what changes the modern Hebrew/Greek Bible has had compared to the oldest surviving copies are small in number and do not change the doctrine of any book or verse, but I can't say the same with certainty here given how little I know about the Quran.
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 tend to view these situations as ties.
The thing is, I didn’t even think of Googling it. Sometimes, obvious ideas are right in front of us, but we miss them. There’s nothing wrong with that. It might be embarrassing, but it’s certainly not any sort of intellectual negligence.
I don’t see it as a problem to be asked a question. Asking questions is part of conversation. It shows an interest in the topic.
Also, I forgive you.
And you could be less condescending. Thanks anyway.
What is GPT-3?
Tip for Mall: If you're going to let your opponent choose the topic, you should make sure you know what topic they have selected before starting the debate. Otherwise, you get stuck with resolutions like this where you have a huge disadvantage.
Tip for Novice: If this debate were to have had more rounds, it would have been beneficial to your argument to provide at least one (preferably multiple) counties better than North Korea. That way, if Mall wanted to argue anything good about North Korea or argue that every country is equally bad (making it a tie between every country for the title of "best"), you would have specific countries where you could prove their positives outweigh their negatives more than what would be the case for North Korea.
It ultimately wasn't necessary at all for this debate, but my advice is good for a "just in case" scenario in the event you find yourself debating the same resolution again.
I felt like being high effort today
Literally just one of you needs to make an argument here.
Anyways, congratz Novice.
Well I wasn't done reading and pondering all the points of the debate, so I couldn't even decide who I thought won. If I had done that in time, I would've made a placeholder vote and explained my voting decision later in the comments. Oh well. It seems like somebody was able to vote in time, so it doesn't bother me.
damn a #1 vs. #2 battle
There are a variety of reasons to reject a debate. Don't confuse his refusal with fear.
I really do not think this is a winnable topic for Pro here. If you think he's in some kind of "emotional state" for this debate, then you and Vici are severely underestimating him. I think you guys would understand just how good Barney is if you saw him on DDO.
bruh why does this debate exist lmao
Interesting. I've always held the position that what changes the modern Hebrew/Greek Bible has had compared to the oldest surviving copies are small in number and do not change the doctrine of any book or verse, but I can't say the same with certainty here given how little I know about the Quran.
Possibly. It will really come down to what kind of time I have in my day.
Sorry. I don’t have time to vote on this one.
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".