I don't think you read my argument. Not that this is my opinion, I just find the topic fun, but there are no fallacies to be found. Unless you are saying that Oromagi should not have been able to point out what he claimed was a fallacy, which I think isn't fair personally, but it was an option
Good job guys, I may vote on this. One thing to ask is to make things prettier to look at. These massive text blobs felt like they were attacking my retinas. Although, Pinkfreud was a bit better about it.
I will spend some time sharing my thoughts about it once I finish my argument in the theism debate I'm currently in. I need to finish up my constructive today
I'd say you're correct about conservative politicians in general making stupid decisions at times, such as promising to shrink an overbloated bureaucracy but yet blowing it up even more. Conservative social values with libertarian economic policy is perhaps where I would fall on the spectrum. Although, unlike conservatives I am not very fond of the government having massive executive powers under the banner of "national security."
Good, and I would also whip out some stats regarding whether whites truly target blacks, which is what would be the true result of a white domestic terrorist nation. The numbers are very low.
although, you do NOT need to go down the semantics route to win this debate. The entire premise that one race is more inherently violent in nature is open and vulnerable to attack.
I think I would have just pointed out that IF mairj23 wanted to simply debate if white males are inherently violent instead of debating "should white males be labeled domestic terrorists?" he should've made that explicitly clear in either the title or description. Yet, he only made this clarification in his first constructive. That essentially turns this into a semantics debate, and one that, if anyone can read, he will clearly lose.
Hey Virt! You did well in this. As a debater that debates live very often, I noticed you got pushed around A LOT by bsh1 during crossfire. Something you must do is push the idea that a policy idea is stupid if it cannot be enforced or brought down to some certain specifics. If it cannot be enforced, why waste energy and debate the topic at all? Instead, we should focus efforts into policy areas that are enforceable and likely to make progress. The way you do this in a crossfire, when bsh1 makes a retort such as "I can't answer specifics about enforcement, we are just talking about the topic broadly." is to ask something to the measure of: "If we are currently debating an unenforceable policy, or a policy in which these specifics are not known outcomes, are we not wasting our time?"
Press your opponent, bsh1 was not prepared for certain questions but he still seemed to psych you out.
Ragnar is right on this one, you sort of set up a debate it didn't seem you were trying to argue against. I can tell you mostly agreed with what your opponent is saying. "Fact-check even the majority opinions, just in case" and "don't trust experts!" are two very different claims.
No problem at all for voting.This was so close! Had Trent made some restrictions in the description, and said "Pro is affirming the resolution, and Con is saying that France is better than the UK" it would have been close enough to where I would award a tie instead of giving it to Death. The reason Death got this one is because the debate was so close I could not see one country as substantially better than the other! Good work you two.
A voter being lazy does not correlate to bias by racial basis. All christen is pointing out is that PressF4Respect did not properly vote. Other than that, you sit any professional judge in a room and show them our cases and the debate outcome would be exactly the same. It’s interesting to me that your defense mechanism against loss is to claim oppression. How interesting.
You have taught no one anything except the foolishness inherent in your own beliefs. If you think you ran circles around me, you must have failed geometry.
Could be propaganda numbers, that's true. But no doubt China has the population and resources to soar to the top. It's inevitable, but may not be immediately on the horizon.
Yes, absolutely, I think you're right in that it is CAPABLE of being debated. So it is not TRULY truism in the sense of it not being a debate at all, but it is a rather obvious win for Pro. (Which is why I said it is "a bit like" a truism debate, but not completely.) When weighing all the metrics of what constitutes "power," it is fairly obvious China falls behind with tech, military, living standards, most metrics of economy, etc.
However, I think an interesting debate would be: "Will China be more powerful than the US in the FUTURE?"
China, imo, has the potential to be the most powerful empire the world has ever witnessed.
hmmmm... I've seen many debates over the PROBABILITY of a God existing, but not as many over the POSSIBILITY. It has seemed to me that many don't question the possibility of a God so much as the probability of one. I look forward to hearing your take on this!
...and, perhaps, if no one accepts, I may take you up on this for fun.
Thanks for allowing me to continue!
Thanks for submitting, I got worried it would "forfeit" you
I don't think you read my argument. Not that this is my opinion, I just find the topic fun, but there are no fallacies to be found. Unless you are saying that Oromagi should not have been able to point out what he claimed was a fallacy, which I think isn't fair personally, but it was an option
I figured Occam's Razor was the best way to tie that in. Man, I need to start debating atheist positions or people will think I'm a creationist nut.
I'll get one in tomorrow homie
The original was "Is Peach or Zelda Hotest? >:DDDDDDD"
Your title is, instead: "Is peach or zelda hottest >:DDDDDD?"
SACRILEGE! BLASPHEMY!
Pro constructive:
slime
Good job guys, I may vote on this. One thing to ask is to make things prettier to look at. These massive text blobs felt like they were attacking my retinas. Although, Pinkfreud was a bit better about it.
lol, my constructive has a list going "1. 1. 1. 1."
I will spend some time sharing my thoughts about it once I finish my argument in the theism debate I'm currently in. I need to finish up my constructive today
Where am I seen trying to convince anyone of anything?
I'd say you're correct about conservative politicians in general making stupid decisions at times, such as promising to shrink an overbloated bureaucracy but yet blowing it up even more. Conservative social values with libertarian economic policy is perhaps where I would fall on the spectrum. Although, unlike conservatives I am not very fond of the government having massive executive powers under the banner of "national security."
understandable. I see why he limited the characters after i kicked his arse lmao
Good, and I would also whip out some stats regarding whether whites truly target blacks, which is what would be the true result of a white domestic terrorist nation. The numbers are very low.
Interesting topic idea.
although, you do NOT need to go down the semantics route to win this debate. The entire premise that one race is more inherently violent in nature is open and vulnerable to attack.
I think I would have just pointed out that IF mairj23 wanted to simply debate if white males are inherently violent instead of debating "should white males be labeled domestic terrorists?" he should've made that explicitly clear in either the title or description. Yet, he only made this clarification in his first constructive. That essentially turns this into a semantics debate, and one that, if anyone can read, he will clearly lose.
i'll make sure to leave a vote.
Good constructive Virt! Expect mine by Labor Day, since I will be free then.
me neither. Worth a look, though
I'm certain there are other platforms that can be used, perhaps Youtube Live? You can upload those post-fact.
Hey Virt! You did well in this. As a debater that debates live very often, I noticed you got pushed around A LOT by bsh1 during crossfire. Something you must do is push the idea that a policy idea is stupid if it cannot be enforced or brought down to some certain specifics. If it cannot be enforced, why waste energy and debate the topic at all? Instead, we should focus efforts into policy areas that are enforceable and likely to make progress. The way you do this in a crossfire, when bsh1 makes a retort such as "I can't answer specifics about enforcement, we are just talking about the topic broadly." is to ask something to the measure of: "If we are currently debating an unenforceable policy, or a policy in which these specifics are not known outcomes, are we not wasting our time?"
Press your opponent, bsh1 was not prepared for certain questions but he still seemed to psych you out.
Ragnar is right on this one, you sort of set up a debate it didn't seem you were trying to argue against. I can tell you mostly agreed with what your opponent is saying. "Fact-check even the majority opinions, just in case" and "don't trust experts!" are two very different claims.
No problem at all for voting.This was so close! Had Trent made some restrictions in the description, and said "Pro is affirming the resolution, and Con is saying that France is better than the UK" it would have been close enough to where I would award a tie instead of giving it to Death. The reason Death got this one is because the debate was so close I could not see one country as substantially better than the other! Good work you two.
A voter being lazy does not correlate to bias by racial basis. All christen is pointing out is that PressF4Respect did not properly vote. Other than that, you sit any professional judge in a room and show them our cases and the debate outcome would be exactly the same. It’s interesting to me that your defense mechanism against loss is to claim oppression. How interesting.
He is comedic at least
Let it be known I am more of an agnostic at this time, my views are not necessary expressed here.
Count me in!
You have taught no one anything except the foolishness inherent in your own beliefs. If you think you ran circles around me, you must have failed geometry.
Thanks for votes!
Thanks! I enjoy seeing your country debates
maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy take you up on this, but I want to see if anyone accepts my current challenge
That is very true, and is also very unfortunate.
Do you not want helpful feedback, or do you just hate seeing objective voters realize how much you've lost?
Huzzah!
Looks like I read it but never clicked "accept"
hmmmm, well thanks for pointing it out. I need to revisit it then
I have done both I believe
Too bad, I wanted feedback :( If you're biased though, can't be helped.
Some more votes would be appreciated if you have the time :)
I truly can't wrap my head around that number, what a weapon it could be if used properly!
Jesus. Also, just think about how China's population of 1.4 billion is more than the entire human population combined for much of human history.
I certainly will pay attention if a competent debater accepts
Could be propaganda numbers, that's true. But no doubt China has the population and resources to soar to the top. It's inevitable, but may not be immediately on the horizon.
Yes, absolutely, I think you're right in that it is CAPABLE of being debated. So it is not TRULY truism in the sense of it not being a debate at all, but it is a rather obvious win for Pro. (Which is why I said it is "a bit like" a truism debate, but not completely.) When weighing all the metrics of what constitutes "power," it is fairly obvious China falls behind with tech, military, living standards, most metrics of economy, etc.
However, I think an interesting debate would be: "Will China be more powerful than the US in the FUTURE?"
China, imo, has the potential to be the most powerful empire the world has ever witnessed.
we're on the same wavelength here lol
To me this seems a bit like a truism debate. Maybe a better one is "America is the GREATEST country in the world"
Good topic. What sort of policies are you speaking of specifically? Would you advocate for ANY type of gun to be free-to-own?
hmmmm... I've seen many debates over the PROBABILITY of a God existing, but not as many over the POSSIBILITY. It has seemed to me that many don't question the possibility of a God so much as the probability of one. I look forward to hearing your take on this!
...and, perhaps, if no one accepts, I may take you up on this for fun.
Ok, that made me laugh. Good debate.