I don't really see how that makes any sense with respect to out current aspirations. What is the necessity of having two debates ongoing? Also why would pro have the burden of proof in both debates when it should be shared or contested like any policy debate?
I posit that the following individuals who most likely disagree with me (in no particular order) should accept this debate.
1. Ramshutu
2. Barney
3. Oromagi
4. Theweakeredge
"3 acres is barely enough as you said vegetables alone take up the entire space and more, this isn't even factoring fruits. So Cons case is pretty doomed either way with even a vegan diet as you still need 10 per person."
Oh absolutely, it should be fun to watch his response.
Examining your line of reasoning, I think you functionally misunderstand the distinction I am creating between the average amount of land and the amount of land required for lasting self sufficiency concerning food production. This is not only a critical, but imperative reason as to why you are incorrect with your assessment. You posit that selecting everything for two people only goes up to 15. This is immaterial as the average American family is composed on 3 people.
I gave a range of 15-41 (should be 51) and used the lowest number for my calculations. Do you personally see such a difference as highballing or ridiculous, or is it a case where you did not fully read my argument and observe the figures I used for calculation of the minimum land requirements? Regardless, your source is speaking specifically about feeding one individual " for a year," something we can ascertain is irrelevant to the current predicament as my figures illustrate the amount of land required for for food self sufficiency permentantly.
Right, which is why to be the most charitable, I made a range from the lowest value of the general consensus (5) to the official estimate of the FAO (17). Thanks for giving this clarification. I believe going off the general consensus is most sufficient for this engagement.
Hmm, frankly I thought rational madman was being dramatic as usual. There is no way I am encountering this level of incompetence, surely? This would be my typical line of thought, but having experienced the specific people on this site, I don't know anything that escapes their realm of possibility. This form of conduct is, of course, is nothing but typical from the moderator in the comments section, and I suspect the new voter is simply upset about something and is espousing his frustrations upon myself and I will ask around for someone who has a a greater degree of intelligence quotient.
No way, I thought round 1 was self-evidently for pro.
Round two I lean towards pro as well, ultimately the rules are "no conduct points, just about who has the best bars," which appears to favor the instigator. I will likely vote later.
The idiocy of votes casted on this site is usually self evident, but there are certain users who appear to consistently cast votes that give the impression of a delusion or adverse mental condition. I will not mention any specific user, however.
Its simply obvious as to who is going to win this debate. Now, I wish the time for arguments was cut in half; it would be so if my discretion had been granted. You can expect un-orthodoxly quick responses from the instigator and expect nothing but the unexpected from the contender.
Now I wish I had accepted this debate. With such a weak affirmative case and an instigator that clearly has not been online in 5 days, it would have made for an easy win.
"This house believes that"
That's fine
Yeah, this debate is a forgone conclusion.
oh someone accepted looks like
I don't really see how that makes any sense with respect to out current aspirations. What is the necessity of having two debates ongoing? Also why would pro have the burden of proof in both debates when it should be shared or contested like any policy debate?
Can you actually change the rules so it alters the condition of burden of proof to be shared or disputed?
I don't believe you understand what I have said here. What do you think I was referring to?
I am not against you accepting, I was hoping that one of the more unchallenged folks would however.
I posit that the following individuals who most likely disagree with me (in no particular order) should accept this debate.
1. Ramshutu
2. Barney
3. Oromagi
4. Theweakeredge
Why so aggressive? The information Ehyeh posts here seems perfectly legitimate.
"3 acres is barely enough as you said vegetables alone take up the entire space and more, this isn't even factoring fruits. So Cons case is pretty doomed either way with even a vegan diet as you still need 10 per person."
Oh absolutely, it should be fun to watch his response.
Examining your line of reasoning, I think you functionally misunderstand the distinction I am creating between the average amount of land and the amount of land required for lasting self sufficiency concerning food production. This is not only a critical, but imperative reason as to why you are incorrect with your assessment. You posit that selecting everything for two people only goes up to 15. This is immaterial as the average American family is composed on 3 people.
Make the burden of proof shared and I will oblige you.
I gave a range of 15-41 (should be 51) and used the lowest number for my calculations. Do you personally see such a difference as highballing or ridiculous, or is it a case where you did not fully read my argument and observe the figures I used for calculation of the minimum land requirements? Regardless, your source is speaking specifically about feeding one individual " for a year," something we can ascertain is irrelevant to the current predicament as my figures illustrate the amount of land required for for food self sufficiency permentantly.
Right, which is why to be the most charitable, I made a range from the lowest value of the general consensus (5) to the official estimate of the FAO (17). Thanks for giving this clarification. I believe going off the general consensus is most sufficient for this engagement.
I just need one vote here if you would mind. It is a short debate and will not waste your time in ideal.
Hmm, frankly I thought rational madman was being dramatic as usual. There is no way I am encountering this level of incompetence, surely? This would be my typical line of thought, but having experienced the specific people on this site, I don't know anything that escapes their realm of possibility. This form of conduct is, of course, is nothing but typical from the moderator in the comments section, and I suspect the new voter is simply upset about something and is espousing his frustrations upon myself and I will ask around for someone who has a a greater degree of intelligence quotient.
I have no idea what is going on...but quite the interesting vote, interesting in a way that does not give credence towards it's analysis of course.
💀💀💀💀
(https://media.giphy.com/media/4KECfnmTXCFaTSi68X/giphy.gif)
Why not make this into an actual debate? You have already covered many philosophical tenants of personhood in the comments alone.
I want a one week voting period, and I shall accept
No way, I thought round 1 was self-evidently for pro.
Round two I lean towards pro as well, ultimately the rules are "no conduct points, just about who has the best bars," which appears to favor the instigator. I will likely vote later.
I am not sure I understand, does that mean you concede the debate?
Are you mentally okay?
The instigator wrecked his opponent
Oh my...
How come you are so lazy with arguments these days?
Yeah...saw the website. I am starting to have second thoughts about my oponent
Con clearly won this debate
What the...
A week may work, although any lower time for arguments would be greatly valued
Running out of time
I want the time for arguments to be 3 days, then I will accept
Anyway
Okay
The idiocy of votes casted on this site is usually self evident, but there are certain users who appear to consistently cast votes that give the impression of a delusion or adverse mental condition. I will not mention any specific user, however.
Its simply obvious as to who is going to win this debate. Now, I wish the time for arguments was cut in half; it would be so if my discretion had been granted. You can expect un-orthodoxly quick responses from the instigator and expect nothing but the unexpected from the contender.
Can I get a vote on this please? I have only one week
You can also get permissions by having a certain ammount of forum posts
Pie wrecked this guy, lol. I am not sure why you commented on such an old debate, however.
FLRW is trolling, again.
I am so tired of these people who purposely cast incompetent votes.
Yeah I saw that. I don't know whether or not the person in the debate is another Muslim, but I haven't read it in its entirety.
This would be too easy of a debate for pro. Islam obviously supports terrorism. This is simply a fact.
Rap battles are usually interesting to observe.
Maybe we can acquire some votes? I would very much appreciate any.
I want the voting period to be 2 weeks, and the time for argumentation to be 2 days
What in particular do you want to debate?
Now sure what the delay is. Two weeks was an unfortunate mistake.
Now I wish I had accepted this debate. With such a weak affirmative case and an instigator that clearly has not been online in 5 days, it would have made for an easy win.
Forgone conclusion