Reliable study's like CDC, Pew Research Center, things like those are normally indisputable studies. However, a lot of other studies are true too. As long as you examine the questions asked in a survey or read the actual report of the study, then you can determine its validity.
"If they express them as facts, I would find that dubious because new pundit are not suppose to call anything a fact. Such is the nature of objective reporting."
If it is a reliable study or something, than yes, otherwise if they say something like "walls work. That's a fact." I think we both know that "fact" means an opinion you believe true.
This is why I have a critique of CNN way more than FOX or MSNBC, because they claim to be objective journalists, when in fact we all know they clearly have a left-wing bias.
Can you read? I don't think you realize how anti-intellectual you are being right now. Read the comment again. I said "In fairly recent years, I won't be judgy." Lets say reasonable examples within the past 10 years. However, If it is past that, I won't be too strict and use the "was" and "is" argument. I don't think speedrace would do later ones like that anyway, given he gace the pochohantas example in recent years.
Are you actually going to be that disingenuous and cheap?
You are cherry-picking a meme and cheaply trying to use it against me? Spare me. Semantics is against the COC as well, you know.
I was responding to your round 3 argument in the last round. "as the opponent can't reply to it at all.." And you are trying to tell me I can't post an argument? That is you saying I can't reply to your argument, which is what you are accusing me of doing. How hypocritical. I posted a comment which has remained the top comment until 9 hours a go which reads "Viewers, Sorry, I was on vacation. This wasn't very productive. Apologies, I will still post an argument in the final round."
I even let you know ahead of time. You had in every power of yours to rebuttal my round 4 argument, but chose not to. I posted my round 4 argument as well as a conclusion of my debating, I did both, because I couldn't in round 3. "as the opponent can't reply at all.." You had the last argument! You could have very well rebuttaled and concluded like I did, but again, chose not to.
"This utter nonsense, I don't care if Sandmann says he will sue CNN.."
Right, after you claimed in round 2 to have "non-fake news sources on the matter" implying mine were fake news.
"why did you ignore the entire Russia Collusion?"
I didn't. I gave evidence of CNN admitting the narrative was fake. I'm not going to look through your whole book of articles, read every one, and determine that it is fake news. And you are saying why I didn't respond to this after you failed to respond to the "objective reporting" argument in every single round?
That last round argument on your part was such crap and you know it. You probably didn't respond to the arguments because you know I got good evidence against it and backed it up with facts. Unbelievable, really.
Do you accept my previous comment, "Oh I also forgot to mention in the description you will waive the last round..(meant to put it after I said I would waive the first round) are you accepting of this rule?"
Oh I also forgot to mention in the description you will waive the last round..(meant to put it after I said I would waive the first round) are you accepting of this rule?
That last debate I was genuinely debating the rules, which there was clearly miscommunication on. Examples within recent years would be fine to prove Trump is racist. I would never be that ridiculous and cheap to need racist examples in this present moment. As long as it is fairly recent, I won't be judgy. The pochohontas example would be a fine example and I wouldn't contend the validity of it. Wanna debate now?
Would you mind deleting and re-casting your vote? I would like you to change the conduct point to a tie, because although I forfeited, con posted in the last round, which was against the rules..."I will give a general overview of the debate in round 1, and then Con will start off the arguments. Con will then waive the last round."
I also gave a reminder in my final round that no conclusions or final assessment be made, but he did anyway. I'm telling you this because I will report it if you don't change it, so I would appreciate it, thx.
Look at pinkfreud's vote. He claims I had poor conduct because "I moved the goalpost," but whether he WAS racist or IS racist is what we were debating the rules over.
He got banned because he was anti-jew and spewing profanity and toxicity at other members. Look at the debate "I shouldn't have gotten banned." It lays it all out there.
OK well no one takes type 1 seriously he is just a crazy lunatic, that's why he got banned. RM is pretty socialist to some degrees, he is pretty far-left.
"You didn’t offer anything at all other than a dismissive throw away line 2 1/2 days after pros opening- and added nothing - which is nearly as bad."
This is completely your opinion, which you infer too often in voting. Again, I've already proved you wrong on this last comment, which I said "general overview." Again, this is extremely cherry picked and disingenuous.
So you still would doc me a point if we both broke the rules once each? Me- poor conduct for forfeit Death- explicitly breaking the rules expressed in the description. This should be a tie at the least, if not a point for me since he actually claimed something I was unable to respond to in the final round, where as the forfeit did not affect the debate as their were no arguments made. Yeah, this is definitely deserving of a report.
Bsh I want to make sure virt reads these as well...because he probably won't get the reason or context why I am reporting it.
Of course, I would not make that argument. Examples in recent years would be enough evidence to prove it. I am not going to be strict on how far to go back, just keep it reasonable. I am talking about more subjectiveness, for example using the argument multiple allegations of racism prove more likely than not that he is racist. That is shaky ground. If we stick to specific examples and argue those, that would be fine.
so u consider
"source please" as disrespectful?? LMAO
He put no source to his "skyrocketing" claim so I couldn't confirm it was valid. I even added "please". Cmon. You have more common sense than that.
more likely to be true than not" is pretty subjective. If you can give factual, actual instances that happen, that would be better, so I can rebuttal them.
"conduct deteriorated in the last post, initiated by pro."
WTF? How did i have poor conduct in the last round. Rediculous and unfortunate bias vote who can't vote without implementing his progressive views into it.
Can you take a look at Ramshutu's vote? I only forfeited one round, not two. He also said " then attempted to simply change the rules in his final round." I am not sure what he is referring to, he never says, but I think over the rules. That is his opinion I attempted to change the rules, death and I were debating what the rules were and what I meant by the rules.
You forgot this one of the comments in the debate "I'm Gay" by type1.
"Shut up you neo nazi halfwit idiot. It's not my fault you are too busy jerking off to Jesus' mutilated corpse to realize when I am joking and when I'm not. You are a christian and a right winger, therefor anything you say about "logic" is equally valid to a toddler giving a lecture about quantum mechanics. You are a sperm guzzling toddler groping crotch licking chicken fucker, shut your god damn mouth."
There have been some good points and great debating on both sides, but as a voter, I have to say pro has the edge by far. He debunked con's arguments flawlessly leaving con in the dust which is why he forfeited in the later rounds because he knows he lost. Props to pro, well done, you have my vote.
Reliable study's like CDC, Pew Research Center, things like those are normally indisputable studies. However, a lot of other studies are true too. As long as you examine the questions asked in a survey or read the actual report of the study, then you can determine its validity.
"If they express them as facts, I would find that dubious because new pundit are not suppose to call anything a fact. Such is the nature of objective reporting."
If it is a reliable study or something, than yes, otherwise if they say something like "walls work. That's a fact." I think we both know that "fact" means an opinion you believe true.
This is why I have a critique of CNN way more than FOX or MSNBC, because they claim to be objective journalists, when in fact we all know they clearly have a left-wing bias.
IMO they dont spread fake news. They have a different opinion than the other 10 networks. Good or correct is pretty subjective.
I said I wouldn't be judgy or be cheap. I'm not that type of guy who does that just to win a debate K bye
Because I didn't wan't confusion in the debate and arguments like "you didn't say that in description.." etc. Just wanted to clarify
Can you read? I don't think you realize how anti-intellectual you are being right now. Read the comment again. I said "In fairly recent years, I won't be judgy." Lets say reasonable examples within the past 10 years. However, If it is past that, I won't be too strict and use the "was" and "is" argument. I don't think speedrace would do later ones like that anyway, given he gace the pochohantas example in recent years.
Are you actually going to be that disingenuous and cheap?
You are cherry-picking a meme and cheaply trying to use it against me? Spare me. Semantics is against the COC as well, you know.
I was responding to your round 3 argument in the last round. "as the opponent can't reply to it at all.." And you are trying to tell me I can't post an argument? That is you saying I can't reply to your argument, which is what you are accusing me of doing. How hypocritical. I posted a comment which has remained the top comment until 9 hours a go which reads "Viewers, Sorry, I was on vacation. This wasn't very productive. Apologies, I will still post an argument in the final round."
I even let you know ahead of time. You had in every power of yours to rebuttal my round 4 argument, but chose not to. I posted my round 4 argument as well as a conclusion of my debating, I did both, because I couldn't in round 3. "as the opponent can't reply at all.." You had the last argument! You could have very well rebuttaled and concluded like I did, but again, chose not to.
"This utter nonsense, I don't care if Sandmann says he will sue CNN.."
Right, after you claimed in round 2 to have "non-fake news sources on the matter" implying mine were fake news.
"why did you ignore the entire Russia Collusion?"
I didn't. I gave evidence of CNN admitting the narrative was fake. I'm not going to look through your whole book of articles, read every one, and determine that it is fake news. And you are saying why I didn't respond to this after you failed to respond to the "objective reporting" argument in every single round?
That last round argument on your part was such crap and you know it. You probably didn't respond to the arguments because you know I got good evidence against it and backed it up with facts. Unbelievable, really.
Fox News is the only alternative voice in the 11 major cable news networks, which are all liberal.
You should probably read the comments before you comment. Look 6 comments before your's, I have already clarified this.
accept/understand it
I'm asking if you accept that rule.
Do you accept my previous comment, "Oh I also forgot to mention in the description you will waive the last round..(meant to put it after I said I would waive the first round) are you accepting of this rule?"
Stop putting words in my mouth. I already clarified this.
Oh I also forgot to mention in the description you will waive the last round..(meant to put it after I said I would waive the first round) are you accepting of this rule?
That last debate I was genuinely debating the rules, which there was clearly miscommunication on. Examples within recent years would be fine to prove Trump is racist. I would never be that ridiculous and cheap to need racist examples in this present moment. As long as it is fairly recent, I won't be judgy. The pochohontas example would be a fine example and I wouldn't contend the validity of it. Wanna debate now?
Would you mind deleting and re-casting your vote? I would like you to change the conduct point to a tie, because although I forfeited, con posted in the last round, which was against the rules..."I will give a general overview of the debate in round 1, and then Con will start off the arguments. Con will then waive the last round."
I also gave a reminder in my final round that no conclusions or final assessment be made, but he did anyway. I'm telling you this because I will report it if you don't change it, so I would appreciate it, thx.
Look at pinkfreud's vote. He claims I had poor conduct because "I moved the goalpost," but whether he WAS racist or IS racist is what we were debating the rules over.
Someone accept plz.
Someone accept plz.
He got banned because he was anti-jew and spewing profanity and toxicity at other members. Look at the debate "I shouldn't have gotten banned." It lays it all out there.
OK well no one takes type 1 seriously he is just a crazy lunatic, that's why he got banned. RM is pretty socialist to some degrees, he is pretty far-left.
knowing u im surprised ur taking this position.
I'm pretty sure he is a casual not as experienced debater and your deriving theories from that...
You do realize you are taking the con position, so you would be arguing that Trump is for the common man and not the rich?
You talking to me? I strictly don't agree with that, and I know personally Trump isn't racist, but I can't bring that up when debating.
Take a look at the most recent voter. He does not sufficiently explain anything and does not meet voting standards.
"You didn’t offer anything at all other than a dismissive throw away line 2 1/2 days after pros opening- and added nothing - which is nearly as bad."
This is completely your opinion, which you infer too often in voting. Again, I've already proved you wrong on this last comment, which I said "general overview." Again, this is extremely cherry picked and disingenuous.
So you still would doc me a point if we both broke the rules once each? Me- poor conduct for forfeit Death- explicitly breaking the rules expressed in the description. This should be a tie at the least, if not a point for me since he actually claimed something I was unable to respond to in the final round, where as the forfeit did not affect the debate as their were no arguments made. Yeah, this is definitely deserving of a report.
Bsh I want to make sure virt reads these as well...because he probably won't get the reason or context why I am reporting it.
Basically what I'm saying is don't use that argument unless it is blatantly true like that example you suggested.
Of course, I would not make that argument. Examples in recent years would be enough evidence to prove it. I am not going to be strict on how far to go back, just keep it reasonable. I am talking about more subjectiveness, for example using the argument multiple allegations of racism prove more likely than not that he is racist. That is shaky ground. If we stick to specific examples and argue those, that would be fine.
OK, but don't use the "more likely than not" argument too much. Try to stick to specific examples of racism.
Ok, DM me when you would like me to create it.
so u consider
"source please" as disrespectful?? LMAO
He put no source to his "skyrocketing" claim so I couldn't confirm it was valid. I even added "please". Cmon. You have more common sense than that.
more likely to be true than not" is pretty subjective. If you can give factual, actual instances that happen, that would be better, so I can rebuttal them.
I said "general overview of the debate"
I gave that, I said "Death has to prove that Trump *is* racist. Good luck"
That is very general, and then I said "con will start off the arguments."
This is a very cheap and disingenuous way of saying that was poor conduct and very nit picky.
Once again you said "you didn’t post an argument in the second:"
I clearly stated in the description "con will start off the arguments.
"conduct deteriorated in the last post, initiated by pro."
WTF? How did i have poor conduct in the last round. Rediculous and unfortunate bias vote who can't vote without implementing his progressive views into it.
"pros rebuttal can be discounted, as he isn’t rebutting the claims made by con"
If you literally look at all the rounds you can clearly see con barely rebuttaled any of my points.
Can you take a look at Ramshutu's vote? I only forfeited one round, not two. He also said " then attempted to simply change the rules in his final round." I am not sure what he is referring to, he never says, but I think over the rules. That is his opinion I attempted to change the rules, death and I were debating what the rules were and what I meant by the rules.
Obviously there was miscommunication on the rules. Would you like to do another debate on whether Trump is racist, not was?
Absolutely, it is my best topic. Were you looking to debate me on it?
wow your vote was biased af, so unfortunate to see it.
alanwang is winning by far fosho. Club is getting absolutely demolished in this debate. Im voting con, obviously.
is it temp or perma?
😂😂😂
If conspiracy's dont exist, then russia collusion never existed and has been proven not to exist. Point proven on pro's side.
You forgot this one of the comments in the debate "I'm Gay" by type1.
"Shut up you neo nazi halfwit idiot. It's not my fault you are too busy jerking off to Jesus' mutilated corpse to realize when I am joking and when I'm not. You are a christian and a right winger, therefor anything you say about "logic" is equally valid to a toddler giving a lecture about quantum mechanics. You are a sperm guzzling toddler groping crotch licking chicken fucker, shut your god damn mouth."
So did type1 get banned? I see a line through his name but I am still able to go to his profile page.
have no idea wut ur talking about. Who is darthvader1?
lmao bruh r/whoosh
no im not wrong guy
There have been some good points and great debating on both sides, but as a voter, I have to say pro has the edge by far. He debunked con's arguments flawlessly leaving con in the dust which is why he forfeited in the later rounds because he knows he lost. Props to pro, well done, you have my vote.