I can tell from curlykid his arguments will be weak. Plz don't rebut to him in the comments because you might convince him and I want to debate him on it.
None of my rebuttal was irrelevant or unsupported, it had to do with conflating the women's position in which case I responded with those things which were completely relevant. As I said in the debate, she was very inconsistent in her positioning so it is unfair to say Ben was unfairly conflating her positions. You shouldn't be such a bias voter.
"I can’t really work out how I am supposed to assess the claim “he backs everything up with facts and logic and never hesitates to answer questions or back up his political positions.” without any more detail than you provided."
I cited two videos as examples. He didn't respond to those either. I provided as much detail as my opponent's cited videos.
If you want 5 rounds, create a debate and I will accept.
I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds.
>>My DDO record is better than your record here.
Even when we take into account my record here. We both have a 100% win percentage. Just so happens that people like dsjpk5 voted for you because his biases.
All you do is accept type1's debates giving you free wins.
"16.67% win percentage."
It is not Representative of my skills. In a gun debate, i lost by 1 point, it was a virtual tie. Another gun debate I should have won but tied. One debate i fairly lost on trump is turning america into a dictatorship. One half-troll debate i lost which had nothing to do w/ politics and I could have won if presenting my evidence was legal w/ the CoC, and 1 debate I accidentally accepted on the wrong side (trump warren 1M dollars). And 1 debate i won. So in effect, I am 1-1.
"Are you telling you can't justify violence when it is conservatives who is stopping public healthcare for everyone and cutting social security for people who need it? Since there live is on the line they are justified with their response because of what conservatives do to them which is not give them public healthcare that allows them to treat their injuries using tax payer money."
I'm literally shocked. This genuinely makes me so sad about where some people are. Assaulting people based on different political beliefs. In my opinion, privatized healthcare needs to be made more affordable but is a lot better than public. Public healthcare would be such a disaster driving the doctor supply way down and reducing the quality of it. I could argue, the same thing for guns, banning guns would result in many more lives lost. I don't want to assault liberals though, because they simply have a different opinion and different method for it.
"All this is subjective feelings whereas I provided a better option."
Yes! Both of our debate styles are subjective opinions. You prove my point. "mine is better" is also an opinion.
"Yours is opinion mine is not. I am using a standard that makes mine better than yours. It has more than 1 Round. That is more than your style therefore mine is better. This is not my opinion because my style does give both sides another Round."
If your only measure it by most rounds if it went up to 76 rounds max, would you want 76 rounds? "your opinion is worse than my opinion" is a terrible argument. I already explained why.
"Congrats on being feelings over facts"
This has nothing to do with debate styles. Debate style is simply a preference. That's why you can choose between 2, 3, 4, and 5 rounds.
"You even said I committed a logical fallacy but couldn't point to which one I committed."
I gave you 3.
"Don't talk to me because you clearly need a lot more time to develop before you even capable of doing debates."
Opinion from power. You are only 3 years older yet still believe you shouldn't have a discourse with opposing opinions. You just think conservatives should get physically assaulted in public for their opinions *subjectively* not being "justified." Shame on you for falling in on the typical left. You are a trash debater. Does 23-0 ring a bell? Oh right, that was me.
I never agreed your debate style was superior. I already explained this like 10 times.
I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.
Like I said, I don't agree with those rules, but I will accept if you make the debate with your rules. I don't make my debates with rules I don't like.
>>I offer you a better solution and you throw it back at my face and say you do it. You can't see how my way is better so you don't even attempt to understand or even counter to say how it is wrong.
And I said, and have been saying, "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong? What a perfect example of a feelings based leftist who can't use logic, yet claims he wants to beat people up who are conservatives. What a hypocrite.
Do you have any logical reasoning to combat this, or will you keep pretending you don't see it because you don't like being logically challenged?
You don't even have evidence or want to show your evidence against guns, yet you are telling me to get evidence. Why don't you make a debate so I can absolutely whip you around?
So your inability to provide evidence and not responding to a logical conclusion of you creating a debate shows you have no idea how to have a conversation with someone who disagrees. Using age is irrelevant and an argument from power. All you are showing is that your IQ may be able to toast a piece of bread lightly.
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong? What a perfect example of a feelings based leftist who can't use logic, yet claims he wants to beat people up who are conservatives. What a hypocrite.
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong?
Stop voting with a bias against me. You did the exact same vote 2 times before. This one will get removed as well. I never conceded the debate.
>>He believes as a Christian that gay marriage is wrong. His belief pertains to politics. It's a concession.
And I specifically say as a Christian. The purpose of the debate is to prove my political beliefs are purely religious. I separated out my religion and politics, specifically stating in the debate that you specifically cherry-picked out,
"My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics. From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."
Pink misrepresents my position in so many ways. He did the same thing wrick did about conceding the debate when I explicitly denoted a seperate politcal belief in the arguments "My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics"
Pink also said I made rebuttals and arguments in the comment section, which is absurd, I never did. In conduct, pink fails to prove how "Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic." As well as "Compare each debater's conduct from the debate."
He misrepresents the gay marriage and prostitution points because he failed to address my rebuts and statements about them.
Overall this is an awful vote and bias votes should be removed among mod discretion.
Def- "an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid."
I just gave you three of those. Your inability to respond when you normally do shows me you are struggling refuting my points and logic. You also have never responded to my original comment.
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
It is subjective. Like I have said, I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. That is plenty of debate time. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.
It is subjective. Like I have said, I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. That is plenty of debate time. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.
I'm not "wrong." I simply have a different preferred debate structure. Like I said, it would be only logical for you to have full control over the rules and create a debate.
Your sexy
So what is your debate position? You are "pro" solutions to gun violence? Who wouldn't be?
You started the debate so you make an argument first in the opening round. I then post an argument after you do.
I can tell from curlykid his arguments will be weak. Plz don't rebut to him in the comments because you might convince him and I want to debate him on it.
You are less bias than I thought. I apologize for calling your other votes solely bias. I was wrong.
I think you forgot to cast the vote with the rfd...?
None of my rebuttal was irrelevant or unsupported, it had to do with conflating the women's position in which case I responded with those things which were completely relevant. As I said in the debate, she was very inconsistent in her positioning so it is unfair to say Ben was unfairly conflating her positions. You shouldn't be such a bias voter.
"I can’t really work out how I am supposed to assess the claim “he backs everything up with facts and logic and never hesitates to answer questions or back up his political positions.” without any more detail than you provided."
I cited two videos as examples. He didn't respond to those either. I provided as much detail as my opponent's cited videos.
" the specific claims made by pro - that he grossly over generalizes was supported by multiple videos and more specific detail that I could validate."
I rebutted to this! Then he never responded back! He even claimed something that was in his cited video wan't in his cited video! smhh
So he can just ignore all of my other points and the 6 points Pro didn't respond to with the conduct? Smh borderline votes should be removed
What about the two videos I cited? And the 5-6 arguments he didn't respond to? That should affect both the argument and conduct point.
No. You denied the gun debate, so i'll pass on this one.
Why are you just re-posting deleted votes just to get your achievements up?
ty chief
smh when will these liberals stop and realize open borders would be a disaster for everybody...*facepalm*
The sky appears blue, but the sky is just in fact air, a clear gas. Reflections from water, sun, and other things make it appear blue.
How do you know?
I am Rational Madman as well. I accept all the debates and debate against myself to make DART look more active than it is.
lmao karma major backfire
" the burden of proof is on you to prove that you aren't gay."
this had me ded lmaooo
If you want 5 rounds, create a debate and I will accept.
I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds.
>>My DDO record is better than your record here.
Even when we take into account my record here. We both have a 100% win percentage. Just so happens that people like dsjpk5 voted for you because his biases.
All you do is accept type1's debates giving you free wins.
"16.67% win percentage."
It is not Representative of my skills. In a gun debate, i lost by 1 point, it was a virtual tie. Another gun debate I should have won but tied. One debate i fairly lost on trump is turning america into a dictatorship. One half-troll debate i lost which had nothing to do w/ politics and I could have won if presenting my evidence was legal w/ the CoC, and 1 debate I accidentally accepted on the wrong side (trump warren 1M dollars). And 1 debate i won. So in effect, I am 1-1.
"Are you telling you can't justify violence when it is conservatives who is stopping public healthcare for everyone and cutting social security for people who need it? Since there live is on the line they are justified with their response because of what conservatives do to them which is not give them public healthcare that allows them to treat their injuries using tax payer money."
I'm literally shocked. This genuinely makes me so sad about where some people are. Assaulting people based on different political beliefs. In my opinion, privatized healthcare needs to be made more affordable but is a lot better than public. Public healthcare would be such a disaster driving the doctor supply way down and reducing the quality of it. I could argue, the same thing for guns, banning guns would result in many more lives lost. I don't want to assault liberals though, because they simply have a different opinion and different method for it.
"All this is subjective feelings whereas I provided a better option."
Yes! Both of our debate styles are subjective opinions. You prove my point. "mine is better" is also an opinion.
"Yours is opinion mine is not. I am using a standard that makes mine better than yours. It has more than 1 Round. That is more than your style therefore mine is better. This is not my opinion because my style does give both sides another Round."
If your only measure it by most rounds if it went up to 76 rounds max, would you want 76 rounds? "your opinion is worse than my opinion" is a terrible argument. I already explained why.
"Congrats on being feelings over facts"
This has nothing to do with debate styles. Debate style is simply a preference. That's why you can choose between 2, 3, 4, and 5 rounds.
"You even said I committed a logical fallacy but couldn't point to which one I committed."
I gave you 3.
"Don't talk to me because you clearly need a lot more time to develop before you even capable of doing debates."
Opinion from power. You are only 3 years older yet still believe you shouldn't have a discourse with opposing opinions. You just think conservatives should get physically assaulted in public for their opinions *subjectively* not being "justified." Shame on you for falling in on the typical left. You are a trash debater. Does 23-0 ring a bell? Oh right, that was me.
good vote.
I never agreed your debate style was superior. I already explained this like 10 times.
I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.
vice versa. obviouly your intent isn't to have a rational for this. Why don't you simply create a debate in 2 minutes for us?
Like I said, I don't agree with those rules, but I will accept if you make the debate with your rules. I don't make my debates with rules I don't like.
>>I offer you a better solution and you throw it back at my face and say you do it. You can't see how my way is better so you don't even attempt to understand or even counter to say how it is wrong.
And I said, and have been saying, "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong? What a perfect example of a feelings based leftist who can't use logic, yet claims he wants to beat people up who are conservatives. What a hypocrite.
Do you have any logical reasoning to combat this, or will you keep pretending you don't see it because you don't like being logically challenged?
You don't even have evidence or want to show your evidence against guns, yet you are telling me to get evidence. Why don't you make a debate so I can absolutely whip you around?
So your inability to provide evidence and not responding to a logical conclusion of you creating a debate shows you have no idea how to have a conversation with someone who disagrees. Using age is irrelevant and an argument from power. All you are showing is that your IQ may be able to toast a piece of bread lightly.
I will copy and paste the comment,
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong? What a perfect example of a feelings based leftist who can't use logic, yet claims he wants to beat people up who are conservatives. What a hypocrite.
Yep. Thanks for voting on my debate as well.
Please just perma ban type1.
I will copy and paste the comment,
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong?
lmaooo cant respond to the comments
Stop voting with a bias against me. You did the exact same vote 2 times before. This one will get removed as well. I never conceded the debate.
>>He believes as a Christian that gay marriage is wrong. His belief pertains to politics. It's a concession.
And I specifically say as a Christian. The purpose of the debate is to prove my political beliefs are purely religious. I separated out my religion and politics, specifically stating in the debate that you specifically cherry-picked out,
"My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics. From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."
I love how you never responded back to my comments because you know I am right. Very hypocritical of you when you claim I am feelings over facts.
Pink misrepresents my position in so many ways. He did the same thing wrick did about conceding the debate when I explicitly denoted a seperate politcal belief in the arguments "My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics"
Pink also said I made rebuttals and arguments in the comment section, which is absurd, I never did. In conduct, pink fails to prove how "Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic." As well as "Compare each debater's conduct from the debate."
He misrepresents the gay marriage and prostitution points because he failed to address my rebuts and statements about them.
Overall this is an awful vote and bias votes should be removed among mod discretion.
when did I ever put rebuttals in the comment section??!! My gosh your votes are idiotic.
yay another bias pinkfreud socialist vote in the book
the fact you still do DDO and are online on DDO RN is sad.
Plus he always responds to our wars, and given he has been online and responded somewhat, I know my points to be true.
Accept he ignored some of those points and claimed i was wrong even though he is the one who ignored what I said, hence making him illogical.
Def- "an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid."
I just gave you three of those. Your inability to respond when you normally do shows me you are struggling refuting my points and logic. You also have never responded to my original comment.
I just gave you three. I don't care what they are called, but they extremely valid points that you won't respond to because you are wrong.
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
So I take it you are incapable of responding because you are wrong and have many logical fallacies.
It is subjective. Like I have said, I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. That is plenty of debate time. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.
It is subjective. Like I have said, I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. That is plenty of debate time. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.
I'm not "wrong." I simply have a different preferred debate structure. Like I said, it would be only logical for you to have full control over the rules and create a debate.