I didn't read ORo's vote or the debate but I believe you. I am the only one on this site who can be completely unbiased so I will try to break this tie
"So for that debate, my vote would be like: "Since Con supported his claim with 10000 cat pictures in the last round, and since Pro couldnt respond to that as it was the last round, Con wins the sources and the debate."
You would actually ignore anything in the last round that is a new argument fact or rebuttal and just look at the impact analysis each side is offering ideally
"Imagine a situation where as a voter you are forced to take cat pictures as valid evidence, and weight that against the actual evidence as if they both supported the claim."
I have considered that scenario, and yes unless their opponent points out why you shouldn't accept it as evidence than you should weigh it equally.
The debate is an arena. This isn't academia where sources or who is right and wrong matter. It's an arena where two sides fight, not for truth, not for persuasion, but to win.
I would say outside of this arena, you would do well to analyze sources. In this arena you shouldn't even click on them or look at where they came from.
I know I disagree usually with votes against and for me and sometimes report ones for me. I won't publicly say anything about one for me though because I don't want to alienate that voter.
Generally most votes on this site are terrible because they voters are stupid and biased.
I am not joking
It was easier to get a large number of quality votes on DDO.
Another thing you aren't consider when arguing against a debater in your vote is that sometimes debaters, at least I do. Is I take and try to bait somebody with a weak looking source or argument, so they can spend too much time tearing that apart. Either I have a good response or I drop the point and they fucked themselves up with all the space usage.
If an opponent doesn't take the debate and allow me to defend myself, it's none of the judges business
I mean I would think he could just be like "dick photos just prove your inability to satisfy a woman and have no use in proving the point you made", and that statement would in fact be enough without mentioning each one individually.
Gish gallops are tough to deal with, whether they come in the form of arguments or number of citations, but generally you can dismiss all with a short statement sense the person doing it has traded depth of an argument for width of argument
You shouldn't be challenging sources as a voter. That is the job of the opposing debater. I should be able to use a picture of my balls as a citation and unless my opponent calls me on it, the judges should accept it.
"That's totally my style of debate topic- present some indisputable fact that FOX News viewers dispute every day and hope some fly can't resist the ointment"
So you admit to being a coward who refuses to have a fair debate
Correct, because breathing oxygen could lead to years of torture, while the worst the benefits of breathing oxygen at best lead to living a great life.
Non stop torture outweighs living like a rock star
Potential benefits can never outweigh potential harms of any action. The potential benefit of jogging is getting healthier and more fit. Potential harm could be a tree you jog by falls on you and you have a very painful death. I think this should be narrowed to likely potential benefits vs likely harms.
I have like 10% of my research done already. I am very excited to prove you wrong. It actually looks more promising now than when I issued the challenge. I never research before the debate starts, but AI have this time and it's looking like I have some ground to argue.
That's typically a liberal thing. The term limousine liberal exists for a reason. The wife's family is a bunch of wealthy liberals. I can't help but to think, they are only liberals because their big gates help protect them from the laws they pass that make the rest of us unsafe
You would have lost anyway RM. What drives the left is a type of hatred of those who are mentally and physically superior. It's why they seek equality through hurting others, while conservatives try to create economic environments that allow people to rise up strictly through merit
As soon as I saw the title of this debate I knew it was going to descend into semantics. Pro, just concede so you can save yourself, the judges and your opponent time because the debate is aa foregone conclusion.
Next time just maybe hash out the semantics prior to initiating the debate
""I am pretty good with human psychology."
"false"
I literally Google shit about psychology all the time and back when I was a big occultist I read all of Jung' s work. I think I could pass the final exam in a psychology class to earn a degree.
I had a friend who is currently in the FBI, have me take his final criminal justice test. I scored 90%.
He would have failed. I am literally more qualified to be in the FBI than actual FBI agents.
"So you based your vote on the stories you tell yourself about participants in your head? "
I am pretty good with human psychology. I think I got this one right. Mall clearly spends a lot of time researching his debates
"Yeah, that wouldn’t cut it since that’s assumption of each debater’s behaviors prior to and post acceptance"
These assumptions seem permissible seeing as how universal both behaviors are to debaters. For example we usually hold door, because they are typically so unaware of their surroundings that if you don't the door will slam in their face and injure them.
It is typically worse for a patient to be late than a doctor, because the doctor's time is more precious and valuable.
We make these assumptions all the time, I see no reason not to conclude based on what 90% of debaters do, that con was fucked more by a forfeit than pro in this situation or it at least happens often enough that we should default to giving con the conduct points.
Technically I could have justified giving con argument points also if I felt like pro had the burden of proof and con had zero burden of proof.
Something along the lines of the fact pro likely had their stuff already researched prior to starting the debate and by forfeiting they wasted cons time forcing him to do dozens of hours of research.
It's possible con was planning to debate it when he accepted, so it's fair to assume he did some research immediately upon accepting the debate.
In essence the challenger wastes hours of his short life preparing for a debate that was never going to happen, while the instigator loses nothing
The vote is justified. It's a forfeited debate and a judgement call. Unfortunately I was offline for like 5 days at least. I will explain it better next time I place a vote like this
I have been working on being less cynical and you are sucking into defending some argument I don't agree with because Ii enjoy defending the position.
I did want to state there is no way Trump is an insider when the insiders and media were going after him so hard and are still doing so. That's just a bad take.
Instead of taking a reasonable take by pointing out people like pol pot, mao and Hitler were also outsiders you take the take of "derp Trump was an establishment insider despite the establishment going after him like rabbis dogs"
You win debates because your opponent is arguing on unequal ground. I suggested a far more interesting debate. One about the ethics of overthrowing a Democratic government if election tampering went through.
Still an argument that is a bit on unequal grounds, because there are processes to challenge injustices such as courts, but because the resolution only slightly favors you, you puss out of taking it.
P1- the government is run by political insiders who are out for their own best interests
P2- trump is antagonist towards long time political insiders
P3- political insiders have plenty of incentive to protect their own best interests and seeing as how they are both evil and also in complete control of the political machinery, they have the ability to commit treason completely undetected.
C1- given the ability, motivation and ethics of political insiders to maintain power, there is a strong possibility that they would steal the election.
I want you to look at the court precedings from the orange revolution where an election was proven stolen. Most of the same arguments by the establishment there were also made by the Washington establishment in response to the same accusations.
The point I think that is more important though. Is whether it is ethical to attempt physical overthrow of a government if you do suspect there was election fraud.
Those people believed whether true or not that the government was stolen by an enemy force by unfair tactics. Were they justified if they were right?
Or should they have did what was done to overthrow the election in Ukraine? If that was not a feasible strategy, is violence acceptable?
There isn't enough evidence available to know if it is fraud. He had available Access to classified documents I don't. Knowing what I do about the oligarchy, I would say yes
This is the type of cowardly debate I am talking about. The far more interesting debate is, assuming the election was stolen, would the actions on January 6th be justified.
And only because it does explain that you don't have to treat each part of the mob as individuals and do individual threat assessments, but you are apparently allowed to judge them as a single entity. The example in the article points out 2 people pinning a person down while another stabs them, the 2 pinning the person down are allowed to be seen as imminent threats. So it looks like the shooting was legal.
I can tell you, in his position I probably wouldn't have done it. I just don't perceive those people as threats. I would need to see some evidence that foreign agents were using the crowd as shields or actually assassin's were using the crowd, but it looks like he made a legal decision that cost a life while saving zero lives.
Correct I have not read the debate yet other than the first half of round one. I want to make sure I can disregard my bias before reading it. The best arguments for the imminent threats belief Ii found have been people claiming the mob are acting as a single entity and ashli should be treated as part of that mob. I think we all know what happens if those protestors do breach the barricade though. They merely yell at the politicians. I assure you republicans aren't trying to kill politicians even when they get upset and protest.
"Byrd knew that an evacuation of all civilians from the Capitol was underway but incomplete and that the stairway he was guarding was the only escape route- if rioters penetrated the furniture barricade of the door, then he was the last line of defense to Byrd knew that an evacuation of all civilians from the Capitol was underway but incomplete and that the stairway he was guarding was the only escape route- if rioters penetrated the furniture barricade of the door, then he was the last line of defense to prevent some Congress members and staff from being cut off and surrounded. some Congress members and staff from being cut off and surrounded."
This is not allowed to be a consideration in use of force. Police are only allowed to consider the possibility of an immediate threat to their life
I hope this is devil's advocate. Police can only shoot to kill if they are a specific target of an imminent threats or they perceive themselves to be. They can also shoot if they are defending an immediate and imminent threats to another person.
Just imagine there were no politicians there and this was black people breaking into a police station during a riot. Everyone would agree this was unjustifiable when they remove the elements that effect their bias
I am willing to adjust the character count to what a person arguing con feels like they need. I thought 2500 would make it so I could keep this a low effort debate
White flame is probably the only person on the site besides me who almost never votes incorrectly. The one criteria he uses for judging which I think is wrong is in policy debates he considers problems that are increasing say of a rate of 2% a year to be more imminent threats than ones say that happen at a significantly larger number per year. I just think we should focus on solving the bigger current problem, not something that may be a bigger problem in the future..
Well, she also had some political experience. It's true that Biden before even making a decision publicly stated that he was searching for a woman instead of declaring he was searching for the person who would perform the job best
I wasn't sexually abused. Though I did experience homos every once and a while, when my dad left me alone with them grab my dick or try to persuade me into sex in an aggressive manner. I never did it. Had I been a girl and less likely to be able to resist and with the intimidation factor, who knows maybe I would have "consensually" had sex with them, if you want to define that as consent
I didn't read ORo's vote or the debate but I believe you. I am the only one on this site who can be completely unbiased so I will try to break this tie
"So for that debate, my vote would be like: "Since Con supported his claim with 10000 cat pictures in the last round, and since Pro couldnt respond to that as it was the last round, Con wins the sources and the debate."
You would actually ignore anything in the last round that is a new argument fact or rebuttal and just look at the impact analysis each side is offering ideally
"Imagine a situation where as a voter you are forced to take cat pictures as valid evidence, and weight that against the actual evidence as if they both supported the claim."
I have considered that scenario, and yes unless their opponent points out why you shouldn't accept it as evidence than you should weigh it equally.
The debate is an arena. This isn't academia where sources or who is right and wrong matter. It's an arena where two sides fight, not for truth, not for persuasion, but to win.
I would say outside of this arena, you would do well to analyze sources. In this arena you shouldn't even click on them or look at where they came from.
Post 95 response.
I know I disagree usually with votes against and for me and sometimes report ones for me. I won't publicly say anything about one for me though because I don't want to alienate that voter.
Generally most votes on this site are terrible because they voters are stupid and biased.
I am not joking
It was easier to get a large number of quality votes on DDO.
Another thing you aren't consider when arguing against a debater in your vote is that sometimes debaters, at least I do. Is I take and try to bait somebody with a weak looking source or argument, so they can spend too much time tearing that apart. Either I have a good response or I drop the point and they fucked themselves up with all the space usage.
If an opponent doesn't take the debate and allow me to defend myself, it's none of the judges business
I mean I would think he could just be like "dick photos just prove your inability to satisfy a woman and have no use in proving the point you made", and that statement would in fact be enough without mentioning each one individually.
Gish gallops are tough to deal with, whether they come in the form of arguments or number of citations, but generally you can dismiss all with a short statement sense the person doing it has traded depth of an argument for width of argument
You shouldn't be challenging sources as a voter. That is the job of the opposing debater. I should be able to use a picture of my balls as a citation and unless my opponent calls me on it, the judges should accept it.
You could have accepted the debate. You are at least half gay, given the Beta attitude
Thanks for accepting. I will have my argument ready on Wednesday or Thursday. These are long rounds because I tend to forfeit otherwise.
Because the debate is an excuse to research the topic not an excuse to prove some sort of actual point
"That's totally my style of debate topic- present some indisputable fact that FOX News viewers dispute every day and hope some fly can't resist the ointment"
So you admit to being a coward who refuses to have a fair debate
I wouldn't consider murder a cure LOL
Well if you ever become Gay I can help cure you.
i believe you are gay. Did you want to participate
Correct, because breathing oxygen could lead to years of torture, while the worst the benefits of breathing oxygen at best lead to living a great life.
Non stop torture outweighs living like a rock star
Potential benefits can never outweigh potential harms of any action. The potential benefit of jogging is getting healthier and more fit. Potential harm could be a tree you jog by falls on you and you have a very painful death. I think this should be narrowed to likely potential benefits vs likely harms.
I have like 10% of my research done already. I am very excited to prove you wrong. It actually looks more promising now than when I issued the challenge. I never research before the debate starts, but AI have this time and it's looking like I have some ground to argue.
Bring it pussy.
You shouldn't be sick. I found a cure and want to share it with a gay opponent
The final round has new arguments from con
That's typically a liberal thing. The term limousine liberal exists for a reason. The wife's family is a bunch of wealthy liberals. I can't help but to think, they are only liberals because their big gates help protect them from the laws they pass that make the rest of us unsafe
You would have lost anyway RM. What drives the left is a type of hatred of those who are mentally and physically superior. It's why they seek equality through hurting others, while conservatives try to create economic environments that allow people to rise up strictly through merit
As soon as I saw the title of this debate I knew it was going to descend into semantics. Pro, just concede so you can save yourself, the judges and your opponent time because the debate is aa foregone conclusion.
Next time just maybe hash out the semantics prior to initiating the debate
You are talking about a PhD in psychology. Most of these people get a B.S. and then I end up hiring them for $12 an hour.
Bruh, give me a random final exam from a psychology class in the final year. Let's see if I pass it
I have also read the entire DSM5. Had to in order to try and figure out which thing is wrong with me.
I am basically like a black Frank Abignale
""I am pretty good with human psychology."
"false"
I literally Google shit about psychology all the time and back when I was a big occultist I read all of Jung' s work. I think I could pass the final exam in a psychology class to earn a degree.
I had a friend who is currently in the FBI, have me take his final criminal justice test. I scored 90%.
He would have failed. I am literally more qualified to be in the FBI than actual FBI agents.
Hello my n word
"So you based your vote on the stories you tell yourself about participants in your head? "
I am pretty good with human psychology. I think I got this one right. Mall clearly spends a lot of time researching his debates
"Yeah, that wouldn’t cut it since that’s assumption of each debater’s behaviors prior to and post acceptance"
These assumptions seem permissible seeing as how universal both behaviors are to debaters. For example we usually hold door, because they are typically so unaware of their surroundings that if you don't the door will slam in their face and injure them.
It is typically worse for a patient to be late than a doctor, because the doctor's time is more precious and valuable.
We make these assumptions all the time, I see no reason not to conclude based on what 90% of debaters do, that con was fucked more by a forfeit than pro in this situation or it at least happens often enough that we should default to giving con the conduct points.
Technically I could have justified giving con argument points also if I felt like pro had the burden of proof and con had zero burden of proof.
Something along the lines of the fact pro likely had their stuff already researched prior to starting the debate and by forfeiting they wasted cons time forcing him to do dozens of hours of research.
It's possible con was planning to debate it when he accepted, so it's fair to assume he did some research immediately upon accepting the debate.
In essence the challenger wastes hours of his short life preparing for a debate that was never going to happen, while the instigator loses nothing
I explained that the magnitude was different. Thanks
The vote is justified. It's a forfeited debate and a judgement call. Unfortunately I was offline for like 5 days at least. I will explain it better next time I place a vote like this
I have been working on being less cynical and you are sucking into defending some argument I don't agree with because Ii enjoy defending the position.
I did want to state there is no way Trump is an insider when the insiders and media were going after him so hard and are still doing so. That's just a bad take.
Instead of taking a reasonable take by pointing out people like pol pot, mao and Hitler were also outsiders you take the take of "derp Trump was an establishment insider despite the establishment going after him like rabbis dogs"
You win debates because your opponent is arguing on unequal ground. I suggested a far more interesting debate. One about the ethics of overthrowing a Democratic government if election tampering went through.
Still an argument that is a bit on unequal grounds, because there are processes to challenge injustices such as courts, but because the resolution only slightly favors you, you puss out of taking it.
You basically only argue truisms.
P1- the government is run by political insiders who are out for their own best interests
P2- trump is antagonist towards long time political insiders
P3- political insiders have plenty of incentive to protect their own best interests and seeing as how they are both evil and also in complete control of the political machinery, they have the ability to commit treason completely undetected.
C1- given the ability, motivation and ethics of political insiders to maintain power, there is a strong possibility that they would steal the election.
I want you to look at the court precedings from the orange revolution where an election was proven stolen. Most of the same arguments by the establishment there were also made by the Washington establishment in response to the same accusations.
The point I think that is more important though. Is whether it is ethical to attempt physical overthrow of a government if you do suspect there was election fraud.
Those people believed whether true or not that the government was stolen by an enemy force by unfair tactics. Were they justified if they were right?
Or should they have did what was done to overthrow the election in Ukraine? If that was not a feasible strategy, is violence acceptable?
There isn't enough evidence available to know if it is fraud. He had available Access to classified documents I don't. Knowing what I do about the oligarchy, I would say yes
This is the type of cowardly debate I am talking about. The far more interesting debate is, assuming the election was stolen, would the actions on January 6th be justified.
I don't believe 6 times a year is correct. I only do it 2 times a year and it wipes me out when I do. It seems excessive.
Well I am not voting unless the debate goes unvoted or you are losing because of bad votes. It looks like you won from my speed reading.
The following article kinda changed my mind on this
https://lawofselfdefense.com/sad-but-true-jan-6-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-was-legally-justified/
And only because it does explain that you don't have to treat each part of the mob as individuals and do individual threat assessments, but you are apparently allowed to judge them as a single entity. The example in the article points out 2 people pinning a person down while another stabs them, the 2 pinning the person down are allowed to be seen as imminent threats. So it looks like the shooting was legal.
I can tell you, in his position I probably wouldn't have done it. I just don't perceive those people as threats. I would need to see some evidence that foreign agents were using the crowd as shields or actually assassin's were using the crowd, but it looks like he made a legal decision that cost a life while saving zero lives.
Correct I have not read the debate yet other than the first half of round one. I want to make sure I can disregard my bias before reading it. The best arguments for the imminent threats belief Ii found have been people claiming the mob are acting as a single entity and ashli should be treated as part of that mob. I think we all know what happens if those protestors do breach the barricade though. They merely yell at the politicians. I assure you republicans aren't trying to kill politicians even when they get upset and protest.
"Byrd knew that an evacuation of all civilians from the Capitol was underway but incomplete and that the stairway he was guarding was the only escape route- if rioters penetrated the furniture barricade of the door, then he was the last line of defense to Byrd knew that an evacuation of all civilians from the Capitol was underway but incomplete and that the stairway he was guarding was the only escape route- if rioters penetrated the furniture barricade of the door, then he was the last line of defense to prevent some Congress members and staff from being cut off and surrounded. some Congress members and staff from being cut off and surrounded."
This is not allowed to be a consideration in use of force. Police are only allowed to consider the possibility of an immediate threat to their life
I hope this is devil's advocate. Police can only shoot to kill if they are a specific target of an imminent threats or they perceive themselves to be. They can also shoot if they are defending an immediate and imminent threats to another person.
Just imagine there were no politicians there and this was black people breaking into a police station during a riot. Everyone would agree this was unjustifiable when they remove the elements that effect their bias
I am willing to adjust the character count to what a person arguing con feels like they need. I thought 2500 would make it so I could keep this a low effort debate
White flame is probably the only person on the site besides me who almost never votes incorrectly. The one criteria he uses for judging which I think is wrong is in policy debates he considers problems that are increasing say of a rate of 2% a year to be more imminent threats than ones say that happen at a significantly larger number per year. I just think we should focus on solving the bigger current problem, not something that may be a bigger problem in the future..
How is it racist that I support Chinese people and oppose those who hate the Chinese and China?
You really do hate China arguing for some guy that killed about 40 million Chinese and destroyed the country
Well, she also had some political experience. It's true that Biden before even making a decision publicly stated that he was searching for a woman instead of declaring he was searching for the person who would perform the job best
"The burden of evidence is on you to prove that psychological defense mechanism are used by victims when they go along with having sex with an adult"
You have no ideal how burden of proof works if you think I have to provide some evidence that psychological defense mechanisms exist.
I'll vote on it don't worry. I think I know who won as well, I haven't completed my impact analysis though.
Less than 24 hours left. I guess I will be the deciding vot
I wasn't sexually abused. Though I did experience homos every once and a while, when my dad left me alone with them grab my dick or try to persuade me into sex in an aggressive manner. I never did it. Had I been a girl and less likely to be able to resist and with the intimidation factor, who knows maybe I would have "consensually" had sex with them, if you want to define that as consent