“ omg u don't support Lord Shapiro? You must be a widdle baby SJW feewings-based Jew hater like omg. “
These two arguments aren’t logical arguments, are obnoxious, and moreover childish conduct.
To conclude, Pro exhibited poor conduct in this debate in the form of childish/obnoxious insults and dodged several of Cons points through these obnoxious insults which is rather unfair to con who was at least trying to have a civil discussion.
“That is completely ridiculous to assume. Pro is hereby stating that Con has contradicted their own case. Either Con is arguing that YT is censoring too much or that it's too free for stupid people to succeed in with poor content.”
This is a very valid point which proves that Con is a hypocrite since he is complaining about youtube not having enough regulation to prevent idiots from getting popular while also complaining about how YouTube is censoring too much.
Very obviously this is a clear contradiction, you can’t argue for YouTube to be a free platform while at the same time arguing for YouTube to regulate the algorithm.
Because of Con very obviously being a hypocrite and his entire argument falling apart as demonstrated by these two examples, I must award argument
One of Cons main arguments for why youtube is turning into a dumpster fire is that the algorithm is unfair and the trending videos are garbage.
Which Pro pointed out that
“ The opinion of one person like Con or even a few hundred, that complain about its trending videos should never be enough reason for it to disregard the many millions who are the very up-voters and view-providers that lead to the algorithm putting those Trending videos on top.”
This is a very valid argument since the majority of videos that end up on the trending page and get the favor in the algorithm are videos that are liked and get millions of views.
It’s very obvious that Con has lost this point since he will now have to argue that his subjective opinion is superior to millions of subjective opinion. Which is an absurd argument to make since there is nothing wrong with the trending videos being the most popular videos.
A point to which Con never rebutted
I believe that where Con really failed was Con making the argument was arguing that youtube should be more free, but then at the same time complaining it’s too free to the point where idiots are getting the most subscribers.
Don't get me wrong, some people do enjoy venture crews and there's nothing wrong with that however many would rather join the scout's organization due to them doing different activities, being able to earn ranks, and being more accessible at an early age.
Even if Venture Crews were the same concept I'd still state that girls should be allowed to join scouts since there isn't a good enough reason not to allow them to join.
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said: "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is that this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stem from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which Christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his Christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
- This is poor conduct since Con misled Pro which in turn broke the entire flow of the debate since it nearly made it impossible for Pro to understand Con's stances on issues which in turn made the debate rather unfair and misleading.
Which also violated their previously agreed terms since one of them was that Con would post his stances on issues in the form of a link to his DDO page.
Because of these two facts, I must award Conduct to Pro since Con mislead Pro and didn’t give a rebuttal to some of Pro’s arguments.
“ I prefer to use my more in-depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Secondly, due to this, it is rather hard for me to examine some of Con's arguments since they are buried in the comment section, so because of this, I will have to disregard their rebuttal and arguments since I am unable to view it.
The fact that Con put some of his rebuttals in the comment section made the debate rather tedious and annoying to read since I constantly had to check the comment section to read his arguments which is poor conduct on their part since they had more than enough room to post their arguments and instead opted out to post their argument in the comment section for no good reason.
Not to mention the fact that this means Con never actually addressed the arguments made my Pro at all in the actual debate itself. Which meant he was dodging arguments which were very excessive and obnoxious in the debate.
Speaking of conduct, at the beginning of the debate Con provided a link to his stances on issues on DDO, and then later on criticized Pro for using these stances since they are " outdated"
“ I" as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on his religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct, I'll do so here.
Posting rebuttals in the comment section are very confusing and disorientating to the voter and their opponent since they constantly have to check both sections.
You are one of the last people to talk about giving " evidence " considering that you're called people SJW's, Bias, and Socialists without providing substantial evidence to back up your claims.
At this point, your poor attempts to insult me and Omar have come across as you throwing a hissy fit since you're losing debates.
And at this point, it's very obvious you are a waste of time.
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
If anyone has an issue with my vote, I urge you to report it so that the mods examine it. Otherwise, it will still stand.
“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stem from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
To which Pro responded with,
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said: "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is that this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
Because of these two facts, I must award Conduct to Pro since Con mislead Pro and posted his rebuttals in the comment section which both broke the flow of the debate.
“ I prefer to use my more in-depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which Christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his Christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
Posting rebuttals in the comment section are very confusing and disorientating to the voter and their opponent since they constantly have to check both sections.
Secondly, due to this, it is rather hard for me to examine some of Con's arguments since they are buried in the comment section, so because of this, I will have to disregard their rebuttal and arguments since I am unable to view it.
The fact that Con put some of his rebuttals in the comment section made the debate rather tedious and annoying to read since I constantly had to check the comment section to read his arguments which is poor conduct on their part since they had more than enough room to post their arguments and instead opted out to post their argument in the comment section for no good reason.
Speaking of conduct, at the beginning of the debate Con provided a link to his stances on issues on DDO, and then later on criticized Pro for using these stances since they are " outdated"
- This is poor conduct since Con misled Pro which in turn broke the entire flow of the debate since it nearly made it impossible for Pro to understand Con's stances on issues.
“ I" as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on his religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct, I'll do so here.
" And that's true. Vox is bias, and so is the NY Times. "
- Well again you provided no analysis as to WHY these sources are bias, all you did was call them liberal which isn't a good argument. By this logic, I could just call you bias since you're conservative.
- Also a point you STILL haven't addressed is Con rebuttal to you calling these sources bias since he NEVER used the source for their opinion but rather for their statistics. Even if the sources were " bias " it's irrelevant.
" I claimed that people were bribed sarcastically by going off my opponent's logic. "
- Aside from the fact you did a poor attempt at sarcasm, that's not the only issue I have with it.
- Since you STILL never addressed the claims made by your opponent and instead opted out to make a joke.
The bottom line is once again you fail to understand my vote and are instead pulling red herrings and dodging the arguments made. You also haven’t addressed and given proper evidence for your poorly constructed claims that I’m an SJW and Bias.
" These are some of the ones he took out of context and din't make a good argument on."
- Since you have neglected to explain how your opponent took you out of context on these points, I will ignore them
" Examples of when he indirectly called me racist is in round 4, go to the re-tweeting and NFL kneeling."
- You've provided no analysis of this point so again I will ignore it.
The bottom line is I shouldn't have to look at the debate or analysis it myself, it's your job to do so. I saw no point in the debate where he took you out of context or insulted you. Regarding the racist thing, you still haven't provided a defended yourself against him calling you racist.
" I said he called me racist, not the allegations against Trump. I only called you a SJW. Not a debater. "
- Who care's if he called you racist? Again you called me an SJW, you call people libtards, and you call sources bias. You are one of the last people to complain about poor conduct when you do the exact same in debates and in comment sections.
“ You also did not point out the many flaws in con's arguments, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)”
First of all, I did not find any point in the debate where he directly took you out of context at all. If you do find a point where he did that then please tell me so I can alter my vote.
Secondly calling a racist person racist isn’t poor conduct at all. By that same logic I can say you had poor conduct since you call sources Bias, call people Bias, call people SJW’s, and you make attempted character assassinations by claiming people are being bribed.
The bottom line is you obviously have little understanding of my vote, pull red herrings, and make baseless and absurd accusations.
- I didn't address your argument because it didn't make any sense at all. This is because you are pulling an obvious red herring, Con's main argument wasn't about the wall, it was on how Trump is making poorly constructed conclusions on crime and is assuming that illegals are bringing in lots of crime when in reality the native population creates more crime. An argument you failed to address in a logical manor since regardless of the illegal to legal population, Trump is STILL making an unfounded claim against immigrants in the country.
" It is clear you are biased, but the site voting policy does not account for it. The vote will stand, but unjustly. You also did not point out the many flaws in con's arguments, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)"
- If you feel that way, than report my vote and we can let the mods handle it. If the mods believe I did misunderstand your entire argument then I will alter my vote.
- Let's say for a second I did “ misunderstand “ your points, this still doesn’t prove that i’m bias in
any way.
" You already know you are bias and have inherent bias in voting. It's not a secret that you vote from an SJW's perspective, which is why I generally don't vote in debates, to keep my potential bias out of it and let fair voters do fair voting."
- That is a baseless accusation and since you have provided no evidence to prove that I will ignore it.
" He wasn't making an assumption."
- yes he was, he literally stated that the majority of blacks should vote for him when they're in poverty. This is an obvious prejudicial statement to make against blacks whether it's true or not. This is as if I went to the USSR and and called people there communists indiscriminately, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant since it’s still a discriminatory statement.
" He was just focusing on the large issue. He never specified a quantity, he just said "they are bringing crime, rapists", but he was focusing on this particular group so he mentioned the good people so it would imply that while yes, some are good, a lot are also bad, and that was the focus of his point."
- He stated that SOME are good people. Implying that he believes the MAJORITY are bad people.
Since you are unable to back up your poorly constructed hypothesis and accusation against my character, I would like to ask of you to please refrain from making such absurd and baseless accusations in the future.
" you are implementing your own thoughts into the vote, not on what was said during the debate. He also never said most, where did you get that from?"
- Look at the quote Con cited and you will find it.
" I rebutted to this in the debate "
- Your rebuttal is irrelevant, we aren't stating that Trump focusing on illegal immigration is bad, Con is stating that Trump made poorly constructed claims on the numbers of the situation. The fact that our president has and still does make these poorly constructed claims is racist and repulsive.
" I also added some more stuff, but your bias mind isn't able to comprehend it."
- Like I stated, please elaborate because this is a pretty huge claim you are making.
I am not going to explain my vote when you obviously didn't even take the time to read it.
I mentioned how you did address the points however you addressed the points in a poor manner as evidenced by my vote.
My vote won't get taken down simply because it is a well-analyzed vote and to call the voting policy " corrupt" is just ridiculous. The voting policy has very fair and well-balanced rules to prevent poorly constructed votes with mods to regulate the votes. If my vote does get taken down, I have trust in the mods that the removal was fair. And if it does get removed I will change my vote to make it better. Complaining about my vote and making baseless and poorly constructed accusations against my character aren't going to win you this debate.
And my personal favorite…
“ omg u don't support Lord Shapiro? You must be a widdle baby SJW feewings-based Jew hater like omg. “
These two arguments aren’t logical arguments, are obnoxious, and moreover childish conduct.
To conclude, Pro exhibited poor conduct in this debate in the form of childish/obnoxious insults and dodged several of Cons points through these obnoxious insults which is rather unfair to con who was at least trying to have a civil discussion.
All other points tied.
RFD:
Pro exhibited VERY poor conduct throughout this entire debate through his obnoxious and unfair behavior.
For instance, Con brought up a valid claim with stating,
“ Ben Shapiro is an intellectual because he backs everything up he says with facts or some sort of logical reasoning.”
To which all Pro replied with was,
“ XD”
This is very obnoxious since Pro isn’t addressing Cons points at all and is instead laughing in his face about them which is rather unfair.
Nextly at one point during the debate, Pro exhibited more obnoxious behavior by stating,
“ He is an ethnic-nationalist (zionist) Jew who cries like a little SJW pansy whenever someone criticizes Israel and calls them an anti-semite.”
Too what extent? Banning ALL guns or just some restrictions?
“That is completely ridiculous to assume. Pro is hereby stating that Con has contradicted their own case. Either Con is arguing that YT is censoring too much or that it's too free for stupid people to succeed in with poor content.”
This is a very valid point which proves that Con is a hypocrite since he is complaining about youtube not having enough regulation to prevent idiots from getting popular while also complaining about how YouTube is censoring too much.
Very obviously this is a clear contradiction, you can’t argue for YouTube to be a free platform while at the same time arguing for YouTube to regulate the algorithm.
Because of Con very obviously being a hypocrite and his entire argument falling apart as demonstrated by these two examples, I must award argument
RFD:
One of Cons main arguments for why youtube is turning into a dumpster fire is that the algorithm is unfair and the trending videos are garbage.
Which Pro pointed out that
“ The opinion of one person like Con or even a few hundred, that complain about its trending videos should never be enough reason for it to disregard the many millions who are the very up-voters and view-providers that lead to the algorithm putting those Trending videos on top.”
This is a very valid argument since the majority of videos that end up on the trending page and get the favor in the algorithm are videos that are liked and get millions of views.
It’s very obvious that Con has lost this point since he will now have to argue that his subjective opinion is superior to millions of subjective opinion. Which is an absurd argument to make since there is nothing wrong with the trending videos being the most popular videos.
A point to which Con never rebutted
I believe that where Con really failed was Con making the argument was arguing that youtube should be more free, but then at the same time complaining it’s too free to the point where idiots are getting the most subscribers.
To which Pro responded with
You guys got great taste in music
Yeah dsjpk5 is the greatest, I wish he would switch to DART
Hey at least we can agree on that
Don't get me wrong, some people do enjoy venture crews and there's nothing wrong with that however many would rather join the scout's organization due to them doing different activities, being able to earn ranks, and being more accessible at an early age.
Even if Venture Crews were the same concept I'd still state that girls should be allowed to join scouts since there isn't a good enough reason not to allow them to join.
They may enjoy the ranks, however stating you're a silver rank on a venture crew really isn't going to help too much on job applications.
Stating your an eagle scout however from what I've heard can definitely get you hired above other people.
Camp programs are mostly learning experiences and the earning of merit badges.
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said: "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is that this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stem from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
To which Pro responded with,
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which Christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his Christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
To which Pro expertly replied that,
- This is poor conduct since Con misled Pro which in turn broke the entire flow of the debate since it nearly made it impossible for Pro to understand Con's stances on issues which in turn made the debate rather unfair and misleading.
Which also violated their previously agreed terms since one of them was that Con would post his stances on issues in the form of a link to his DDO page.
Because of these two facts, I must award Conduct to Pro since Con mislead Pro and didn’t give a rebuttal to some of Pro’s arguments.
“ I prefer to use my more in-depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Secondly, due to this, it is rather hard for me to examine some of Con's arguments since they are buried in the comment section, so because of this, I will have to disregard their rebuttal and arguments since I am unable to view it.
The fact that Con put some of his rebuttals in the comment section made the debate rather tedious and annoying to read since I constantly had to check the comment section to read his arguments which is poor conduct on their part since they had more than enough room to post their arguments and instead opted out to post their argument in the comment section for no good reason.
Not to mention the fact that this means Con never actually addressed the arguments made my Pro at all in the actual debate itself. Which meant he was dodging arguments which were very excessive and obnoxious in the debate.
Speaking of conduct, at the beginning of the debate Con provided a link to his stances on issues on DDO, and then later on criticized Pro for using these stances since they are " outdated"
“ I" as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on his religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct, I'll do so here.
Posting rebuttals in the comment section are very confusing and disorientating to the voter and their opponent since they constantly have to check both sections.
You are one of the last people to talk about giving " evidence " considering that you're called people SJW's, Bias, and Socialists without providing substantial evidence to back up your claims.
At this point, your poor attempts to insult me and Omar have come across as you throwing a hissy fit since you're losing debates.
And at this point, it's very obvious you are a waste of time.
Good day
Again if the mods remove my vote, I will personally examine the debate again and apologize however until then my vote will stand.
Oh yeah man you totally got me I'm a bias socialist SJW who wastes my life trying to vote against you.
Honestly, this made my day thanks.
While this is true however there are a few solid reasons why this is inconvenient for girls
1. Venture Crews can't earn ranks.
2. Venture Crews can't go to the various summer camps.
3. Venture Crews ( correct me if I'm wrong ) can't have meetings.
4. Venture Crews aren't exactly easy to find nor to join. At least in my area.
What year will I have to base the context of this debate on?
Seems like a fun idea, I will accept
RFD Part 5:
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
If anyone has an issue with my vote, I urge you to report it so that the mods examine it. Otherwise, it will still stand.
RFD Part 4:
To which Pro expertly replied that,
“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stem from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
To which Pro responded with,
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said: "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is that this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
RFD Part 3:
Because of these two facts, I must award Conduct to Pro since Con mislead Pro and posted his rebuttals in the comment section which both broke the flow of the debate.
“ I prefer to use my more in-depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which Christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his Christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
RFD Part 2:
Posting rebuttals in the comment section are very confusing and disorientating to the voter and their opponent since they constantly have to check both sections.
Secondly, due to this, it is rather hard for me to examine some of Con's arguments since they are buried in the comment section, so because of this, I will have to disregard their rebuttal and arguments since I am unable to view it.
The fact that Con put some of his rebuttals in the comment section made the debate rather tedious and annoying to read since I constantly had to check the comment section to read his arguments which is poor conduct on their part since they had more than enough room to post their arguments and instead opted out to post their argument in the comment section for no good reason.
Speaking of conduct, at the beginning of the debate Con provided a link to his stances on issues on DDO, and then later on criticized Pro for using these stances since they are " outdated"
- This is poor conduct since Con misled Pro which in turn broke the entire flow of the debate since it nearly made it impossible for Pro to understand Con's stances on issues.
RFD Part 1:
“ I" as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on his religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct, I'll do so here.
Oh yeah I have it on a google docs page, shoot gotta go math support is ending.
Ill be back in a few hours during study hall hopefully.
Thanks, that was hella quick
Would you kindly remove my troll vote so I can post a real vote?
Would you kindly remove my troll vote so I can post a real vote?
lol
lol
lol I just noticed that you spelled klebold wrong
lol I agree
" And that's true. Vox is bias, and so is the NY Times. "
- Well again you provided no analysis as to WHY these sources are bias, all you did was call them liberal which isn't a good argument. By this logic, I could just call you bias since you're conservative.
- Also a point you STILL haven't addressed is Con rebuttal to you calling these sources bias since he NEVER used the source for their opinion but rather for their statistics. Even if the sources were " bias " it's irrelevant.
" I claimed that people were bribed sarcastically by going off my opponent's logic. "
- Aside from the fact you did a poor attempt at sarcasm, that's not the only issue I have with it.
- Since you STILL never addressed the claims made by your opponent and instead opted out to make a joke.
The bottom line is once again you fail to understand my vote and are instead pulling red herrings and dodging the arguments made. You also haven’t addressed and given proper evidence for your poorly constructed claims that I’m an SJW and Bias.
" These are some of the ones he took out of context and din't make a good argument on."
- Since you have neglected to explain how your opponent took you out of context on these points, I will ignore them
" Examples of when he indirectly called me racist is in round 4, go to the re-tweeting and NFL kneeling."
- You've provided no analysis of this point so again I will ignore it.
The bottom line is I shouldn't have to look at the debate or analysis it myself, it's your job to do so. I saw no point in the debate where he took you out of context or insulted you. Regarding the racist thing, you still haven't provided a defended yourself against him calling you racist.
" I said he called me racist, not the allegations against Trump. I only called you a SJW. Not a debater. "
- Who care's if he called you racist? Again you called me an SJW, you call people libtards, and you call sources bias. You are one of the last people to complain about poor conduct when you do the exact same in debates and in comment sections.
What is this?
“ You also did not point out the many flaws in con's arguments, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)”
First of all, I did not find any point in the debate where he directly took you out of context at all. If you do find a point where he did that then please tell me so I can alter my vote.
Secondly calling a racist person racist isn’t poor conduct at all. By that same logic I can say you had poor conduct since you call sources Bias, call people Bias, call people SJW’s, and you make attempted character assassinations by claiming people are being bribed.
The bottom line is you obviously have little understanding of my vote, pull red herrings, and make baseless and absurd accusations.
" You don't even address this."
- I didn't address your argument because it didn't make any sense at all. This is because you are pulling an obvious red herring, Con's main argument wasn't about the wall, it was on how Trump is making poorly constructed conclusions on crime and is assuming that illegals are bringing in lots of crime when in reality the native population creates more crime. An argument you failed to address in a logical manor since regardless of the illegal to legal population, Trump is STILL making an unfounded claim against immigrants in the country.
" It is clear you are biased, but the site voting policy does not account for it. The vote will stand, but unjustly. You also did not point out the many flaws in con's arguments, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)"
- If you feel that way, than report my vote and we can let the mods handle it. If the mods believe I did misunderstand your entire argument then I will alter my vote.
- Let's say for a second I did “ misunderstand “ your points, this still doesn’t prove that i’m bias in
any way.
" You already know you are bias and have inherent bias in voting. It's not a secret that you vote from an SJW's perspective, which is why I generally don't vote in debates, to keep my potential bias out of it and let fair voters do fair voting."
- That is a baseless accusation and since you have provided no evidence to prove that I will ignore it.
" He wasn't making an assumption."
- yes he was, he literally stated that the majority of blacks should vote for him when they're in poverty. This is an obvious prejudicial statement to make against blacks whether it's true or not. This is as if I went to the USSR and and called people there communists indiscriminately, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant since it’s still a discriminatory statement.
" He was just focusing on the large issue. He never specified a quantity, he just said "they are bringing crime, rapists", but he was focusing on this particular group so he mentioned the good people so it would imply that while yes, some are good, a lot are also bad, and that was the focus of his point."
- He stated that SOME are good people. Implying that he believes the MAJORITY are bad people.
Since you are unable to back up your poorly constructed hypothesis and accusation against my character, I would like to ask of you to please refrain from making such absurd and baseless accusations in the future.
Let's say that I state that some white people are good people.
In this context, I would be implying that since some are good, this means the rest must be bad.
I am convinced you don't understand this concept so i'll explain it again.
He did NOT state that SOME Mexicans are RAPISTS AND CRIMINALS
He stated that SOME our GOOD PEOPLE
Meaning that he's implying that MOST aren't good people.
He literally states that SOME are good people. Implying that Trump believes the majority are criminals and rapists.
" you are implementing your own thoughts into the vote, not on what was said during the debate. He also never said most, where did you get that from?"
- Look at the quote Con cited and you will find it.
" I rebutted to this in the debate "
- Your rebuttal is irrelevant, we aren't stating that Trump focusing on illegal immigration is bad, Con is stating that Trump made poorly constructed claims on the numbers of the situation. The fact that our president has and still does make these poorly constructed claims is racist and repulsive.
" I also added some more stuff, but your bias mind isn't able to comprehend it."
- Like I stated, please elaborate because this is a pretty huge claim you are making.
I am not going to explain my vote when you obviously didn't even take the time to read it.
I mentioned how you did address the points however you addressed the points in a poor manner as evidenced by my vote.
My vote won't get taken down simply because it is a well-analyzed vote and to call the voting policy " corrupt" is just ridiculous. The voting policy has very fair and well-balanced rules to prevent poorly constructed votes with mods to regulate the votes. If my vote does get taken down, I have trust in the mods that the removal was fair. And if it does get removed I will change my vote to make it better. Complaining about my vote and making baseless and poorly constructed accusations against my character aren't going to win you this debate.
Even if you were being sarcastic, you still didn't address his argument on that point.
Please elaborate, you just made an accusation against me
Oh aright makes sense. Sorry.