Total posts: 2,768
-->
@Greyparrot
i didn’t say repeat the obvious lie: I asked why are you choosing to lie so blatantly.
You said that Mueller concludes that nothing worthy of indictment for Russian collusion or obstruction happened.
The report almost literally said explicitly the exact opposite of that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think we should go back and deal with this quote again.
You said:
You said:
“We already waited 2 years for Mueller to conclude nothing worthy of indictment for Russian collusion or obstruction happened.”
I want you to walk me through the logic here. Why did you say that even though this is objectively untrue to the point that anyone with a brain knows it’s untrue.
You stated:
“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime...”
Then omitted what Mueller followed that line with:
“it also does not exonerate him”
Or in public
“We concluded that we would not reach a determination, one way or the other, about whether the president committed a crime”
I’m genuinely interested: why did you decide to make this argument despite it being factually untrue - and worse - blatantly factually untrue to anyone with a brain?
I’m interested because generally people that have a correct and valid position don’t have to lie about basic matters of objective fact so brazenly?
The Mueller Report basically outlined that the president obstructed justice but he could not be indicted because he’s the president - and basically said it’s up to congress.
Thats what happened, and it’s rather insane that you seem to be pretending these basic facts are not true.
Why all the doublethink?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wait, so Mueller determines that you’re allowed to indict a sitting president?
The only reason the president has not been indicted is because Mueller did not believe he could indict a sitting president. Nothing in Muellers report cleared anyone of collusion - and in fact went onto show innumerable instances that met that criteria. He didn’t find any evidence of a larger criminal conspiracy - though a number of people got out of their indictments by being too dumb.
This is ignoring the fact that the honest and innocent individuals involved lied repeatedly about almost everything. A+ indication that they’re clean!
Worse, you know of all this. All of this is a matter of objective fact. All of this is clearly documented in the report.
The truth doesn’t appear important to you, only the face saving spin!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mueller didn’t conclude either of those things - but you already know that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Grand Jury testimony and evidende is available to prosecutors in order to make the determination of whether or not to prosecute a particular crime, or on-site an individual.
As the Mueller report effectively said that the president committed obstruction of justice, but we can’t so as we can’t indict him - that’s up to congress - the whole point of obtaining the grand jury information is to allow congress to determine whether or not to begin impeachment.
This is just Barr and Trump illegally rejecting a Subpoena in order to run out the clock - and something you would troll your little head off here if a democrat was in the same room as someone who even suggested it.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If I am Subpoenaed to do something, I am legally required to do that something save for if I challenge the subpoena on some legal grounds.
If I ignore the subpoena, I am breaking the law.
So... Barr is breaking the law if there are no specific legal grounds upon which the subpoena does not apply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Caleb
The issue is that it would probably take an experienced app developer around 3-4 weeks full time effort to implement an app, this is not including generalized design and HF issues. Even so, most people won’t really use the app, so this would be additional effort over and above mobile site development. As a result, it’s probably not worth the time or effort given that there’s a feature list that stretches to the moon and back.
But as someone who uses mobile exclusively, we know that there is work to be done on improving the site for mobile users.
Created:
You forgot to use the words “brutally” and “sadistically”, so I guess we’re both failures.
Created:
Whhhheeeeaaaattttttoooonnnnnn!!!!!
Created:
You gave multiple examples in the debate - all shown to be clear and unambiguous misrepresentations that in most cases simply ignored large portions of the RfDs, and all shown to be completely invalid claims that you refused to defend. This was all just before capitulating and losing the debate in question. You were also shown to be a serial accuser of almost everyone who voted against you. I’ve also explained that you keep saying objectively false things.
I don’t have to prove your dishonest when you make accusations such as me voting down everyone who is on my level - which is factually untrue.
You were given a platform and opportinity to demonstrate your accusations; and capitulated so embarrassingly you left the site for 3 days.
As no debate challenge has come in, I’m presuming you really only have more of the same sort of thing, and are thus trying to avoid further embarrassment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I’ve withdrawn due to RL time constraints.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I think I’m a dial, that you think is a button; which you keep pushing, and hitting and shouting at, and then complaining that x and y happened because you pressed the button.
Created:
Posted in:
Bump! I’m hoping to set up a roast in a couple of week, and want to set up the first vote for roasted soon! (once I finish something with Work)
Created:
Posted in:
TBH, you’re the human equivalent of a big red button labelled do not push, and which makes loud fart noises when you do.
We all know you shouldn’t press the button, but it’s right there for everyone to see, and pressing the button is soooo irresistible because you know the loud fart noises that come out when the button is pushed is objectively hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
I have found that the people who most thrive on winding others up and relishing in their agony (typically right-wing in mentality) are those who least can resist it when it is done to them on their weak-points of tolerance and aggravation.
You rap like William Shatner sings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I gaurantee that you’d have an epic blow up - followed by it never happening again if you made those on questions lose 3/4 debates when they’re trying to manipulate votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Clearly outline what voter intimidation is, and either ban people from debating if they do it too much, or simply assign them a forfeit and auto loss for the given debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
What is a backlog?
Here is my comprehensive economic plan, where I both control and modify Us society, and maintain a balanced budget. I have a firm and key grasp in the personal, health and economic issues this plan would cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So, let’s deal with the practicalities of this: which clearly show 0 thought.They get more funds by prisoners working on things like construction projects so the prisons get more funds by selling the houses they create.
Firstly, where are these construction projects? Are they located in the prison? If not; you have transportation costs. Worse, you’ll need lots of guards. Keeping prisoners locked up in a secure facility is trivial - extra guards to deal with all the prisoners being out in public would be necessary: however there will inevitably be murderers and rapists that escape whilst on projects. Leave alone the issue of leaving such people in the presence of a variety of large and small construction tools.
How will all the millions of sick, desperate tent dwellers who have committed no crime react when their construction Jobs are given to convicts? What is the market size of the construction industry, is there even a market for where all these new buildings are coming from? Why build more houses when you already have 10m vacant buildings that the poor can no longer afford?
What if individuals refuse to work? Or do a poor job because they are unmotivated? Can the construction company employing them fire them? Where do they go if they are fired?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I already established it would destroy the economy, as it would likely substantially increase the tax burden of the majority of poor people: who have the highest pay velocity. A dollar to a poor person gets spent substantially more times in a year than a dollar to a rich person.
Created:
Posted in:
Mr Bond. You see yourself as a hero, but in reality you are a villain.
This is almost a verbatim quote of every Bond Villian
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
This is pretty much case in point; and the issue I have. I vote on every debate, sans a few when I don’t have time over a period of a week: should I not vote - or change my vote simply because one individual is incessantly harrasing me, and making a series of unfounded assertions?
This is kind of a quandry here and really the fundamental issue I have with point 2: as a consequence of this sort of behaviour exemplified by Magic, there is an implicit undertone of voter interference, effectively using the threat of more harassment in order to alter people’s votes.
As it doesn’t particularly bother me; I’m not going to try not to alter my vote - and my intent is to be open, careful and self explained: but it’s the harassment and attempt to Harrangue me into not voting, or voting for him is for the very fact that me not voting is why Magic did it in the first place.
Fortunately, as I vote most: this actually helps most other people by being the loss leader. People like Magic are more likely to become obsessed and angry at me than any other individual - and it gives a little bit of cover to others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If a full time job is working 40 hours, say; and individuals require 12 hour days 24/7 to survive: they will be required to work 84,hour weeks - so two full time jobs.
With a poverty rate of 43million. Even if we assume 75% are already working two full time jobs, the US economy needs to add 10 million jobs. Given there are arguably 100m in near poverty, and there’s probably only a minority of people working 2 jobs, that number is likely to be much much higher.
Created:
Posted in:
Hi shadey buddy.
This is all from my position and opinion as a voter - not as a vote moderator.
There really 2.5 types of inherent vote influencing going on right now: I don’t think it’s inherently enough to call it tampering,
Firstly there is voter solicitation. One person repeatedly tagging or PMing individuals to vote on their debates. While this seems innocent enough the “vote for me” part of the solicitation is often implicit. The important thing, is that people are not generally going to ping individuals they think may vote against them. Unless everyone does it, it means that one side can stuff the ballot box with sympathetic people and not inherently break conduct terms.
I don’t think there’s much you can really do about that one
Secondly, there is tactical exclusion and voter intimidation. This was effectively how MagicAintReal operated. With both excluding people he didn’t like from his debate, and harassing those who voted against him with multiple PMs, or angrily lashing out in debate comments. No one wanted to deal with the BS of voting against him - even if he lost.
This is a pretty toxic maneuver as it both poisons the debate environment by letting someone freely bias the votes in their favour, but is also shitty for the kids to deal with - I’m fairly convinced that a histrionic angry user like MagicAintReal was repeatedly PMing mods, and tagging them in multiple places to get his own way. While I have no idea of what private actions the mods did or not take - for sure their reluctance to want to deal with such angry rants from him were a conscious concern - as they are human.
As an aside: doing it in public, and publicly complaining about people’s votes repeatedly whilst a debate is in progress helps poison the well. If an individual is berating another individual for a vote - but is also launching objectively untrue personal attacks like MagicAintReal did: it has an effect of trying to garner a sympathy vote. If people didn’t know the context and just saw Magic ranting - they may be more likely to ne
sympathetic to his argument too.
Someone voting against you can be particularly frustrating; as all debaters are the people who understand their arguments best. Many examples of people lashing out or complaining are not based on an attempt to influence votes - but frustration. I think votes should be challengable - though there is a right way and wrong way of doing that. (Bsh is a great example of a right way of doing that)
Its tricky to find the line between understandable objection and flat out intimidation. Saying that though, given I have around 420 + votes, I’ve had maybe 6-7 people strongly object; one was ethang5 (who accused me of voting for virtuouso, liberals and atheists - which was (and is) objectively untrue, Wylted - which should speak for itself, MagicAintReal, and maybe 3/4 other users who I will not name.
Whether some actions are so extreme as to warrant action: pass, I think a case could be made for that. I think the reality is that those that spend every day trying to poisoning the well always end up getting pretty stuffed when they get thirsty. It always ends up counter productive, as while fear has a large impact - in the long term it turns to eye-rolling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Now let's examine (Hypothesis # 2) what qualities or characteristics would we expect the external world to exhibit if it derived from mindlessness? Let's examine what we could logically expect:
Did question give you ten dollars and a coffee when you begged it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Okay; what you’re doing, is going through every crippling issue with your idea, the asserting its not a crippling issue.
Lets get specific.
Please show me how eating “sandwiches and McDonalds” can be achieved within your allocated budget. Can be done without investing substantial amounts of sugar, fat or salt - as these cause substantial health issues over time. Please also explain how macronutrients like vitamin a,b,c, etc can be kept at reasonable levels without so as not to give major health problems.
I don’t think it’s possible, and I think you’re just pulling that assertion out of your a**z
Secondly : you say there is no issue with individuals sleeping in tents, let’s ignore the issue of crime: you’ve stated people can pee and poop in “buildings”, and can work nearby.
The population of Philidephila is 1.6m people. With a poverty rate of about 26% let’s not bother calculating the number of those above the line that would now be made homeless and just assume it will effect these only.
Please show me, roughly, where you think 400,000 people in Philadelphia would sleep, where nearby locations for work and how many individual positions you would estimate would be within 2 miles.
Find a mall, estimate 1000 minimum wage vacancies - point out where nearby people would sleep, where their nearest shower facilities would be: and explain why you feel people would congregate in large tent groups near major hubs of minimum wage employment.
Also, please explain how security would work, and the specific scenario you envisaged whereby only 7-10 tents would be.
I can’t take you seriously given how you have provided absolutely no actual answer - and have simply asserted a naive assertion that the insurmountable problem how to give access to clean water, sanitation, showers to 400,000 homeless people in a city, whilst making sure these facilities are within 2 miles of 400,000 minimum wage jobs.
Created:
Posted in:
I do my best to explain what specific failures or issues are made by one (and sometimes both), if you ever want specific elaboration: or there’s a relatively recent debate where I’ve said something is bad, I would be happy to elaborate on the logic if you don’t find the RfD helpful.
Created:
I literally already did it, in the debate that I won. Where I gave you the opportunity to list the specific issues and specific details of what you felt was dishonest. All I got was an angry accusation that I was unfair for penalizing you for S&G, and a claim based on you not understanding the RfD.
When you have no details and no specifies: that out of 100+ votes you cannot pinpoint a single specific argument I missed, misrepresented or misportrayed: and when given the platform to voice your objections, all you could come up with, were literally a half dozen points where you objectively misrepresented or misunderstood my RfD.
Feel free to challenge me on a debate on this - at least that way I will earn ELO for my time
Created:
Your round 2 and 3 were all about your definition of “relevance”, at no point, in any way shape or form did you at any point explain any benefits or or applicability to modern life of DST. You did not explain why - even though it was invented in the last for issues of the past, it has benefit and usage today.
I would appreciate that if you make accusations, you don’t pepper it without objectively false statements. All of the items I listed above are things you claimed, that contradict objectively verifiable fact.
Created:
@RM: I refer you to both my RfD and the debate we had. I don’t believe you will be able to grasp that you’re arguments are not as amazing as you claimed, leave alone grasp why even if I spent the next thousand posts trying to explain it.
Given you’re propensity for saying things that are objectively in true - that I vote down people at the same ranking as me (objectively false), that you explained why Daylight savings is anachronistic (you didn’t anywhere), that I make semantic arguments against new members (objectively false - that’s you), and any number of other claims - I’m not going to go back and forth and entertain this nonsense any further.
Just so we are clear however; so you’re not subsequently disappointed:
When you, or anyone, launches into a bad faith semantic argument against an opponent who appears to be new and arguing in good faith and in which the resolution appears clear - I’m almost certainly going to award arguments and conduct against whoever does that..
Created:
At this point, I’ll just refer you to my RfD, and the debate.
If you don’t grasp his illegible 100 word long sentences presented in incoherent walls of text that is bordering on incomprehensible for the entire debate doesn’t land you a violation for S&G - then there is no number of posts I can make here that can possible correct your faulty thinking on this.
Likewise, as we’ve now gone dozens of posts here, on that debate: and an entire new debate which you capitulated; without you being able to give one clear example of a major argument I didn’t portray accurately, or deliberately ignored: that wasn’t refuted - plane as day - by specific lines and clearly reasoned explanation slap bang in the RFD.
I’m sorry you don’t seem capable of recognizing your own failures. But right now I’m spelling out literally and objectively what your problem is, and what happened to you specifically - I don’t think you’re smart enough to recognize failures in your own reasoning even if I were to spend another year posting in this thread trying to explain them.
Like I said in the debate, in the round right before you capitulated, and gave up:
You made a single claim about what that RfD was wrong: “
This is all just manufactured outrage
If you don’t grasp his illegible 100 word long sentences presented in incoherent walls of text that is bordering on incomprehensible for the entire debate doesn’t land you a violation for S&G - then there is no number of posts I can make here that can possible correct your faulty thinking on this.
Likewise, as we’ve now gone dozens of posts here, on that debate: and an entire new debate which you capitulated; without you being able to give one clear example of a major argument I didn’t portray accurately, or deliberately ignored: that wasn’t refuted - plane as day - by specific lines and clearly reasoned explanation slap bang in the RFD.
I’m sorry you don’t seem capable of recognizing your own failures. But right now I’m spelling out literally and objectively what your problem is, and what happened to you specifically - I don’t think you’re smart enough to recognize failures in your own reasoning even if I were to spend another year posting in this thread trying to explain them.
Like I said in the debate, in the round right before you capitulated, and gave up:
You made a single claim about what that RfD was wrong: “
RM claims that I ignored a point he made in R4. In reality the part of the RFD wasn’t referring to this argument, but another related argument. RM has no response - and he simply asserts this claim a second time in the previous round (he could have quoted other examples throughout the debate where he made this argument and I hadn’t addressed it)”
This is all just manufactured outrage
Created:
Like I showed in the debate, you don’t appear to be able to accept any criticism from anyone; your issue with me isnot that I vote unfairly, but really that I vote more. You’ve accused the overwhelming majority of individuals who have voted against you prior to our debate of not understanding your position, or being terrible voters.
Obviously, one of the main issues is that when we debate, we always think our own arguments are phenomenal, and unbeatable. When someone doesn’t agree with you, you’re comparing a voter who read what you wrote vs the person in the world who best understands your argument, and is always 100% on your side. It’s easy for many individuals to presume the issue is solely with the voter and not with the arguments because, well, your brain tells you that they’re fantastic.
I am unable to test your metacognition, but this type of issue is the inherent source of the Dunning Kruger Effect, and why political extremists are unable to recognize their own errors.
So, as you seem to object: I’ll give you an example of your Automomous vehicles issue. Let’s ignore the indesciphedable language; there were obvious and clear benefits of moving to autonomous vehicles.
To fight this, a “who could be blamed if there’s an accident” is a bad argument - as we currently already have major industries that face similar issues, and they are able to overcome the issues.
Likewise the idea that it’s taking jobs is bad too, any technology improvement does this.
Your opponent had the higher ground - because your opponent framed the technology was simply an extension of existing technology and the same as other technological developments in the past - and you charged up and tried to fight to that hill by picking issues that would largely be problems with existing technology. The result was then mostly an inevitable matter of record - as Oromagi clearly knew his stuff.
This combined with you going off on the pointless Game theory rabbit hole, bizarre nonsense about blackmail, and your reliance on subjective opinion vs Oromagi presenting facts, is why you lost that one.
Even in your recent abortion debate - You were faced with an opponent who asked where in the constitution does it say abortion is a right: you could have cited that the Supreme Court is afforded the power to determine what is and is not constitutional, and did so in this case under the grounds that woman’s control over their own body is protected by the right to privacy, and that the constitution explicitly states that no rights are abridged if not enumerated. Like three sentences - boom, win. Instead your approach was to launch a mostly nonsensical tactic of presenting your opinion of what the theme of the constituent was; which is in no way shape or form bore any relation to justifying why the specific text or legal aplication of constitution legally allows for abortion.
This is what I mean by errors: I think you need to recognize these failures rather than attribute them being called out to malfeasance.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Due to time constraints, I’m going to have to be a Catholic for this and pull out prematurely before finishing. I’m going to have difficulty doing much more than reading a few debates and completing my existing ones.
Created:
Sounds like a Priest saying first you have to believe in Jesus as the son of God, then you'll find out he is real.
You often make key logical errors in your debates, and you repeat them over and over again. You rely too much on stream of consciousness which is often barely legible and obfuscates your point to the point of irrelevance. You fixate on what you think your opponent may say next rather than focusing on what they say relevant to the resolution, and focusing on that: you have often focused on bizarre tangents and side-tracks but ignore the most obvious problems and issues at hand. You often lose track of the resolution, or the argument; and are rarely able to weight or contrast your point to an opponent for any policy debates you have. Worst of all - you also don't seem to learn that launching into an obtuse semantic battle with someone who is arguing an obvious resolution in good faith is almost invariably going to lead to you losing: which is odd for someone in the top 300,00z
The failures here are all your own, and I am quite willing (and generally try on my RfD), to try and help you through the argument process, but at some point I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink. I would take a read of Ragnars style guide and his debating guide once he’s updated it; many of your errors are fairly typical of the average debater here, and I genuinely think that it will help you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
My hand is coming at you. Maybe a slap. Maybe a high five. Maybe both.
Created:
I think the real issue is that you don’t take criticism well. I can understand that - but, its not a great position to have. Any vote against you is taken as a personal attack, and you seem not to learn from your errors.
There was a sharp downturn in your debate quality, your raps more recently are shadows of what they used to be, they’re not funny, barely have any real decemnt rhymes, and combined with a sharp uptick in the number of credible debaters you’ve faced, your previous tactics don’t really work any more.
Most of your first 90 debates were majority rap battles, or forfeits. You've generally done fairly poorly against better quality debaters, you only really had like a 40% win rate in non troll, serious debates at that time. Your problem has always been both an inability to properly express your point, control your stream of consciousness, and often a fixation with tangents, unrelated aspects or unimportant details; you often lose sight of the resolution, and argue over your opponent - not attacking key points well enough
Around the time Wrick it Joined, you made a play for noob sniping a bunch of the new members, I’m sure expecting them to forfeit; only to find that they were able to put in a reasonable effort. You had 20+ debates in the debating period at one point, and your quality went down the toilet, your debate rounds were minimal and dismissive, you barely addressed people, you forfeited a ton; and you lost a bunch of those debates.
Since then, I am not entirely sure what’s happened. The majority of debates that you’ve done appear just weird semantic attacks out of left field. I never view these favourably, and I’m surprised that someone in the top 300,000 smart people in the world keep using it, and being perpetually surprised at losing when voters - not just me, mind - penalize you for it over and over again.
If you dropped the word salad: which makes some of your posts indecipherable, dropped huge block quotes with no context, and focused on the resolution, and solely affirming or negating and stop with the odd semantic nonsense, you’d do much better and may even start showing some of the top 3000,00 quality.
The important thing is that I’m not your problem. You are your problem. It just so happens that as I vote most often, I’m the most visible face of criticism against you. If I wasn’t here, you’d probably be accusing Ragnar of being dishonest.
Until you recognize the true root cause of your issues, they will remain and thus people will keep voting against you, and your losses will keep racking up, regardless of whether I end up voting or not.
I am more than willing to help completely deconstruct your debates with you, and break down the specific errors you made and explain how you can improve. Everyone here would be. I think that may be the best step for you to appreciate the type of errors you are making - but first you need to accept that you are making them.
Unfortunately, if you don’t recognize the current gulf between your attitude and your ability, you’re going to be consistently disappointed over the longer term.
Created:
You can take a look here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/697
I showed in round 1, you repeatedly cry wolf whenever people vote against you.
You made a bunch of arguments, then dropped them. You raised your objections, I dealt with them over multiple rounds.
You when you couldn’t show how the votes were dishonest, and I gave basic and reasonable justifications for why your interpretation was wrong. You threw a fit, then ran away.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
you know, a dark horse: doesn’t always get rated highly, but can win big races.
Created:
You listed your objections in the debate, I explained why your objections were completely unfair and rooted in your ability to accept your own failure.
You then ran away.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
I think you’re debating dark horse.
Created:
Again; I grasped your point: your point was just terrible, poorly thought out, and largely illogical - it was all covered in the RfD.
In the debate; as I showed, you weren’t able to explain what part of my RfD was wrong, or missed out key information. I defended my RfD, explained why it was valid, you capitulated, ran away, quit the site for 3 days, then started writing a bunch of self flagellating morose raps about how you were beaten and broken but you were going to fight back.
Created:
Just as an FYI, ou were incoherent and posted a huge jumbled word salad that made almost no sense, in any form. You had huge multi clause sentences that were over 100 words long, talking about the point, potential rebuttals to it, and the rebuttal to the rebuttal.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t the case that I didn’t grasp your argument, it was that your argument was not as good as Oromagi.
We covered this in our debate.
Created:
Posted in:
“They have to make it a Round Robin. Elimination makes no sense. They won’t want the winner to just be lucky,” said a burly man to the group as he paced, “they have to agree to that.”
The group erupted in a cacophony of agreement.
“Thats right,” agreed a spindly man on the right, “they’ve got to see the benefit in more ticket sales.”
A third man towards the front of the room shook his head. “Guys, guys, guys”, he gesticulated to everyone, “let’s just wait for him to get back, see what they say. This is all speculation, Max is pitching it to the organizers and we’ll hear what they said when he come back.”
Before anyone could say another word, a grimy, lump of a man lumbered morosely around the corner. His sandals dragging in the sand, he painted a picture of defeat.
The group shuffled anxiously as they waited for him to take is place at the front of the room. Once there, he simply
stood staring at the ground.
There was an awkward silence
“So?” A bearded man barked gruffly through the tension.
Max sighed.
“They said no to Round Robin. No to 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw,” he stated.
He was greeted with gasps of disappointment.
“It’s also a no to a third place play off. No to having - podium for top three finishers.”
A murmur of angry whispers circled the room for a moment.
“For what cretinous reason do they not want to give 1 point for a tie?” A nameless voice shouted from the back of the room.
Max reached into his pocket and produced a small crumped peace of paper. Taking a moment to unfold it methodologically, he held it up a few inches from his face and squinted.
“They said, ‘this competition is a fight to the death, and as such, Ties, third place playoffs and round robin are problematic to implement. While we considered the podium idea, the practicality of determining which body parts belong to third place makes this difficult to accomplish.’”
“That’s some straight up Bullshit, Maximus,” a large retiarus at the back proclaimed, throwing down his bronze helmet. “Worse games ever!”
The group angrily choruses their agreement.
“There is some good news, but also some more bad news”, Maximus said loudly over the rising volume.
“Well?” asked the Retarius.
“They’re going to give us the Lion Maskots we asked for,” he said slowly. “That’s the good news”
“And the bad news?” Growled the Retarius.
Maximus didn’t answer, and instead turned his hairy back to the crowd.
There was silence for a time as the group pondered and processed what was happening.
“Is that a bite mark?” Whispered a voice at the back.
Created:
Do you listen to yourself speak?
Created:
Blahmonkey is the best formal debater here imo, with the exception of possibly whiteflame and Bsh. Formal debating requires you to be able to get behind either side of any resolution - I don’t think many of the rest of that are really able to do that.
Oromagi and Ragnar are very good debaters that are able to cut into a topic well. I feel my particular strength in specifically logical battles is to pull out and extract key logical errors; in fact based debates - I have unbelievable recall and can recall bizarre and esoteric facts out of my ass fairly instantly : but my issue is that I have to be familiar with the topic hence why I tend to stay on science, liberalism and atheism topics - those are comfort zones where I have a lot of deep facts.
My issue is that there aren’t many arguments where I feel there are two genuine sides.
Importantly I think that voting on all of or debates with only minor exceptions has been pretty spot on; I don’t recall any debates not being one sided and voting not reflecting that.
Ragnar has to pop his cherry and beat RM like the rest of us have though before any of us fight it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
No plot, and try to paint a scene.
Just call it Stephanie Meyer next time, and avoid all this confusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
At risk of sounding like Alec what is “still life” fiction?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah - that doesn’t sound deserving of personhood.
Created: