Your schoolyard bully mentality is not gonna help you out in life.
Perhaps you developed an understanding that sucking up to the other popular jerks is a smart way to stay ahead or something, I see a lot of trauma signs showing in you including the constant deflection to joking when your 'mean' or 'aggressive' side doesn't quite work out.
What I wonder is is that just a shell with a caring person inside or are you just a true sociopath that's too far gone? I will enjoy finding out as your time here ensues, most people are easy to read.
I am not sure how you think you are coming across but it sounds like I should be afraid to inform you of activity as you whine at me that what you think you should do is not in line with what I think you should do.
I don't matter, I am not the president. Call your own shots. If I was the president, my only job would be to stop you going too far. You are the shotcaller, you are the boss.
I did MY DUTY and informed you and Barney since we all know Supadudz is not doing much at all.
You do YOUR DUTY and I shut up and accept what you do.
That is all you wanted us to be and all we are. You do your decisions, I inform and report.
"2. Increasing anxiety about seeing the rebuttal of an argument and using avoidance mechanisms"
I actually relate to this alot, it's what's led to my style being what it is and the reason I often drop very normal and 'good' arguments, as I think the rebuttal is too easy for my opponent to see.
That knowledge corrupts the entire integrity of debate rating, not that the site president should care. The site president should clearly be a compulsive liar that pisses all over the integrity of competitive debating. Teach us your ways.
that doesn't change style and tactics much, the shared BoP solely stops Con going 'oh there are equal drawbacks and gains' which Con should avoid anyway.
I challenged you, check notifications and read the description. :)
I accept you underestimating me as it's earned. However, you should be warned that my 'skill' is more than you may assume. I am a very destructive debater, my skill is in destroying my enemies and crippling them more than building my own case brilliantly. I will use your Round 1 to frame my own and then destroy you from there as brutally as you did me when I was Con and as you did Lancelot here (I skimread it, I reckon you won and may vote later on as in with 1 day left or something).
Con on this topic is unwinnable, it's rigged if Pro argues it correctly because Con cannot leverage things against the fact that DP has drawbacks, since DP is such an edge case and doesn't really reduce crime due to the limitations on its enforcement (by design).
The only way to really win is to notice that a butch MMA woman, a high vlass slim lady, a ghetto prostitute and a nerdy scientist womam are actually different genders within a gender series.
Make females be a gender overarching series.
Make a thug a different gender to the sissy to the cop to the business man to theathematician to the hippie vegan etc
Then the semantics of gender- expression vs gender will become the true war.
There is actually room for Con here, I am willing to take it.
I will back that 'syringe' 'unhinge' etc rhyme and take you on the definition of rhyming.
The reason I tell you this is that I don't get how you thought this would just be an abusive truism debate that you can take the win with, the audience ought to root against you for the dirty trap and allow true single syllables to enable a rhyme.
The actual syllable in those words that rhymes is not a half-rhyme nor a slant-rhyme, there is legitimate room for debate here on what the definition of a rhyme is including 'cringe' and 'binge' in what I'll explore as the way to define rhyming.
So I should be too scared to passively and calmly stick up for myself?
That is a vile way of seeing things and victim-blaming at its worst.
I am not the one to bully into silence. I choose not to reply to most of his vitriol and baiting, I calmly handle an english issue saying to each their own and justifying my way of wording.
That is not escalating, it is not cowering to an abusive prick. Thanks.
Other than considering a square a triangle, everyone could consider what you did to be almost anything within reason. My way of wording it made clear that the considering of it being whining was the focus.
Your statement has lack of precision in terms of what the focus of the statement is. That is okay, we do not all talk the same way.
whining could be what many consider what you did to barney to begin with and what you're continuing to do to me in this and another debate's comments sections.
no it doesn't, but I understand how sloppy a vote I myself can get away with now.
neither voter remotely understood the debate, weaver just counted arguments instead of weighing how crucial they were.
Please moderate the votes I reported 3 days ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiPU9gQHib0
Your schoolyard bully mentality is not gonna help you out in life.
Perhaps you developed an understanding that sucking up to the other popular jerks is a smart way to stay ahead or something, I see a lot of trauma signs showing in you including the constant deflection to joking when your 'mean' or 'aggressive' side doesn't quite work out.
What I wonder is is that just a shell with a caring person inside or are you just a true sociopath that's too far gone? I will enjoy finding out as your time here ensues, most people are easy to read.
And you're an established bootlicker of anyone with authority here so far so kinda loses the sting to that punchline.
same to you with your frustration, move on. xoxo
no more of a disappearance than vaarka, samstevens and ramshutu will give this fine establishment.
I am not sure how you think you are coming across but it sounds like I should be afraid to inform you of activity as you whine at me that what you think you should do is not in line with what I think you should do.
I don't matter, I am not the president. Call your own shots. If I was the president, my only job would be to stop you going too far. You are the shotcaller, you are the boss.
I did MY DUTY and informed you and Barney since we all know Supadudz is not doing much at all.
You do YOUR DUTY and I shut up and accept what you do.
That is all you wanted us to be and all we are. You do your decisions, I inform and report.
this is a website ambassador, the president, plagiarising and destroying what rating means.
his opponent is unfairly gaining a win, you are absolutely RIDICULOUS but do not worry.
You want a broken system, enjoy your shithole. That is the end of that discussion.
so his opponent gained rating unfairly and his own rating deflated.
This is intentional gaming and devaluing of what rating means.
On top of that it is plagiarism and using a bot to do one's debates.
No, it doesn't, that's the one person the president can't overturn punishments for.
PLAGIARISED ROUND 1 RATED
"2. Increasing anxiety about seeing the rebuttal of an argument and using avoidance mechanisms"
I actually relate to this alot, it's what's led to my style being what it is and the reason I often drop very normal and 'good' arguments, as I think the rebuttal is too easy for my opponent to see.
That knowledge corrupts the entire integrity of debate rating, not that the site president should care. The site president should clearly be a compulsive liar that pisses all over the integrity of competitive debating. Teach us your ways.
Muslims are much more likely to dox the anti-Muslim and threaten via YT.
YT is heavily poi Islam with their comments sections able to censor anything against the faith as islamophobic.
The main part of Islam YT bans is the LGBTphobia
In a debate being held right now wylted admits he plagiarised chatGPT for this debate. Can we vote with that knowledge?
Great site president behaviour.
I literally had benefits of meat and fish in round 1 and 2, public choice is lying in his vote.
I may well vote on this then.
I will give it a proper read later on and vote in the next day.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/napoleon_bonaparte_103585
high rated clash, please do vote.
that doesn't change style and tactics much, the shared BoP solely stops Con going 'oh there are equal drawbacks and gains' which Con should avoid anyway.
I challenged you, check notifications and read the description. :)
I accept you underestimating me as it's earned. However, you should be warned that my 'skill' is more than you may assume. I am a very destructive debater, my skill is in destroying my enemies and crippling them more than building my own case brilliantly. I will use your Round 1 to frame my own and then destroy you from there as brutally as you did me when I was Con and as you did Lancelot here (I skimread it, I reckon you won and may vote later on as in with 1 day left or something).
It will be hard not to accidentally copy you, you write the points well so I probably will lose by plagiarism issues.
Are you saying you actually think you can beat your Round 1 if the person plays the later Rounds correctly? There is literally no leeway.
Con on this topic is unwinnable, it's rigged if Pro argues it correctly because Con cannot leverage things against the fact that DP has drawbacks, since DP is such an edge case and doesn't really reduce crime due to the limitations on its enforcement (by design).
You did not win in arguments, Pro just forfeited too many Rounds.
So you won by that.
My entire argument was about the legality on every part, idk what either of you are talking about.
No, you had it right the first time, however I agree Pro worse the rebuttal in a not so eloquent manner, muddying the precise meaning.
Such as your round 4 and 5
I am allowed to defend homicide in a debate, your RFD doesn't hold up. I have reported it.
The only way to really win is to notice that a butch MMA woman, a high vlass slim lady, a ghetto prostitute and a nerdy scientist womam are actually different genders within a gender series.
Make females be a gender overarching series.
Make a thug a different gender to the sissy to the cop to the business man to theathematician to the hippie vegan etc
Then the semantics of gender- expression vs gender will become the true war.
Lol... by not doing it... ?
Pro never had such logic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLTUjqNOaeQ
sporanges does not rhyme at all.
only 'inj' 'eenj' type endings should rhyme.
Thanks for letting me know.
make it 3 day rounds and challenge and me I'll accept on those lines.
There is actually room for Con here, I am willing to take it.
I will back that 'syringe' 'unhinge' etc rhyme and take you on the definition of rhyming.
The reason I tell you this is that I don't get how you thought this would just be an abusive truism debate that you can take the win with, the audience ought to root against you for the dirty trap and allow true single syllables to enable a rhyme.
The actual syllable in those words that rhymes is not a half-rhyme nor a slant-rhyme, there is legitimate room for debate here on what the definition of a rhyme is including 'cringe' and 'binge' in what I'll explore as the way to define rhyming.
You may want to but that is rape and sexual harassment to act upon.
You should care though, it means I have something you will only get by paying someone.
So I should be too scared to passively and calmly stick up for myself?
That is a vile way of seeing things and victim-blaming at its worst.
I am not the one to bully into silence. I choose not to reply to most of his vitriol and baiting, I calmly handle an english issue saying to each their own and justifying my way of wording.
That is not escalating, it is not cowering to an abusive prick. Thanks.
Votebomb
Yeah I copied it. That is why I am the contender and not the instigator of this debate, it is because I made it.
Yeah...You invented vegetarianism debates. Sorry for the plagiarism.
not really, it's just an immature brat throwing a tantrum. He is angrier because I have deescelated and am refusing to drop to his banal level.
Make it week-long Rounds and I will accept.
If you are interested, please do follow. :) Round 2 from me is up.
https://media.tenor.com/BL4Uxc4WFrsAAAAd/johnny-depp-johnny.gif
Other than considering a square a triangle, everyone could consider what you did to be almost anything within reason. My way of wording it made clear that the considering of it being whining was the focus.
Your statement has lack of precision in terms of what the focus of the statement is. That is okay, we do not all talk the same way.
Your version requires a comma or the words 'to be' after 'did' and before 'whining' to even begin to not be grammatically incorrect.
But you do you, thanks for the 2 cents.
We do not all follow the cookie-cutter way of talking.
whining could be what many consider what you did to barney to begin with and what you're continuing to do to me in this and another debate's comments sections.