You have no idea how definitions in a debate work if you think Pro out-defined me in the debate and I have very little respect or concern for you as a voter. What you said is basically that my definition is wrong despite being backed by sources and making sense, while Pro's is correct even though he never properly deterred or handled mine.
How do my Round 1 and Round 2 not explain that Taiwan being owned by China does not disrupt the world order and is just US overstepping despite China being very tolerant to US colonisation even at near its doorstep via Philippines?
All I can tell is that Oromagi and yourself would make very irrational leaders of a nation, you understand geopolitics all wrong if you think his rebuttals had any weight vs what I said.
I don't mind it, it tells me to avoid these debates because you can literally say any nonsense and it counts as valid, the weighting is quantitative and not qualitative so no strength can defeat talking a lot of nonsense. As for the real world application, I stand by what I said. US should not assist with military forces.
The devil actually always struck me as odd even as a child. There is something about the devil that implies either God has an alter ego or there is a being literally able to defy God, neither made proper sense to me but I assert that Satan is not Lucifer and instead is an alter ego of God if the Bible is true.
DVDs are not really cheap btw but you are probably well-off and don't think of pricing in the same way. Regardless I'll handle the economics fully in Round 2.
The author of the vague voting standards of DART who wrote his own guide to debating can definitely leave a mediocre (or less than mediocre but not entirely poor) vote.
There is no guaranteed correlation there, he may of course be inclined to not leave a vote that totally violates the rules but that by no means he leaves a good one.
Dreadnought is even more specifically naval than battleship...
I'm not sure that battleships work in outer space but sure...
Space war...
battleship...
I can't believe someone will even think to take Con...
You guys may enjoy keeping up with this, given the ratings involved and all.
Yeah, some people resent these types of debate, I admire your effort to freshen what's turning up.
I actually feel strongly about this topic and given our rankings it's just so utterly worth the risk.
Well with me it was on a trans discussion in the Society subforum.
It got to a point where either I am debating a severely stunted individual or an intentional troll twisting snippets of what I say, to seem smarter.
I had to block 3RU7AL just yesterday, due to the sophistry BS.
The thing is at the insect and spider level it is nearly irrefutable.
How are the points of disagreement straightforward? It seems you both had very different ideas in mind of the debate itself.
" pruginally" I meant originally in Round 2.
I may vote on this debate but I am concerned of revenge from the one I vote against, tbh.
It ultimately comes down to what we define 'worse' as.
Report both.
you're not the boss of the consumer... You're the boss of your employees... xD
thank you for your vote, it seems you saw what I did in Round 3.
the more effort you put in vs Mall the more he latches onto and gish gallops. Really I am fed up of debating him
It didnt matter to respond to, if money is necessary and my definition holds.
You have no idea how definitions in a debate work if you think Pro out-defined me in the debate and I have very little respect or concern for you as a voter. What you said is basically that my definition is wrong despite being backed by sources and making sense, while Pro's is correct even though he never properly deterred or handled mine.
please vote here, 1 day left but easy read
I never dropped the case at all, I gave a definition in Round 1
I would appreciate a vote here.
I mean the one issue isn't for the one embracing it as much as enemies of that nation-state.
I dont think you understand how if-then logic works.
1 week rounds, I refuse to do 2 week rounds because I personally have time now.
Your profile picture is being used by another user, Bones, please don't impersonate other users like that.
As for your life story, it is of course tragic but I cannot help you other than to suggest searching guided meditation for trauma etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vO1wPAmiMQ
thanks for your vote, as always.
If you had gone further, I did point out the YT thing in my Round 3 and was confused at it as well.
3 days remain to vote if you are going to do so.
My only error, in my eyes is I said greek paradigm when it was Norse.
Something interesting is that desert climates lead to monotheism while more cryptic climates with a lot of nature and caves etc, lead to polytheism.
I do not agree that Pro could win in round 3 but thanks for the vote, it was a solidly reasoned vote.
Easy vote if you care to (in my opinion) cheers.
Your girlfriend's got some edible meat and I aint talkin' cannibalism, homes.
Whatever your ego tells you.
You know what I didnt see?
Pro saying anything other than hypocrisy is okay.
There is a clear lapse in ability to judge geopolitical impact on this site's voting base.
I will be sure to avoid these debates, they are a cointoss. At least I lost to a high rated debater.
How do my Round 1 and Round 2 not explain that Taiwan being owned by China does not disrupt the world order and is just US overstepping despite China being very tolerant to US colonisation even at near its doorstep via Philippines?
Then try it
Please vote if you feel like it. Thanks if you do.
All I can tell is that Oromagi and yourself would make very irrational leaders of a nation, you understand geopolitics all wrong if you think his rebuttals had any weight vs what I said.
I don't mind it, it tells me to avoid these debates because you can literally say any nonsense and it counts as valid, the weighting is quantitative and not qualitative so no strength can defeat talking a lot of nonsense. As for the real world application, I stand by what I said. US should not assist with military forces.
Not sure if you know but this is not a conspiracy theory:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/officer-who-responded-us-capitol-attack-is-third-die-by-suicide-2021-08-02/
I am not saying Pro's side has zero merit but not everybody understands how bad the capitol riots were.
You could tag us all in one but you are welcome.
Thank you for your vote.
The devil actually always struck me as odd even as a child. There is something about the devil that implies either God has an alter ego or there is a being literally able to defy God, neither made proper sense to me but I assert that Satan is not Lucifer and instead is an alter ego of God if the Bible is true.
DVDs are not really cheap btw but you are probably well-off and don't think of pricing in the same way. Regardless I'll handle the economics fully in Round 2.
Feel free to vote on this. Thanks in advance.
have your own debate with him and make it a masterpiece then
Focus on Round 2
It is so weird that you only thank him btw. This is the second time I've seen you doing it.
https://youtu.be/rY0WxgSXdEE
Sign up for coaching from me, I will make you vicious.
And do you know who will know your new account? Whiteflame, Supadudz and potentially... Barney.
That is the mod team.
The author of the vague voting standards of DART who wrote his own guide to debating can definitely leave a mediocre (or less than mediocre but not entirely poor) vote.
There is no guaranteed correlation there, he may of course be inclined to not leave a vote that totally violates the rules but that by no means he leaves a good one.