Do you understand the actual level of skill I even displayed in this debate?
I am not meaning to insult you, I am asking if you caught onto what happened... You seem to always think you outperformed the other because you did decent, that doesn't mean the other didn't outclass you.
I entered a bait-resolution, utilising the very parts of it you thought were good for bait and made that into the actual way that I limited the amount of people boycotting meat and noticed they were wealthy...
Over time, I made the very cunning element of your case encase you in an inescapable web of Burden-of-Proof that you couldn't meet in a 2-Round 5k-per-Round 1-day-deadline restricted environment.
You don't understand or appreciate how well I did in this because you are completely incapable of putting your ego aside for a moment and questioning if I was your equal, let alone superior in an encounter where you default yourself to the best.
Have you tested your skills elsewhere and consistently been deemed the winner?
Are you sure that you are as skilled a debater as you think you are?
I am not asking to get under your skin while you are already hurt and angry. Instead, I am just telling you that we each have our own talents and lacked talents in debating. Learn to refinenyoyr style, make your debating martial art more invincible by refining it to even voters you think are stupid.
Try it or don't, the results will show in the long run. Debating for Rating is this way, it involves deception. The skill is in making voters think your opponent played either worse or dirtier.
You are not just reasoning, you are painting a picture, playing a tune... learn what your audience likes and how to make your opponent's art seem less appealing.
what I mean is that the resolution is about deserving to eat, not specifically to purchase.
So for instance if a non-LGBTQ friend hosted a gathering and the LGBTQ wealthy person ate meat there, they would violate the resolution but not violate your proposed attack on purchasing.
This was not really worth me sidetracking in the debate because I was fine with the framework that you'd laid out.
I read your 'little by little' excuse of a framework in your 'overview' if you mean that. If you think that's gonna win the votes, go ahead and push it.
" I'd probably choose to not be LGBTQ+ if I could, but I was never really given that option."
That's a cute idea isn't it, as if the parts of your psyche and brain's wiring leading to that are independent of other parts of you.
As you know I am a genticist/determinist whatever, there are elements of us that are hardwired into us. Some people at a very young age are blatantly more brutish or timid or this and that than others and as we grow and develop and hormones and brain development occur combined with experiences, we become things that are NOT entirely unrelated at all.
Of course not all gays are feminine, that's not what I'm saying. It's about a series of habits and tendencies, there are certain personality traits in each lesbian, gay, trans person, genderfluid etc that are fairly inextricable from the rest of them. You wouldn't be you and not have your tendency towards LGBTQ. That is a fact.
Do not take this wrong but I believe I'll do better than you would with 8k limitation on this particular topic. I know precisely where Novice will go on this topic and it's not an easy angle to tackle unless you do what I do.
If you are curious about what Pro should have said to Con's Round 2 proof:
(0 x 1) / 0 = (0 x 2) / 0
This is completely impossible, you cannot divide by 0 in the first place. At this point the proof is actually wrong both mathematically and logically.
Pro also could have completely won Sources point allocation had the erroenous posting of 'division by zero' Wikipedia that itself thwarts Con's trickery been shown to be a backfiring source by Pro in Round 3.
Pro's main argument that Pro says was not addressed by Con was the most heavily addressed argument by Con in the entire debate. For Pro to still in Round 3 conclude that Con didn't address the 0.333... argument is serious reading comprehension issues. On the other hand, the explanation Con gave to address it actually does fall short and I will explain specifically why.
Con's argument is that if you divide 1 by 3, it is not actually 0.333... it is 0.333... with an infinitesmally small (or minute) value above it. It would have actually helped if Con went further and pointed out it cannot exist because the very value above 0.333... that 1/3 is, literally doesn't exist and that is the very reason 1/3 of 1 can't be expressed numerically in the first place. That said, Pro's reply to it are all very cagey and defensive but they still do hold some value.
Pro replies that they themselves never explicitly stated rounding occured and that Con has to prove it. Con explained how if you multiply 0.333... by 3 you actually get 0.999... and not 1.000... ONLY IN THE LAST ROUND and even goes further to explore 1.0000...1 etc. This was definitely too late to qualify as a genuine argument as it is the final Round and on top of being the final Round, Con is the last debater to present their case, meaning Pro can't have an opportunity to rebuke it.
The biggest issue I have with Con's way of explaining 0.333... isn't 1/3 is that it keeps being stated as a self-evident truth.
Con actually backfires their entire argument by trying to prove trickier in mathematics without realising Pro can win the entire debate if Pro doesn't fight the trickery or proves it's a different format of trickery.
Let me explain.
Con ends Round 2 with this:
Here’s also this quick little thing:
0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0
Therefore,
0 x 1 = 0 x 2
And
(0 x 1) / 0 = (0 x 2) / 0
Which simplifies to
0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2
And then
1 = 2
Math is weird, yo.
Pro can do either of 3 things now:
1) Ignore it entirely, implicitly agreeing with the trickery (so 0.999... = 1 = 2) and let Con fight their own trickery in the last Round.
2) Explicitly agree with it for a troll angle and say, okay sure Con gets that, now they all can equal each other unless Con proves 1 doesn't equal 2 which is irrelevant to the debate.
3) Prove the form of tricky mathematics is different because for instance 0 is such a unique value unlike any other in mathematics etc.
Pro opted for option 1. To be honest, If Con had brought up the mathematics trickery in Round 1, I'd give it more weight as it becomes central to the debate. To randomly put it before the final Round is fine, that's still legitimate but that implies to me that Con was just illustrating trickery rather than wanting Pro to directly need to address it.
I also want to note that Con keeps lacking explanations.
".333… is only approximately equal to 1/3, because there will always be an infinitesimally small amount that will be needed to make.333… equal to 1/3, just as there will always be an infinitesimally small amount that will need to be added to .999… in order for it to be equal to 1.
This is why you get strange properties with numbers, such as 1/3 * 3 = 1, but .333…*3 = .999…
They are not the same value. But, for the sake of simplicity, we say that 1/3 * 3 = .333… *3, even though it does do not."
What is the purpose of not pointing out that 1/3 is unattainable or impossible? Con never explicitly points this out, instead it is said that there is a value equal to 1/3 above 0.333.... but the real point Con should have made is there is no value equal to 1/3 in denary mathematics (which is the 1-9 counting system that essentially all humans use for mathematical calculations). In a 1-5 system, where 6 becomes their 10, that senary system as opposed to the denary one we use could easier obtain 1.3 as an actual numerical value potentially (not important to my RFD to reveal it, I can tell you it's a simple enough value).
In fact the word 'denary' or the concept of the limitations of denary mathematics enabling Pro's trickery to present falsehoods as truths doesn't come up once in Con's argumentation. This is not me violating tabula rasa, I am not penalising Con for missing this out, I am finding it peculiar because to not even mention that 1/3 literally is unobtainable in denary counting systems while mentioning what Pro did, seems so peculiar to me.
Pro retorts as follows:
"If .333... is approximately equal to 1/3 I must have rounded somewhere in my proof to determine their exact equality, and CON should be able to point that out easily.
This is not the case as .333... or .999.... as they are exactly equal. CON did now show anywhere I have rounded, therefore, the argument is moot."
Which wouldn't work against me in Con's shoes, I would never have allowed it to get there. Con only had to take it one step further and explain that 1/3 doesn't exist in denary counting system.
What Con said was that 1/3 is falsely stated to be 0.333.... because there is an infinitesmally small 1/3 to add on top. This sounds correct but it is not correct. If the 1/3 to add on top is also 0.333... (which if you follow Pro's logic and mathematics, it would be) that will be 0.3333... ANYWAY.
As for this 'congruence' and such, I feel both sides got sidetracked there and I don't really feel Con proved Pro used sourcing poorly. Pro never used the term 'congruence' when Con pointed out the error... CON DID. It is Con who started bringing up 'congruence' which is only applicable to geometry and applying to pure mathematics that had no relevant to geometry that I could see.
I would accept that Con successfully threw doubt on the 10x-x proof but again, Con's trickery at the end of Round 2 completely backfires on Con. If Con is conceding that mathematics is flawed and that paradoxes can function inside of mathematics even though they shouldn't that SUPPORTS Pro being able to prove that 0.999.... = 1 even though it's paradoxical in other ways.
There is almost no way at all that Novice could have done this better. The only thing he didn't do fully was prove that 'taught' encompasses teaching about not just teaching that something is true.
this debate is a very important moment in this website's history. This is a sign to three (me, novice and benjamin) whether voters will punish the complainer or creative ensnarer in tricky debates.
Just promise me that when I am dead and gone this debate will be a reminder that RM did not cower to peer pressure and support enabling cowardice in the debating arena.
You enter the arena, you better have your teeth baring.
I am not new to websites. I am at times mistaken for a sheer thrillseeking troll on other websites. Banned at times from places for my backbone.
I have learned one thing most moderators have in common:
The harder you push against then the more they call you angry and toxic, instead of addressing the contents of what you are saying. I believe there is probably a correlation between being an appointed moderator online and having a personality that reacts to emotion conveyed in posts readily, rather than contents of posts etc.
It seems involuntary, it is not unique to you guys.
"dismissing that point without addressing it. If you've got a problem with that, then clarify it because what I've seen so far is a bunch of generalized frustration."
Whiteflame's accidental description of Benjamin in this debate, in a nutshell ^^^^
Please narrate him more, you begun so nicely in your RFD until you randomly decided the debate ended in Round 1.
You got robbed here. This debate was one of your finest in every way.
You executed it to perfection almost.
I think the one thing you could have done better was elaborate on what 'taught' constitutes. I know it could backfire, I get that, however Benjamin's attack on you falls even shorter if you can prove teaching about and teaching-is'true are both within 'teaching'. Our fear that exploring teaching could backfire
ended up what the voters able to punishbyou for.
You did so good in this debate, everything, your Round 2 was a masterpiece. I am sorry for you.
I gave the best RFD here. I did not go in with preconceptions influencing who i declared the winner.
I did not get along with Novice. I do nit have string feelings on the topic especially because I am cool with it being taught about but admitting evolution is the scientifically superior theory.
I was shocked and appalled at what a pussy and faulty debater Con was to Pro. Con did nit even once explain the detriment of the idea poisoning the sudent's minds or how vulnerable children are to faulty ideology, he just cried and cried at Pro's adept debating.
Benjamin got bodied in this debate in a way I have never seen him get bodied prior. You are blind if you do not see it, to everything good and skilled in Pro's case and the issues with Con's.
Actually if Con cannot give a decent source and argument to thwart how Pro justifies and backs said definition, you are a scumbag tovote Con UNLESS Con proves cats dont truly meow
the two voting mods of the website don't comprehend tabula rasa at all. you are just voting based on what you feel was 'morally right vs my preconceptions of the debate' not what really went down here.
You can't assume shit about a debate title and its scope, that's violating tabula rasa.
Yes there is but you dont value privacy and anonymity like I do. If I ever voted against benjamin due to a report I am a retard who needs to be banned from voting. I wasted so much effort justifying a valid vote due to his report. Thats all. Me venting itself stopped the hostility. You are a man, you know how it is to fight and argue with someone and enjoy that masculine release. That is all it was.
Jeff's conduct allocation has to be insufficiently justified. Moving the goalposts is not a conduct violation , Pro only set them in a way Con didnt like, Con actually complained about wanting to move them.
Do you understand the actual level of skill I even displayed in this debate?
I am not meaning to insult you, I am asking if you caught onto what happened... You seem to always think you outperformed the other because you did decent, that doesn't mean the other didn't outclass you.
I entered a bait-resolution, utilising the very parts of it you thought were good for bait and made that into the actual way that I limited the amount of people boycotting meat and noticed they were wealthy...
Over time, I made the very cunning element of your case encase you in an inescapable web of Burden-of-Proof that you couldn't meet in a 2-Round 5k-per-Round 1-day-deadline restricted environment.
You don't understand or appreciate how well I did in this because you are completely incapable of putting your ego aside for a moment and questioning if I was your equal, let alone superior in an encounter where you default yourself to the best.
Have you tested your skills elsewhere and consistently been deemed the winner?
Are you sure that you are as skilled a debater as you think you are?
I am not asking to get under your skin while you are already hurt and angry. Instead, I am just telling you that we each have our own talents and lacked talents in debating. Learn to refinenyoyr style, make your debating martial art more invincible by refining it to even voters you think are stupid.
Try it or don't, the results will show in the long run. Debating for Rating is this way, it involves deception. The skill is in making voters think your opponent played either worse or dirtier.
You are not just reasoning, you are painting a picture, playing a tune... learn what your audience likes and how to make your opponent's art seem less appealing.
what I mean is that the resolution is about deserving to eat, not specifically to purchase.
So for instance if a non-LGBTQ friend hosted a gathering and the LGBTQ wealthy person ate meat there, they would violate the resolution but not violate your proposed attack on purchasing.
This was not really worth me sidetracking in the debate because I was fine with the framework that you'd laid out.
The resolution says eat, Novice meant 'purchase' but I did not wish to Kritik that because I was happy to turn it against Novice.
7 days to vote, please do.
Round 2 is finished.
I said Pro meant Con fuck
good luck
Let's hang the flag of Pakistan up in your household okay?
I read your 'little by little' excuse of a framework in your 'overview' if you mean that. If you think that's gonna win the votes, go ahead and push it.
Time will tell. It's either a big mistake or it isn't.
You may want to read this.
It is weird btw, other than a vaccine mandate kritik, I couldn't come up with solid reasons to oppose the mandate that did not appeal to emotion
Ah shit gg
You may enjoy this too.
Enjoy the show
So what
Firstly, why would you use a sample size of 1 (your debate with him) to judge the weight of his skill overall?
Secondly, if you think he isn't strong in this debate, it will be your bitter downfall. I won't teach you more, sign up to my coaching.
You couldn't ever choose that without killing the person you are. It's very simple.
" I'd probably choose to not be LGBTQ+ if I could, but I was never really given that option."
That's a cute idea isn't it, as if the parts of your psyche and brain's wiring leading to that are independent of other parts of you.
As you know I am a genticist/determinist whatever, there are elements of us that are hardwired into us. Some people at a very young age are blatantly more brutish or timid or this and that than others and as we grow and develop and hormones and brain development occur combined with experiences, we become things that are NOT entirely unrelated at all.
Of course not all gays are feminine, that's not what I'm saying. It's about a series of habits and tendencies, there are certain personality traits in each lesbian, gay, trans person, genderfluid etc that are fairly inextricable from the rest of them. You wouldn't be you and not have your tendency towards LGBTQ. That is a fact.
Do not take this wrong but I believe I'll do better than you would with 8k limitation on this particular topic. I know precisely where Novice will go on this topic and it's not an easy angle to tackle unless you do what I do.
Is a source backfiring on a sideproof barely relevant to the Con case enough to sway Sources in a debate that is not very source reliant like this?
Okay well I'd rethink my vote then. I read that too fast.
If you are curious about what Pro should have said to Con's Round 2 proof:
(0 x 1) / 0 = (0 x 2) / 0
This is completely impossible, you cannot divide by 0 in the first place. At this point the proof is actually wrong both mathematically and logically.
Pro also could have completely won Sources point allocation had the erroenous posting of 'division by zero' Wikipedia that itself thwarts Con's trickery been shown to be a backfiring source by Pro in Round 3.
And the dictionary battle ensues
RFD PART 1/2
Pro's main argument that Pro says was not addressed by Con was the most heavily addressed argument by Con in the entire debate. For Pro to still in Round 3 conclude that Con didn't address the 0.333... argument is serious reading comprehension issues. On the other hand, the explanation Con gave to address it actually does fall short and I will explain specifically why.
Con's argument is that if you divide 1 by 3, it is not actually 0.333... it is 0.333... with an infinitesmally small (or minute) value above it. It would have actually helped if Con went further and pointed out it cannot exist because the very value above 0.333... that 1/3 is, literally doesn't exist and that is the very reason 1/3 of 1 can't be expressed numerically in the first place. That said, Pro's reply to it are all very cagey and defensive but they still do hold some value.
Pro replies that they themselves never explicitly stated rounding occured and that Con has to prove it. Con explained how if you multiply 0.333... by 3 you actually get 0.999... and not 1.000... ONLY IN THE LAST ROUND and even goes further to explore 1.0000...1 etc. This was definitely too late to qualify as a genuine argument as it is the final Round and on top of being the final Round, Con is the last debater to present their case, meaning Pro can't have an opportunity to rebuke it.
The biggest issue I have with Con's way of explaining 0.333... isn't 1/3 is that it keeps being stated as a self-evident truth.
Con actually backfires their entire argument by trying to prove trickier in mathematics without realising Pro can win the entire debate if Pro doesn't fight the trickery or proves it's a different format of trickery.
Let me explain.
Con ends Round 2 with this:
Here’s also this quick little thing:
0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0
Therefore,
0 x 1 = 0 x 2
And
(0 x 1) / 0 = (0 x 2) / 0
Which simplifies to
0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2
And then
1 = 2
Math is weird, yo.
Pro can do either of 3 things now:
1) Ignore it entirely, implicitly agreeing with the trickery (so 0.999... = 1 = 2) and let Con fight their own trickery in the last Round.
2) Explicitly agree with it for a troll angle and say, okay sure Con gets that, now they all can equal each other unless Con proves 1 doesn't equal 2 which is irrelevant to the debate.
3) Prove the form of tricky mathematics is different because for instance 0 is such a unique value unlike any other in mathematics etc.
Pro opted for option 1. To be honest, If Con had brought up the mathematics trickery in Round 1, I'd give it more weight as it becomes central to the debate. To randomly put it before the final Round is fine, that's still legitimate but that implies to me that Con was just illustrating trickery rather than wanting Pro to directly need to address it.
RFD PART 2/2
I also want to note that Con keeps lacking explanations.
".333… is only approximately equal to 1/3, because there will always be an infinitesimally small amount that will be needed to make.333… equal to 1/3, just as there will always be an infinitesimally small amount that will need to be added to .999… in order for it to be equal to 1.
This is why you get strange properties with numbers, such as 1/3 * 3 = 1, but .333…*3 = .999…
They are not the same value. But, for the sake of simplicity, we say that 1/3 * 3 = .333… *3, even though it does do not."
What is the purpose of not pointing out that 1/3 is unattainable or impossible? Con never explicitly points this out, instead it is said that there is a value equal to 1/3 above 0.333.... but the real point Con should have made is there is no value equal to 1/3 in denary mathematics (which is the 1-9 counting system that essentially all humans use for mathematical calculations). In a 1-5 system, where 6 becomes their 10, that senary system as opposed to the denary one we use could easier obtain 1.3 as an actual numerical value potentially (not important to my RFD to reveal it, I can tell you it's a simple enough value).
In fact the word 'denary' or the concept of the limitations of denary mathematics enabling Pro's trickery to present falsehoods as truths doesn't come up once in Con's argumentation. This is not me violating tabula rasa, I am not penalising Con for missing this out, I am finding it peculiar because to not even mention that 1/3 literally is unobtainable in denary counting systems while mentioning what Pro did, seems so peculiar to me.
Pro retorts as follows:
"If .333... is approximately equal to 1/3 I must have rounded somewhere in my proof to determine their exact equality, and CON should be able to point that out easily.
This is not the case as .333... or .999.... as they are exactly equal. CON did now show anywhere I have rounded, therefore, the argument is moot."
Which wouldn't work against me in Con's shoes, I would never have allowed it to get there. Con only had to take it one step further and explain that 1/3 doesn't exist in denary counting system.
What Con said was that 1/3 is falsely stated to be 0.333.... because there is an infinitesmally small 1/3 to add on top. This sounds correct but it is not correct. If the 1/3 to add on top is also 0.333... (which if you follow Pro's logic and mathematics, it would be) that will be 0.3333... ANYWAY.
As for this 'congruence' and such, I feel both sides got sidetracked there and I don't really feel Con proved Pro used sourcing poorly. Pro never used the term 'congruence' when Con pointed out the error... CON DID. It is Con who started bringing up 'congruence' which is only applicable to geometry and applying to pure mathematics that had no relevant to geometry that I could see.
I would accept that Con successfully threw doubt on the 10x-x proof but again, Con's trickery at the end of Round 2 completely backfires on Con. If Con is conceding that mathematics is flawed and that paradoxes can function inside of mathematics even though they shouldn't that SUPPORTS Pro being able to prove that 0.999.... = 1 even though it's paradoxical in other ways.
I wonder why.
Now that's a master bait.
You really are comical.
I will not agree to disagree.
You violated tabula rasa in your RFD.
There is almost no way at all that Novice could have done this better. The only thing he didn't do fully was prove that 'taught' encompasses teaching about not just teaching that something is true.
No, he didn't. He was the exploited one.
this debate is a very important moment in this website's history. This is a sign to three (me, novice and benjamin) whether voters will punish the complainer or creative ensnarer in tricky debates.
We will not be website users here forever. Legacy is all we have then. What did you stand for?
Just promise me that when I am dead and gone this debate will be a reminder that RM did not cower to peer pressure and support enabling cowardice in the debating arena.
You enter the arena, you better have your teeth baring.
I am not new to websites. I am at times mistaken for a sheer thrillseeking troll on other websites. Banned at times from places for my backbone.
I have learned one thing most moderators have in common:
The harder you push against then the more they call you angry and toxic, instead of addressing the contents of what you are saying. I believe there is probably a correlation between being an appointed moderator online and having a personality that reacts to emotion conveyed in posts readily, rather than contents of posts etc.
It seems involuntary, it is not unique to you guys.
"dismissing that point without addressing it. If you've got a problem with that, then clarify it because what I've seen so far is a bunch of generalized frustration."
Whiteflame's accidental description of Benjamin in this debate, in a nutshell ^^^^
Please narrate him more, you begun so nicely in your RFD until you randomly decided the debate ended in Round 1.
I am a simple man in debate comments.
I say what I mean.
You got robbed here. This debate was one of your finest in every way.
You executed it to perfection almost.
I think the one thing you could have done better was elaborate on what 'taught' constitutes. I know it could backfire, I get that, however Benjamin's attack on you falls even shorter if you can prove teaching about and teaching-is'true are both within 'teaching'. Our fear that exploring teaching could backfire
ended up what the voters able to punishbyou for.
You did so good in this debate, everything, your Round 2 was a masterpiece. I am sorry for you.
I gave the best RFD here. I did not go in with preconceptions influencing who i declared the winner.
I did not get along with Novice. I do nit have string feelings on the topic especially because I am cool with it being taught about but admitting evolution is the scientifically superior theory.
I was shocked and appalled at what a pussy and faulty debater Con was to Pro. Con did nit even once explain the detriment of the idea poisoning the sudent's minds or how vulnerable children are to faulty ideology, he just cried and cried at Pro's adept debating.
Benjamin got bodied in this debate in a way I have never seen him get bodied prior. You are blind if you do not see it, to everything good and skilled in Pro's case and the issues with Con's.
This is pathetic to see.
Sheer confirmation bias, 100%
You are enabling and encouraging crybaby attitude when entrapped by a cunning instigator.
Actually if Con cannot give a decent source and argument to thwart how Pro justifies and backs said definition, you are a scumbag tovote Con UNLESS Con proves cats dont truly meow
the two voting mods of the website don't comprehend tabula rasa at all. you are just voting based on what you feel was 'morally right vs my preconceptions of the debate' not what really went down here.
You can't assume shit about a debate title and its scope, that's violating tabula rasa.
sniping the noobs more, I like it.
Yes there is but you dont value privacy and anonymity like I do. If I ever voted against benjamin due to a report I am a retard who needs to be banned from voting. I wasted so much effort justifying a valid vote due to his report. Thats all. Me venting itself stopped the hostility. You are a man, you know how it is to fight and argue with someone and enjoy that masculine release. That is all it was.
Lol! You think that line was about my vote? It was about Benjamin.
You shouldn't confirm he didnt report the revote.
Jeff's conduct allocation has to be insufficiently justified. Moving the goalposts is not a conduct violation , Pro only set them in a way Con didnt like, Con actually complained about wanting to move them.
If my justification for conduct before was insufficient, so is jeff goldblum's 100%