I can actually see some ways that led to my defeat here, though to me it comes down to interpretation of strong vs weak points.
Firstly, I should never have let Pro push me into the debate for 2-day Rounds. The 2 day deadline led to me rushing Rounds, that extra day would have let me research and lay out my case far better.
Seondly, even with 2-day Rounds, I should not have been scared that Pro has a habit of focusing hard on 'dropped points' by the other side if they don't dedicate Round 1 to rebuttals. Instead, I should have built a case for renewable energy much more and worried about rebuttals as a secondary priority in my Round 1 if at all. Then, in Round 2 I should have directly addressed the points about land space, the conspiracy theory that hydropower kills a lot of people and the specific problems as well as advantages that Pro brought, regarding nuclear.
I should have spent far less effort and characters on the devious past of nuclear energy as well as not focused so much on Chernobyl. Instead, I should have found ways renewable is just even better in reliability and cost effectiveness and really focused hard on that.
I realise now how I led to this defeat. I really do not respect my opponent as a sportsmanlike debater though, he really played dirty in arranging things and hit me with the challenge last minute to force me to accept it, I even had an issue with the wording because we had not established what 'better' meant but he forced that too.
That said, in the future I will take this on board and follow a much more constructive format as the default in scientific debates.
It is my instinct as a debater to first destroy/attack the opponent's root case but I need to remember that if they have a decent root case, it is in the nitckpicking that the winner is actually decided. If I had embraced nitpicking and built a case with many points (like the advantages I list in Round 2 at the end being in my Round 1 for all renewable types) I could have forced Pro to need to spend more of Round 2 on rebuttals, enabling me to attack him and defend myself wherever seemed most viable.
I also should have been much nerdier about the topic but that really was difficult with being busy irl and the 2-day deadline.
The worst part is if even if I argued a lot for renewable energy, you and novice would vote against me for being too constructive and not attacking Pro's case enough, so it was a lose-lose debate for voters like you. I am certain if I'd spent more directly building, you'd say I failed to attack his points.
For literally every point I make, you argue against it yourself pretty much throughout your analysis but for every single point Pro makes, you go out of your way to agree with it. I'm not imagining this, it's literally for every point pretty much.
Anyway, I take it on board, I guess people wanted more numbers or something, I am not seeing how I didn't address what they're saying I didn't address but what I'm extremely not seeing is where they say Pro tackled my points of danger etc. in any manner other than saying 'it is like plane crashes'.
It doesn't bother me, I was sure you'd come up with some BS to vote against me, you've been itching to all tournament. It's petty and pathetic and if I keep whining about it, I will be stooping to your level.
You are one voter with a grudge, it is better for me to focus on getting many voters rather than fixate on your one wrong one.
"By doing that, you failed to address the specific issues listed for each point. Just listing some advantages in response to specific issues is not a good rebuttal."
That is verbatim what Pro did in this debate. You are okay when he does it to handle the drawbacks of NP I brought forth.
It is possible you genuinely lack the ability to comprehend how you are blindly ignoring my points, it would explain how you lost both times you vsd me.
I do not really care whether your erroneous vote is due to genuine lapse in understanding or bias against me, it doesn't bother me in the long run as this is probably the last and only tournament which will be open-voting.
The bias is so incredibly obvious when Novice doesn't take note of any of my points against Pro or for Renewable energy, only Pro's points and twisting everything.
That's okay though, bitter haters are a part of this. It's ashame they get a vote though.
no, it counts as a strong starting point of one, the world fucking loathes Russia and its allies rn and the feeling is mutual but not enough to lead to a world war yet.
How am I annoying? Is it because when you go around insulting me on debates I have, in the comments section, unprovoked and intentionally while you can't take some back?
Get the fuck out of here with your victim-playing shit. You are the aggressor and initial insulter to me in every way, it's documented in the website's history.
They are getting bodied.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/bigbangtheory/images/a/a6/Group_planning_in_Paintball.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110828160550
Get where I'm going with this?
Well, that's gonna me my whole case. Your case is implying something has to be absolute apex raw power strength to be optimal in combat based solely on sex. However, many males out there are terrible at combat compared to properly trained female combatants and of course even out of trained combatants plenty of females outdo the males in a variety of categories (especially when flexibility and agility matter in a close combat with a lot of obstacles around).
Both are competent debaters who understand the mechanics of resolutions and semantics so I'm not sure why Oromagi agreed to this since all Whiteflame had to do was continually dance around the fact they went back on the timing and justify that it was 'fairly supervised' in spite of that.
Oromagi fixated on MEEPs but nothing about the resolution insists that adherence to MEEPs is a prerequisite for fair supervision, Whiteflame instantly capitalises on this in his ARG1.
I think 'unit' especially makes women have advantages (they tend to be more geared to teamwork utility than solo utility) but if it comes down to pure, raw combat and both are at the peak of their respective sex's capacity, then yes the best male trained spies/assassins/mercenaries etc are superior at combat than the best trained females.
So, the real question is if they are continually operating as a unit or rather they function as a unit but often end up 1v1 in the combat.
If it's the former, I can see a case for Con, if it's the latter, I can see a case for Pro.
I didn't really describe my religious outlook in that 'invent a religion' debate I had. I just went for some seemingly good storyline of reality that's catchy and avoided any direct plagiarism of polytheistic religions.
Ramshutu was the only voter, that secured my defeat tbh.
I find it entertaining to read this because you both seem to have the exact opposite set of strengths to each other, meaning it will be a very different but interesting final no matter who wins.
I literally have an example of you doing it and can show anybody the provocation and the ridiculousness of your RFD.
If you think ComputerNerd outdebated me in this debate, you have no idea what debating is and probably just think it means being on the right side of it as opposed to having debated one's side better.
Actually, Pro did 'come' after the current users here. It is only fair he/she/they lets them go first.
I can actually see some ways that led to my defeat here, though to me it comes down to interpretation of strong vs weak points.
Firstly, I should never have let Pro push me into the debate for 2-day Rounds. The 2 day deadline led to me rushing Rounds, that extra day would have let me research and lay out my case far better.
Seondly, even with 2-day Rounds, I should not have been scared that Pro has a habit of focusing hard on 'dropped points' by the other side if they don't dedicate Round 1 to rebuttals. Instead, I should have built a case for renewable energy much more and worried about rebuttals as a secondary priority in my Round 1 if at all. Then, in Round 2 I should have directly addressed the points about land space, the conspiracy theory that hydropower kills a lot of people and the specific problems as well as advantages that Pro brought, regarding nuclear.
I should have spent far less effort and characters on the devious past of nuclear energy as well as not focused so much on Chernobyl. Instead, I should have found ways renewable is just even better in reliability and cost effectiveness and really focused hard on that.
I realise now how I led to this defeat. I really do not respect my opponent as a sportsmanlike debater though, he really played dirty in arranging things and hit me with the challenge last minute to force me to accept it, I even had an issue with the wording because we had not established what 'better' meant but he forced that too.
That said, in the future I will take this on board and follow a much more constructive format as the default in scientific debates.
It is my instinct as a debater to first destroy/attack the opponent's root case but I need to remember that if they have a decent root case, it is in the nitckpicking that the winner is actually decided. If I had embraced nitpicking and built a case with many points (like the advantages I list in Round 2 at the end being in my Round 1 for all renewable types) I could have forced Pro to need to spend more of Round 2 on rebuttals, enabling me to attack him and defend myself wherever seemed most viable.
I also should have been much nerdier about the topic but that really was difficult with being busy irl and the 2-day deadline.
The worst part is if even if I argued a lot for renewable energy, you and novice would vote against me for being too constructive and not attacking Pro's case enough, so it was a lose-lose debate for voters like you. I am certain if I'd spent more directly building, you'd say I failed to attack his points.
For literally every point I make, you argue against it yourself pretty much throughout your analysis but for every single point Pro makes, you go out of your way to agree with it. I'm not imagining this, it's literally for every point pretty much.
Anyway, I take it on board, I guess people wanted more numbers or something, I am not seeing how I didn't address what they're saying I didn't address but what I'm extremely not seeing is where they say Pro tackled my points of danger etc. in any manner other than saying 'it is like plane crashes'.
What you did with my dam question is literally debating for Pro and acting like Pro said it.
Out of curiosity did you even read my Round 2 at all? Also what did you base your sourcing and conduct point on?
It doesn't bother me, I was sure you'd come up with some BS to vote against me, you've been itching to all tournament. It's petty and pathetic and if I keep whining about it, I will be stooping to your level.
You are one voter with a grudge, it is better for me to focus on getting many voters rather than fixate on your one wrong one.
"By doing that, you failed to address the specific issues listed for each point. Just listing some advantages in response to specific issues is not a good rebuttal."
That is verbatim what Pro did in this debate. You are okay when he does it to handle the drawbacks of NP I brought forth.
It is possible you genuinely lack the ability to comprehend how you are blindly ignoring my points, it would explain how you lost both times you vsd me.
I do not really care whether your erroneous vote is due to genuine lapse in understanding or bias against me, it doesn't bother me in the long run as this is probably the last and only tournament which will be open-voting.
The debate (tournament final) is now complete, if you wish to vote please do.
" Simply listing out some benefits of your power sources does not address the disadvantages and issues brought up, it essentially just avoids them."
Yet when Pro does this throughout the whole debate, you accept it.
The bias is so incredibly obvious when Novice doesn't take note of any of my points against Pro or for Renewable energy, only Pro's points and twisting everything.
That's okay though, bitter haters are a part of this. It's ashame they get a vote though.
Lol.
Yes
It was meant to be weeklong voting periods but Benjamin challenged me to this last minute so if I did not accept it could mean I was the delayer.
The debate is now complete, if you wish to vote please do.
The debate is now complete, if you wish to vote please do.
you could have beaten me tbh, there was a lot for both sides to go into depending how it evolved.
ty for the debate
Autowin for Con then
It would be impossible for Con not to Kritik the assumption that Creationism is a valid theory to be teaching.
One of the lamest ways for them to clash tbh
I would prefer a definition of 'OK' as I can think of a creative way to take on this topic but don't want to risk it as it could go either way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhXCIPuPWDQ
That may be because you found it interesting enough to debate in the first place.
I would appreciate your vote since you seemed interested and even when you vote against me, you often give constructive feedback
"all of the drawbacks of NE are present and pretty much as, if not more, severe in NE. "
I meant all of the drawbacks of RE are present and pretty much as, if not more, severe in NE.
I will clarify it in Round 2
I typed NE but meant NP, I'll clarify in the next Round, it meant nuclear energy, I used the key a bit wrong.
He's cutthroat, he won't forfeit this.
Negotiating the topic alone told me exactly how he ended up on such good sides of such unfair debates. I'm expecting hardcore debate in this.
no, it counts as a strong starting point of one, the world fucking loathes Russia and its allies rn and the feeling is mutual but not enough to lead to a world war yet.
It is pretty impossible to lie when you are quoting it.
Oh lol I put the add a key thing when I thpigjt I'd be using a lot of abbrevoiations. I left a note to myself in the R1 sorry
Imagine if this had been a month later... How easy your side would be.
How am I annoying? Is it because when you go around insulting me on debates I have, in the comments section, unprovoked and intentionally while you can't take some back?
Get the fuck out of here with your victim-playing shit. You are the aggressor and initial insulter to me in every way, it's documented in the website's history.
Novice blocked me because they're scared of me accepting their debates from here on out xD
you take the four guys from big bang theory and put them against these women:
https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/EDNXD27CZBB4RKVSSMTPAVZU64.jpg
They are getting bodied.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/bigbangtheory/images/a/a6/Group_planning_in_Paintball.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110828160550
Get where I'm going with this?
Well, that's gonna me my whole case. Your case is implying something has to be absolute apex raw power strength to be optimal in combat based solely on sex. However, many males out there are terrible at combat compared to properly trained female combatants and of course even out of trained combatants plenty of females outdo the males in a variety of categories (especially when flexibility and agility matter in a close combat with a lot of obstacles around).
gg, looking forward to final
I thought that before a single word was typed.
Both are competent debaters who understand the mechanics of resolutions and semantics so I'm not sure why Oromagi agreed to this since all Whiteflame had to do was continually dance around the fact they went back on the timing and justify that it was 'fairly supervised' in spite of that.
Oromagi fixated on MEEPs but nothing about the resolution insists that adherence to MEEPs is a prerequisite for fair supervision, Whiteflame instantly capitalises on this in his ARG1.
Lol.
Sad, the depths...
gods do bleed, it would seem
https://i.imgur.com/bxwdyoV.gif
I think 'unit' especially makes women have advantages (they tend to be more geared to teamwork utility than solo utility) but if it comes down to pure, raw combat and both are at the peak of their respective sex's capacity, then yes the best male trained spies/assassins/mercenaries etc are superior at combat than the best trained females.
So, the real question is if they are continually operating as a unit or rather they function as a unit but often end up 1v1 in the combat.
If it's the former, I can see a case for Con, if it's the latter, I can see a case for Pro.
Obviously civid was shit in reality. You can't debate Pro on this topic without tactical twisting of context.
To me, 'religion' is a matter of con artistry, lazy thinking and fairytale telling.
Actual theology is linked to philosophy and quantum physics and goes far deeper than some nice story.
I didn't really describe my religious outlook in that 'invent a religion' debate I had. I just went for some seemingly good storyline of reality that's catchy and avoided any direct plagiarism of polytheistic religions.
Ramshutu was the only voter, that secured my defeat tbh.
It was easy for you to win when you lost against me too
I find it entertaining to read this because you both seem to have the exact opposite set of strengths to each other, meaning it will be a very different but interesting final no matter who wins.
Not a challenge, just beaten you.
I literally have an example of you doing it and can show anybody the provocation and the ridiculousness of your RFD.
If you think ComputerNerd outdebated me in this debate, you have no idea what debating is and probably just think it means being on the right side of it as opposed to having debated one's side better.
No, he wasn't. I did anticipate your spite-vote coming though.