The one that actually voted Airmax in the election (goon or fan, I think it was fan) is actually ShabShoral who had his main closed for it. I noticed that.
As for the other, I admit to having no clue, I was thinking maybe it's spacetime but yeah, I got no clue as it could even be mikal since the alt was shut down.
I think there's ways you're technically wrong but non-technically, esp with voters who were brought in last-minute back from the dead and violate the spirit of certain rules, I agree with you entirely.
Against me, you wouldn't be at a massive disadvantage with them. My boredom at how tedious they are is a major drawback for me. This is gonna be fun and when I find it fun, I'm dangerous ;)
Firstly there is a type of biscuit that genuinely is like bread, however since your wikipedia was more the other kind this is open to 'debate' indeed.
Upon some further research, I do agree with you especially if we are talking savoury biscuits. Both are very dry, for instance and if you include the filling and fluid covering of cakes as part of the cake, cakes are not nearly as dry. I can think of many points for Pro here and only a simple point of sweetness for Con.
The other points are relatively neutral in terms of ingredients as both bread and cake deviate from biscuits.
Life is 100% unfair and all those fucked over by it should feel rage and bitter resentment
and
Life is let's say 65% unfair even, within the 35% is still stuff you can't really help as you're only human and have limitations with how much of a situation you knew you could take advantage of vs what you did and how strategic and tactical you are.
The former mentality is black pill and incel mentality and leads to very bad mindsets in life that are either suicidal, homicidal or at the very least abusive. All such people need therapy or at least need to realise they are somehow wrong.
The latter mentality, which I'd say I have, is much more 'fuck it, let's use that 35% as best as we can and just roll with it'.
Some people are born with more advantages than others, life isn't fair, am I supposed to disagree with that? You seem to be strawmanning the Con side of this debate if you think that it is completely denying that life is unfair.
Genes are part of why it's unfair, you're not wrong. We are not all clones and don't all have as wealthy or as loving families.
I think the first data to show you is that wealth matters more than talent, if we talk trends. Again refer to 2-posts-ago from me for deeper explanation:
HOWEVER you seem to want proof of a link between being wealthy now and DNA that makes you more likely to have traits that can be used to your advantage, not only due to the wealth, that comes here:
If you specifically mean politics as in the electable 'face' types, people do indeed have a habit of associating height with 'I wanna vote that dude', not people like you and myself perhaps but people who aren't very critical thinkers and vote on impulse.
In the past, the wealthy could mate with taller and 'sexier' people and over time, the smarter could as well depending on their people-skills as all kinds of competition happened.
This means that the DNA of people who happen to be born wealthier often is also more likely to be people who are taller but in terms of attractiveness it's not a guarantee as such for sure (because rich men who are ugly can easily date gold-digger types and I say that without resentment, finding love is another matter).
Let me put it a different way to you, it is very unlikely that someone born into an already successful family is themselves BOTH ugly, unintelligent, physically weak AND emotionally unstable. If they are all 4, they're in the minority of the wealthy, not the norm. Yes, I would consider Donald Trump an anomaly but he's not super weak physically, just overall poor in the other areas and selectively lazy if he feels he can get away with it.
In general, you will find that due to this trend, your relationship ends up true (but backwards as to why) due to the things I explained in the previous post.
We are continuing from here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3291/comment-links/40371
I am now going to reveal the crucial way your thinking has tricked you into incel propaganda and where the correlation starts to fall short.
Firstly, notice how you repeatedly order your relationships between data in the comments in that debate vs me you suddenly said this:
"There is a correlation between being ugly and having an averagely lower income. The statistics I used take into account a person's starting socio-economic starting place, their education, etc. especially on the suicide rates for shorter men in Sweden."
Okay, now try and first reverse it and word it like this:
There is a correlation between being having an averagely lower income and ending up less attractive. The statistics I used take into account a person's starting socio-economic starting place, their education, etc.
Suddenly, your brain can SEE another path by which the relationship is drawn (this isn't an insult, I am trying to show you how involuntary confirmation bias is plaguing your entire Rounds of this 'black pill' debate and how people get sucked into a deep bitterness over things they don't need to hate).
So, first let's concede a little bit, played over many generations of the past, the wealthier and more physically built males were able to get physically attractive females and so over time at least for the females your correlation probably has truth to it. The past was sexist, there's not really any debating that while we evolved as a species that power and status as well as strength landed you hotter babes that other men would want back then it honestly overall was that way and the women sought a protector more than a hot guy, which begins to really reverse the dynamic of 'black pill' by suggesting males led to this.
Secondly, consider that throughout a poor person's life, they get less access to good nutrition growing up, much more stress (while studying at 16 they're already seeking physically demanding parttime employment just to make ends meet for their family and barely can study at home, needing to almost always share a room with someone else). So, combine the malnourishment with stress as well as total lack of money to go to good gyms, good health physicians, good (or better than good) psychiatrists etc... Suddenly the etc backfires on YOU and it starts to make sense that not only that adds up but AGAIN, if you reverse the evolutionary clock and combine it with the nutrition and stress, that taller, stronger adults happen to be correlated with higher income households.
You're only looking at the end-result, that they ended up richer but most rich people were born richer... Just how it works. So, start to think sociologically rather than purely biologically and a lot more starts to play into it.
Do I have your permission to take this comments spat to the comments of you-and-Benjamin's debate? Firstly to avoid derailing Bones' debate and secondly so you realise I am holding back so far to not aid Benjamin mid-debate.
The same way that you can pretend there's an objective measure of attractiveness is how I can 'pretend' that males are more looks-oriented than women are when it comes to intimate relationships.
It's actually why males are more responsive to pornography even after female-friendly porn exists and why females are much more responsive to the literature of that sort. If you want, try to fact-check me on this and study the psychology of each sex (since we're sticking to biology, 'gender' is actually the wrong term here).
Firstly, I think you're undermining disgusting incel culture is. I genuinely have got no issue at all with people who want to get laid and for whatever reason struggle to. I have an issue when it's just furious men who are actually (almost) homicidal with rage and they feel women are filthy look-seeking monsters when really us guys are the much more look-oriented pricks in the dating arena, be real with me it's true.
I'm not that looks-oriented but you and I both agree there is something called unattractive, sexually speaking where you can be great friends with that woman/man but they aren't gonna be somebody you fuck and have a long term relationship with as a spouse. I am not saying you're evil for that aspect but what level of rage, resentment and blame will this go to?
Furthermore, this seems to go WAY beyond dating for you. I don't want to help Benjamin too much with the debate, so I will go quiet for now but the biggest flaw in your case is correlation =/= causation especially with the wealth/rank, I'll explain the rest when the debate is too far in for Benjamin to mimic my rebuttals.
You are the only debater I have ever seen who uses the animal-foetus dynamic to defend the position, other than myself (and I tend to stick to that informally not in the debating arena).
I like what I see from you in this debate, less so in your 'black pill' debate.
"If 'works' means that the workers seizing the means of production leads to the economic power of the nation reducing, this happens each and every time."
I MADE A MISTAKE IT IS OBVIOUS PLEASE
I meant to say that if 'doesn't work' means that... I'll explain in next round...
Please, it's really obvious I meant the opposite to what I said when saying 'this happens each and every time.' I didn't mean that it works every time, I meant the literal opposite, I apologise for my miswording.
“In a world growing increasingly banal and familiar, what seems enigmatic instantly draws attention. Never make it too clear what you are doing or about to do. Do not show all your cards. An air of mystery heightens your presence; it also creates anticipation -- everyone will be watching you to see what happens next. Use mystery to beguile, seduce, even frighten.”
― Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power
Sad, the things you need to pull to get a win.
if I wanted to fight fair, I would take unrated ;)
Na, I do believe in fighting with honour but in terms of twisting things in my favour, I'm gonna do that. It's how to competitively debate.
The one that actually voted Airmax in the election (goon or fan, I think it was fan) is actually ShabShoral who had his main closed for it. I noticed that.
As for the other, I admit to having no clue, I was thinking maybe it's spacetime but yeah, I got no clue as it could even be mikal since the alt was shut down.
oh yeah you are right. The rating is even stranger. He could have just done it as a challenge-debate.
1.69k char per round...
the 100th debate we all were waiting for...
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/roblox/images/d/d9/Terrain.jpg
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/minecraft/images/8/81/Dirt_server.png
This is what you're both looking forward to happening: https://c.tenor.com/t7ej-yTiuz0AAAAC/jet-li-wushu.gif
This is what's about to happen: https://media0.giphy.com/media/STkGhKiD9sC9eK6cyo/giphy-downsized-large.gif
whiteflame isn't gonna accept this, he's like you, skulking around afraid to lose rating.
Why is the max character per Round so low and is this debate only for Whiteflame?
The head mod is Whiteflame and the deputy is Supadudz btw, MC isn't a mod anymore technically.
I think there's ways you're technically wrong but non-technically, esp with voters who were brought in last-minute back from the dead and violate the spirit of certain rules, I agree with you entirely.
Freedom is very important to Sandbox games but I will refrain from debating in the comments section other than to say that.
Against me, you wouldn't be at a massive disadvantage with them. My boredom at how tedious they are is a major drawback for me. This is gonna be fun and when I find it fun, I'm dangerous ;)
I actually think this type of debate is not your strongest, I've seen you debate something similar before, so I will try my best.
I've formed some ideas since making that post that actually can defeat it.
Firstly there is a type of biscuit that genuinely is like bread, however since your wikipedia was more the other kind this is open to 'debate' indeed.
Upon some further research, I do agree with you especially if we are talking savoury biscuits. Both are very dry, for instance and if you include the filling and fluid covering of cakes as part of the cake, cakes are not nearly as dry. I can think of many points for Pro here and only a simple point of sweetness for Con.
The other points are relatively neutral in terms of ingredients as both bread and cake deviate from biscuits.
I would like to report Crocodile's vote which I did flag but it was with only 8+ hours left.
Please notice that it's not an acceptable laziness for a tie-vote as this is not a troll debate.
this is wintrading.
DDO has many glitches, even if you think a debater there is good, this site is better.
That was not in your debate rules, you cannot just set a rule after the debate begins just because you made it.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/05/south-korea-suicide-rates-mental-illness-squid-game/
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2021/07/119_312404.html
There is a difference between:
Life is 100% unfair and all those fucked over by it should feel rage and bitter resentment
and
Life is let's say 65% unfair even, within the 35% is still stuff you can't really help as you're only human and have limitations with how much of a situation you knew you could take advantage of vs what you did and how strategic and tactical you are.
The former mentality is black pill and incel mentality and leads to very bad mindsets in life that are either suicidal, homicidal or at the very least abusive. All such people need therapy or at least need to realise they are somehow wrong.
The latter mentality, which I'd say I have, is much more 'fuck it, let's use that 35% as best as we can and just roll with it'.
Some people are born with more advantages than others, life isn't fair, am I supposed to disagree with that? You seem to be strawmanning the Con side of this debate if you think that it is completely denying that life is unfair.
Genes are part of why it's unfair, you're not wrong. We are not all clones and don't all have as wealthy or as loving families.
Oh I'm sure, the researchers tell you that if you are not getting laid and feel hard done by genes and life to act like this (this post is sarcasm):
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/14/uk/plymouth-shooting-incel-jake-davison-profile-intl/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019089834/police-foiled-an-ohio-incels-plot-to-kill-women-in-a-mass-shooting-prosecutors-s
Please stop denying that it is just about rage and deep seething hatred.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1olaz9/were_rich_class_people_taller_than_commoners/
It's also nutrition from childhood and general habits of how one carries themselves that the parents do/don't correct.
I think the first data to show you is that wealth matters more than talent, if we talk trends. Again refer to 2-posts-ago from me for deeper explanation:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-born-rich-vs-talented-20181010-story.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6261249/Children-wealthy-parents-successful-gifted-kids-born-low-income-families.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/money-academic-success-us-college-intelligence-born-rich-genomics-new-york-university-a8585821.html
HOWEVER you seem to want proof of a link between being wealthy now and DNA that makes you more likely to have traits that can be used to your advantage, not only due to the wealth, that comes here:
https://qz.com/1292691/researchers-have-identified-a-link-between-genetics-and-wealth-inequality/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5934673/Being-rich-successful-really-genes-study-suggests.html
the problem is that many sources I can use here can be twisted by you to support the reverse-causation type thing.
https://guardian.ng/features/being-rich-and-successful-is-in-your-dna/
Like this ^
If you specifically mean politics as in the electable 'face' types, people do indeed have a habit of associating height with 'I wanna vote that dude', not people like you and myself perhaps but people who aren't very critical thinkers and vote on impulse.
What you don't get is this.
In the past, the wealthy could mate with taller and 'sexier' people and over time, the smarter could as well depending on their people-skills as all kinds of competition happened.
This means that the DNA of people who happen to be born wealthier often is also more likely to be people who are taller but in terms of attractiveness it's not a guarantee as such for sure (because rich men who are ugly can easily date gold-digger types and I say that without resentment, finding love is another matter).
Let me put it a different way to you, it is very unlikely that someone born into an already successful family is themselves BOTH ugly, unintelligent, physically weak AND emotionally unstable. If they are all 4, they're in the minority of the wealthy, not the norm. Yes, I would consider Donald Trump an anomaly but he's not super weak physically, just overall poor in the other areas and selectively lazy if he feels he can get away with it.
In general, you will find that due to this trend, your relationship ends up true (but backwards as to why) due to the things I explained in the previous post.
can I be clear on something...
Is your claim that shorter men and less attractive people have a harder time charming people in their life, as a trend?
I'd agree to that and nothing more that you're suggesting.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3295/comment-links/40372
We are continuing from here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3291/comment-links/40371
I am now going to reveal the crucial way your thinking has tricked you into incel propaganda and where the correlation starts to fall short.
Firstly, notice how you repeatedly order your relationships between data in the comments in that debate vs me you suddenly said this:
"There is a correlation between being ugly and having an averagely lower income. The statistics I used take into account a person's starting socio-economic starting place, their education, etc. especially on the suicide rates for shorter men in Sweden."
Okay, now try and first reverse it and word it like this:
There is a correlation between being having an averagely lower income and ending up less attractive. The statistics I used take into account a person's starting socio-economic starting place, their education, etc.
Suddenly, your brain can SEE another path by which the relationship is drawn (this isn't an insult, I am trying to show you how involuntary confirmation bias is plaguing your entire Rounds of this 'black pill' debate and how people get sucked into a deep bitterness over things they don't need to hate).
So, first let's concede a little bit, played over many generations of the past, the wealthier and more physically built males were able to get physically attractive females and so over time at least for the females your correlation probably has truth to it. The past was sexist, there's not really any debating that while we evolved as a species that power and status as well as strength landed you hotter babes that other men would want back then it honestly overall was that way and the women sought a protector more than a hot guy, which begins to really reverse the dynamic of 'black pill' by suggesting males led to this.
Secondly, consider that throughout a poor person's life, they get less access to good nutrition growing up, much more stress (while studying at 16 they're already seeking physically demanding parttime employment just to make ends meet for their family and barely can study at home, needing to almost always share a room with someone else). So, combine the malnourishment with stress as well as total lack of money to go to good gyms, good health physicians, good (or better than good) psychiatrists etc... Suddenly the etc backfires on YOU and it starts to make sense that not only that adds up but AGAIN, if you reverse the evolutionary clock and combine it with the nutrition and stress, that taller, stronger adults happen to be correlated with higher income households.
You're only looking at the end-result, that they ended up richer but most rich people were born richer... Just how it works. So, start to think sociologically rather than purely biologically and a lot more starts to play into it.
Do I have your permission to take this comments spat to the comments of you-and-Benjamin's debate? Firstly to avoid derailing Bones' debate and secondly so you realise I am holding back so far to not aid Benjamin mid-debate.
The same way that you can pretend there's an objective measure of attractiveness is how I can 'pretend' that males are more looks-oriented than women are when it comes to intimate relationships.
It's actually why males are more responsive to pornography even after female-friendly porn exists and why females are much more responsive to the literature of that sort. If you want, try to fact-check me on this and study the psychology of each sex (since we're sticking to biology, 'gender' is actually the wrong term here).
Firstly, I think you're undermining disgusting incel culture is. I genuinely have got no issue at all with people who want to get laid and for whatever reason struggle to. I have an issue when it's just furious men who are actually (almost) homicidal with rage and they feel women are filthy look-seeking monsters when really us guys are the much more look-oriented pricks in the dating arena, be real with me it's true.
I'm not that looks-oriented but you and I both agree there is something called unattractive, sexually speaking where you can be great friends with that woman/man but they aren't gonna be somebody you fuck and have a long term relationship with as a spouse. I am not saying you're evil for that aspect but what level of rage, resentment and blame will this go to?
Furthermore, this seems to go WAY beyond dating for you. I don't want to help Benjamin too much with the debate, so I will go quiet for now but the biggest flaw in your case is correlation =/= causation especially with the wealth/rank, I'll explain the rest when the debate is too far in for Benjamin to mimic my rebuttals.
You are the only debater I have ever seen who uses the animal-foetus dynamic to defend the position, other than myself (and I tend to stick to that informally not in the debating arena).
I like what I see from you in this debate, less so in your 'black pill' debate.
This is a very strange debate, depends how each side ends up defining 'ultimate good'.
I'll rep Roblox. I also unironically agree with that Roblox is better.
I am not disagreeing with anything there. I'm sad this was just a 1-voter decider.
Btw it's spelled 'necessary'.
Everything has value in a certain context.
Increase the character count to 20k or thereabouts and I'll accept.
I will run an interesting Kritik as well as good rebuttals to what you bring forth.
Unblock me and I'll take this. Also, change characters to 17000 or more per Round please.
the guy you called 'someone who apparently doesn't breathe' is from the duo Outkast
the thief has access to your gmail account? They knew the passcode or had a way to bypass it?
That is SERIOUS, it is worse than them just selling it for parts or resetting the phone to use it.
does this debate count as FF by Pro?
If so, will you vote? Thanks
While that is terrible, you can try and access the email elsewhere.
Sorry to hear it, hopefully you can afford one soon,
"If 'works' means that the workers seizing the means of production leads to the economic power of the nation reducing, this happens each and every time."
I MADE A MISTAKE IT IS OBVIOUS PLEASE
I meant to say that if 'doesn't work' means that... I'll explain in next round...
Please, it's really obvious I meant the opposite to what I said when saying 'this happens each and every time.' I didn't mean that it works every time, I meant the literal opposite, I apologise for my miswording.
“In a world growing increasingly banal and familiar, what seems enigmatic instantly draws attention. Never make it too clear what you are doing or about to do. Do not show all your cards. An air of mystery heightens your presence; it also creates anticipation -- everyone will be watching you to see what happens next. Use mystery to beguile, seduce, even frighten.”
― Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power
https://alexanderemmanual.medium.com/law-6-court-attention-at-all-costs-63132007d214
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/hisd-teacher-who-called-muslims-goat-fuckers-challenges-quanell-x-over-racism-accusations-6739740
https://www.vulture.com/2016/04/meet-the-german-comedian-whose-racist-joke-caused-an-international-crisis.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/JUSTNOMIL/comments/6pa710/motherinlaw_calls_me_goat_fucker_terrorist_and/
feeling is far from mutual, don't accept my debates again thanks.