I said what you said but lowered it to 3 for example where .9999 becomes an awkward 2.999999 with a seven at the end. Such examples indeed proved it can't possibly be equal to the number that when multiplied by 3 makes 3.0000... however, voters here aren't all intelligent... So yeah
You're Con to it beinf equal to 1? I agree and have doscussed it in 2-3, iterations of the debate in my earlier days here (not earliest but close to it). Did you read them?
Don't accuse me of things you have absolutely no proof of.
I can indeed support speeding fines and law enforcement while having done it in the past, nonetheless I myself do not and never intend to.
The only time it's a remotely morally grey area is in a scenario where absolutely everything about the area and time of day makes it blatant that no human being or vehicle (animals maybe) will get in the way but even then the speed limit absolutely must be legally obeyed.
This. This is why Pro's case ended up going from (as zedvictor4 says in the comments section) an absolute truism to an absolute falsism.
If we look at the definition given in the description and see how things play out, what both sides fail to properly address is what 'around' means, though this is correct strategy from Con since the amiguity of 'around' is in fact the biggest hole in Pro's case which Con correctly exploits.
To go 'around' the monkey is never once specified by Pro to require the man to encircle the BODY of the monkey from ALL ANGLES, instead what Con points out is the following, in Round 1:
"Walking around or encircling does not require the monkey to face in one direction. After all, the man would still have encircled the pole if he faced the pole at all times or without regard to what direction he faced."
He also earlier points out, in the same Round:
"The only thing that changed is the direction the monkey faced relative to the man; not the monkey's position relative to the pole, around which the man walked.
The man has "go[ne] around" or "encircled" the money. "
I do not really buy into the Round 2 arguments from Con nor do I think it's appropriate to bombard with the sources and fresh argumentation like the moon analogy in a Round that clearly should be used for conclusion and rebuttal (without new constructive to aid said rebuttal) only.
I would somewhat even have considered docking Con for sources since he chose to use absolutely 0 in Round 1 and bombard them only to show space theory but Pro's sources are merely dictionaries and a .com not entirely reliable website and in fact both sides use their sources too generically for me to apply the point. Con's sources themselves were probably of more reliable and high quality but not with regards to when and how they were wielded inside the debate (Pro never had his own chance to debunk Con's sources so I don't consider Con's turning of Pro's source against him in Round 2 as worthy of allocating the point to Con).
RFD 2/3
This is only a small part of why I give the Conduct point to Pro.
There is a very snide, arrogant tone throughout Con's argumentation that significantly is ramped up in Round 2. Let me give you some examples where totally unnecessary adjectives and snide comments are slipped into what could have been neutrally delivered argumentation:
"That he may no longer remain in his state of confusion."
"didn't understand these BASIC concepts of"
"as Pro AMUSINGLY claimed."
These were all made after Con himself tried to convince voters to give him the Conduct vote in the same Round.
Further comment (backwards in time):
"as any lucid reading of the prior round amply demonstrates"
This in fact is an appeal to emotion that preemptively insults the capacity of any voter who would vote against Con to have lucid awareness while reading the debate, however it actually is overally an insult to the opponent since it's structured inside of a section that insists Pro is deliberately misconstruing Con's rebuttals or lack thereof, meaning he is saying overall that either Pro is deliberately doing so or is not lucid while writing his debate Round.
Pro's comment about Con's understanding of physics was not really ad hominem but I agree with Con that it was definitely unnecessary (though Con went rather hypocritical). Nothing else Con mentions about Pro seems to be directly deserving of poor conduct voting. For instance, I see falsely narrating what the opponent is doing in a debate as clever, cunning debate tactics (as long as it's not totally absurd then it's just dumb but still not bad conduct UNLESS it is done with a tone that insults and talks down to the opponent and/or judges).
I would just like to quote something from Con's Round 1 that made me laugh a bit:
"Whether the monkey faced the man is of no consequence."
Notice the last word of this sentence. ^
"Consequently, I have won this debate. Vote CON."
The first word of this sentence tells me he wrote that paragraph so fast bursting to claim victory. That is not bad conduct, it just made me notice a tone and laugh.
RFD 3/3
Now, let me just secure my RFD with a quote or two from Pro, to prove I read his case.
"Thus, the monkey would be always be oriented to be towards the man, regardless of where they are in relation to the ground or the pole."
This is a good point and would work with a different definition of 'around', this sentence alone is a good start to securing victory with being Pro of the truism... Except, remember that 'around' is merely defined as encircling and this is where things became problematic. Since Con correctly explained that 'around the monkey' may merely be relative to an overall perspective of geometry, not to the monkey himself/herself.
In Round 2, Pro and Con both failed to do the one thing needed to absolutely secure victory: exploring the definition and application of 'around' but as I said earlier, that is correct avoidance by Con in that stage of the debate, since to even touch on what 'around' means beyond what was written in the debate's description could have caused Con to shoot himself in the foot, so to speak.
It is internal stimuli that defeat free will, not external stimuli alone.
The brain is entirely material and calling it a 'stimulant' of the thinking process would understate the effect it has on decisions, let alone hormones.
Ironically Pro has a point but he won't realise his point should lead to concluding flat earth theory (not on its own but definitely buuld skepticism to the absurdity of the moon always facing Earth vs the model)
He even outright lied about firstly the relative popularity of Go (in the 'Eastern' or mainland Asia it's extremely popular, just as respects as Chess is if not more so) and secondly, Chess tournaments last days, hours at a time, idk where he got the idea it's 90 mins max.
At the point of writing my Round 2 I got too bored to continue. He'd even violated the Kritik rule but explaining that would be a drag and just anger him while maybe also angering voters. His entire case is that popularity can kritik absolutely all other elements of a board game's value, that is his core case.
To be honest though, I have no idea how or why but I think I am finally becoming a less argumentative person. As in, I am changing as a person even IRL. I've begun to understand that proving someone wrong is a largely taxing and futile task if you can't prove them wrong with results/actions. If I have to explain to you why you are wrong and can't quickly 'show' you then far more often than not what will ensue is a waste of my time and energy and even worse can leave you respecting me and my outlook less than before.
I'd take this back when I loved debating but this is becoming a real dried up pastime for me.
The whole 'been there done that' and 'so what if I win, for all I know nobody will vote and if they do then so what' vibe is becoming a real demotivating factor. I'm enjoying other hobbies more now, as well as studies/job/life
There is no rule saying I need to say the board game, if you accentuate the logic of Chess, I'll agree with your points and push for the board game Go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)
If you accentuate the popularity of Chess, I'll probably take Monopoly or could even troll and go for snakes/chutes and ladders.
If you decide to go all-round and mention how Chess has even starred in movies, I'll disagree with your points, I'll go for the game of Risk and explore how much more it's affected the world than Chess.
This resolution and the ruleset don't box the opponent into anything that Pro isn't himself further boxed into, which makes this a secure win if I try my best as I'm also sure something like this will actually get votes and be worth my time and effort.
Male-sex individuals have a disproportionate advantage at the highest level of every single sport almost (gymnastics is debatable).
Sex, not gender. It's fucking biology. It's a fact. You can be a feminine male and be respected and be called 'she/her' in your daily life but don't for one second think you should be entitled to rob cis females of their medals, world-records etc by appealing to people's sympathies and fears of being called phobic of something.
In a few years time, myself and others will protest this horrible and unfair allowance of male-sex individuals to rob cis females of their hard-earned achievements.
I'm a left-wing progressive so your guilt trip won't work on me like it would/could on a truly transphobic right-winger.
I know exactly what I support and what is reasonable and what is nothing more than an abuse of sympathy to trans people to rob cis females of their medals.
oh I am totally and utterly against that too, I find it's a form of extremely irresponsible parenting. That permanently damages their body's development based on what could be a delusion or phase of a developing confused mind that can't legally consent yet.
I have real life promises and responsibilities that both interest me more and even matter more.
I also have other hobbies than wasting huge effort and time on 30k per round just to realise nobody votes or if they do, votes based on BS.
If you were curious how obviously wrong you are on this topic, read what Bones wrote and research how consistently male-sex individuals who spent puberty and adult years gaining bone density, muscle mass and generally big built etc perform even with lower testosterone than they used to have.
You are trans and still are the biological sex you were born as no matter what gender you TRANSfer to.
Society should adapt to care for your feelings regarding gender, not to denying your biological sex. Once we're at a stage where admitting or discussing the latter is taboo, we are at a stage where wrong medicine can be administered to someone and wrongly earned medals in female-sex sports are given to a biological male-sex female-gender individual.
Slap you with my *
led to a flame* not led you a flame
If you mean metal bottles that last for years then yeah, that's fine. If we talk the bottled Evian etc then na, I don't see how overall it's better.
pls do vote
oooooooh he showed up just on time to flex his sigma aura, that's that shit you like to see.
to be honest the 100 character amount makes it harder on Con, given what the topic is and that the default is to allow. It's also unrated.
just so you know that is just a gif with happy meal boxes, what it says isn't true, it's a URL to tenor.com.
thank you for this important happy meal mcdonalds testimony.
you're a dirty delta male
The accepted part
In essence, yes, this is predominantly semantic field of battle that comes down to the skill of both debaters.
I actually think that it's Pro who wins this if both sides play perfectly, though I won't reveal how or why.
In Round two I will justify why the changes themselves end up all being part of the reality, no matter what
I said what you said but lowered it to 3 for example where .9999 becomes an awkward 2.999999 with a seven at the end. Such examples indeed proved it can't possibly be equal to the number that when multiplied by 3 makes 3.0000... however, voters here aren't all intelligent... So yeah
You're Con to it beinf equal to 1? I agree and have doscussed it in 2-3, iterations of the debate in my earlier days here (not earliest but close to it). Did you read them?
I don't get it but alright
Don't accuse me of things you have absolutely no proof of.
I can indeed support speeding fines and law enforcement while having done it in the past, nonetheless I myself do not and never intend to.
The only time it's a remotely morally grey area is in a scenario where absolutely everything about the area and time of day makes it blatant that no human being or vehicle (animals maybe) will get in the way but even then the speed limit absolutely must be legally obeyed.
Breaking that speeding law can lead to you breaking that murder law.
This isn't at all a secured easy win, you know nothing about your opponent to determine that. They seem to know a lot about the game.
you broke the agreed structure in the description
I do not require assistance. I will win or lose this debate on my own merit.
I debated in every single one of the debates that got deleted.
I assume this means overpopulation of other species... If it means our own then that's blatantly true.
I debated type1 on an alt or two and had all of them deleted because they involved a banned user on an alt.
Either Bsh1 was wrong to do this and David is a lying scumbag when he says I did something wrong or you delete this.
RFD 1/3
"Around: in a circle or in circumference"
This. This is why Pro's case ended up going from (as zedvictor4 says in the comments section) an absolute truism to an absolute falsism.
If we look at the definition given in the description and see how things play out, what both sides fail to properly address is what 'around' means, though this is correct strategy from Con since the amiguity of 'around' is in fact the biggest hole in Pro's case which Con correctly exploits.
To go 'around' the monkey is never once specified by Pro to require the man to encircle the BODY of the monkey from ALL ANGLES, instead what Con points out is the following, in Round 1:
"Walking around or encircling does not require the monkey to face in one direction. After all, the man would still have encircled the pole if he faced the pole at all times or without regard to what direction he faced."
He also earlier points out, in the same Round:
"The only thing that changed is the direction the monkey faced relative to the man; not the monkey's position relative to the pole, around which the man walked.
The man has "go[ne] around" or "encircled" the money. "
I do not really buy into the Round 2 arguments from Con nor do I think it's appropriate to bombard with the sources and fresh argumentation like the moon analogy in a Round that clearly should be used for conclusion and rebuttal (without new constructive to aid said rebuttal) only.
I would somewhat even have considered docking Con for sources since he chose to use absolutely 0 in Round 1 and bombard them only to show space theory but Pro's sources are merely dictionaries and a .com not entirely reliable website and in fact both sides use their sources too generically for me to apply the point. Con's sources themselves were probably of more reliable and high quality but not with regards to when and how they were wielded inside the debate (Pro never had his own chance to debunk Con's sources so I don't consider Con's turning of Pro's source against him in Round 2 as worthy of allocating the point to Con).
RFD 2/3
This is only a small part of why I give the Conduct point to Pro.
There is a very snide, arrogant tone throughout Con's argumentation that significantly is ramped up in Round 2. Let me give you some examples where totally unnecessary adjectives and snide comments are slipped into what could have been neutrally delivered argumentation:
"That he may no longer remain in his state of confusion."
"didn't understand these BASIC concepts of"
"as Pro AMUSINGLY claimed."
These were all made after Con himself tried to convince voters to give him the Conduct vote in the same Round.
Further comment (backwards in time):
"as any lucid reading of the prior round amply demonstrates"
This in fact is an appeal to emotion that preemptively insults the capacity of any voter who would vote against Con to have lucid awareness while reading the debate, however it actually is overally an insult to the opponent since it's structured inside of a section that insists Pro is deliberately misconstruing Con's rebuttals or lack thereof, meaning he is saying overall that either Pro is deliberately doing so or is not lucid while writing his debate Round.
Pro's comment about Con's understanding of physics was not really ad hominem but I agree with Con that it was definitely unnecessary (though Con went rather hypocritical). Nothing else Con mentions about Pro seems to be directly deserving of poor conduct voting. For instance, I see falsely narrating what the opponent is doing in a debate as clever, cunning debate tactics (as long as it's not totally absurd then it's just dumb but still not bad conduct UNLESS it is done with a tone that insults and talks down to the opponent and/or judges).
I would just like to quote something from Con's Round 1 that made me laugh a bit:
"Whether the monkey faced the man is of no consequence."
Notice the last word of this sentence. ^
"Consequently, I have won this debate. Vote CON."
The first word of this sentence tells me he wrote that paragraph so fast bursting to claim victory. That is not bad conduct, it just made me notice a tone and laugh.
RFD 3/3
Now, let me just secure my RFD with a quote or two from Pro, to prove I read his case.
"Thus, the monkey would be always be oriented to be towards the man, regardless of where they are in relation to the ground or the pole."
This is a good point and would work with a different definition of 'around', this sentence alone is a good start to securing victory with being Pro of the truism... Except, remember that 'around' is merely defined as encircling and this is where things became problematic. Since Con correctly explained that 'around the monkey' may merely be relative to an overall perspective of geometry, not to the monkey himself/herself.
In Round 2, Pro and Con both failed to do the one thing needed to absolutely secure victory: exploring the definition and application of 'around' but as I said earlier, that is correct avoidance by Con in that stage of the debate, since to even touch on what 'around' means beyond what was written in the debate's description could have caused Con to shoot himself in the foot, so to speak.
It is internal stimuli that defeat free will, not external stimuli alone.
The brain is entirely material and calling it a 'stimulant' of the thinking process would understate the effect it has on decisions, let alone hormones.
Ironically Pro has a point but he won't realise his point should lead to concluding flat earth theory (not on its own but definitely buuld skepticism to the absurdity of the moon always facing Earth vs the model)
I won't forfeit this.
He even outright lied about firstly the relative popularity of Go (in the 'Eastern' or mainland Asia it's extremely popular, just as respects as Chess is if not more so) and secondly, Chess tournaments last days, hours at a time, idk where he got the idea it's 90 mins max.
At the point of writing my Round 2 I got too bored to continue. He'd even violated the Kritik rule but explaining that would be a drag and just anger him while maybe also angering voters. His entire case is that popularity can kritik absolutely all other elements of a board game's value, that is his core case.
To be honest though, I have no idea how or why but I think I am finally becoming a less argumentative person. As in, I am changing as a person even IRL. I've begun to understand that proving someone wrong is a largely taxing and futile task if you can't prove them wrong with results/actions. If I have to explain to you why you are wrong and can't quickly 'show' you then far more often than not what will ensue is a waste of my time and energy and even worse can leave you respecting me and my outlook less than before.
I think Pro can out kritik and semantically abuse the resolution vs Con, it's just gonna be time and effort demanding.
I'd take this back when I loved debating but this is becoming a real dried up pastime for me.
The whole 'been there done that' and 'so what if I win, for all I know nobody will vote and if they do then so what' vibe is becoming a real demotivating factor. I'm enjoying other hobbies more now, as well as studies/job/life
There is no rule saying I need to say the board game, if you accentuate the logic of Chess, I'll agree with your points and push for the board game Go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)
If you accentuate the popularity of Chess, I'll probably take Monopoly or could even troll and go for snakes/chutes and ladders.
If you decide to go all-round and mention how Chess has even starred in movies, I'll disagree with your points, I'll go for the game of Risk and explore how much more it's affected the world than Chess.
This resolution and the ruleset don't box the opponent into anything that Pro isn't himself further boxed into, which makes this a secure win if I try my best as I'm also sure something like this will actually get votes and be worth my time and effort.
Then it should be easy for you
Now 'inferior' changed to 'morally inferior', making my disagreement seem more of an overreaction.
If you aren't advocating for racism, don't give racists a platform to do so.
You just changed this to 'not' and changed yourself to Pro.
Fuck you and whoever takes Pro
Obvious why
Delete this debate
Now nothing, rats are loyal and not backstabbing creatures.
Wylted it's called being noble and actually believing in one's arguments and ability to debate.
Not everyone is scared shit to lose and has to hide their entire argument content each debate
Male-sex individuals have a disproportionate advantage at the highest level of every single sport almost (gymnastics is debatable).
Sex, not gender. It's fucking biology. It's a fact. You can be a feminine male and be respected and be called 'she/her' in your daily life but don't for one second think you should be entitled to rob cis females of their medals, world-records etc by appealing to people's sympathies and fears of being called phobic of something.
In a few years time, myself and others will protest this horrible and unfair allowance of male-sex individuals to rob cis females of their hard-earned achievements.
I'm a left-wing progressive so your guilt trip won't work on me like it would/could on a truly transphobic right-winger.
I know exactly what I support and what is reasonable and what is nothing more than an abuse of sympathy to trans people to rob cis females of their medals.
oh I am totally and utterly against that too, I find it's a form of extremely irresponsible parenting. That permanently damages their body's development based on what could be a delusion or phase of a developing confused mind that can't legally consent yet.
I have real life promises and responsibilities that both interest me more and even matter more.
I also have other hobbies than wasting huge effort and time on 30k per round just to realise nobody votes or if they do, votes based on BS.
If you were curious how obviously wrong you are on this topic, read what Bones wrote and research how consistently male-sex individuals who spent puberty and adult years gaining bone density, muscle mass and generally big built etc perform even with lower testosterone than they used to have.
Anyone who is Con to this topic doesn't give the slightest shit about female-sex athletes and their achievements.
You are trans and still are the biological sex you were born as no matter what gender you TRANSfer to.
Society should adapt to care for your feelings regarding gender, not to denying your biological sex. Once we're at a stage where admitting or discussing the latter is taboo, we are at a stage where wrong medicine can be administered to someone and wrongly earned medals in female-sex sports are given to a biological male-sex female-gender individual.
this person is using full N-word. ban
You are now blocked.