You say stupid, it's a fact children know less and think less well than adults. You can bullshit all you want. That's the entire reason it's wrong to take advantage of them, they're naive and vulnerable.
I suggest you watch your next words carefully, spreading shit about me hating children or whatever.
I would die to protect children in an emergency especially if they're related to me or to someone close to me. You don't know shit about me to say that.
they were very possible to fake and were indeed faked but not only has nevets blocked me which means i can't accept his debates but this debate has very little understanding from voters usually so it's a waste of effort for Con to try.
I have had enough of you, this is the limit where I am done tolerating your bullcrap bias. Your RFD showed 0 brainpower applied to the Pro's case or understanding of my side even as a concept.
This is getting so ridiculous that you vote Sources based on even more bullshit than that. My sources were reliable and very well used. Censor did not mean 'more than already is', it is never once said this is the case in the resolution or description, you decided to not apply tabula rasa and be a prick with your vote.
This is it, I am done with you. I have tolerated your shit votes long enough, I used to admire you but you are now the ultimate bullshiter whether it's bsh1's debate agaisnt me or this. Sure, you are smart and you put effort in but that doesn't mean anything when you are just loading your opinion into an RFD that barely has anything to do with the actual case of Pro when you analysed it.
No he didn't invent much at all, he got credit for other's work. Gravity wasn't his idea, the apple story was invented by others he hired to make a captivating lie.
Being a snitch is an underrated overly mocked tactic.
Bait your bullies into bullying you in front of witnesses who will be honest or authority figures and they're fucked when and if they go too far (such as the toilet incident).
Keep a diary/record of all the incidents, don't run to the teacher or campus leader or whatever immediately. Bide your time, wait for them to go too far and they won't touch you again unless they want to risk expulsion.
This doesn't work in super, extreme rough schools but in those places, you indeed can't avoid being bullied and instead need to strategise so your bullies find others easier to pick on.
I also have a very unusual take/taste because I think the Professor and his half-brother (this is an indirect spoiler, you don't know his brother is his brother at first) are not good/benevolent overall (professor is more good than his brother) and enjoy the series more when most dislike it I am quite sure.
Not only are you being a coward about this but you're also insulting everyone you haven't ruled out. I don't know why you keep doing that but I find it very immature.
Gravity should be visible on mountain, blue whales and skyscrapers. If massive things pull tjings to themw, even if it's weak, it should be a consistently visible and proportional thing.
It makes absolutely no sense that being massive pulls things to you, even as a magical, mystical thing it doesn't have any linl to real life seen proportionality.
That entire neptune thing is potentially a full on hoax and if it isn't it doesn't prove gravity just what appeared in the sky (which isn't necessarily what's actually out there, if it's a screen of sorts).
What G is, in Cavendish's experiment, is Torsion combined with the 9.8ms^2 thing I have said is a magical downwards pull for denser objects to fall through less dense ones at that rate. Cavendish committed several fallacies in assuming he was measuring gravity.
It took me some research but I am certain what I am saying here is accurate.
Trans people are outliers, among some within them, it's becoming more the norm as things become more dictated by an agenda that involves denying gender even exists, let alone biological sex.
one of many growing conflicts between feminism and 'full-on trans acceptance' that do occur.
I must reiterate, I am not transphobic, I am just not afraid to make a trans person admit what their biological sex is for OFFICIAL things that separate and study the statistics of people based on that, while absolutely respecting their pronouns.
When a Male-to-female can rob cis females of their medals (or even the FtM, because the opposite usually prefer to stay in the female sports, though exceptions to occur) it's an unfair advantage because of the undeniable DNA advantage (for trans females) and testosterone muscle-hardness etc advantage of trans males who still want to compete as females.
The problem is that sports isn't the only place it happens, it's just where it's most blatant. When trans females become counted as females for official affirmative action quotas, there is absolutely 100% an undeniable conflict. When a trans woman can enter a female washroom/bathroom, it defeats the core basis and purpose of such female-only safe zones, however I do understand why a trans female would feel uncomfortable entering a male-only bathroom/washroom and I am open to the idea of intersex bathrooms/washrooms becoming more commonplace to render it moot, however again this is only one blatant example. Let's say a group of women start a book club intended to not just be to discuss books but also a safe zone for the women to gossip (you cannot deny this happens, it's not sexist generalising it's a genuine thing females do), suddenly a trans female turns up and they reject her. They do not want to be branded as transphobic (and in no shape or form does this mean they are, since if they reject males from the book club or even another cis female, it doesn't mean they hate that person's gender identity), the problem is at what stage is society allowed and not allowed to blackmail those females to artificially need to feign social acceptance of someone to avoid being branded as something that can destroy their careers and livelihood.
This is happening already in certain places, namely in the UK with people such as JK Rowling who is very vocal of her stance. The issue here is that sexism is about sex, not gender. It used to be the two (sex and gender) were fairly identical so 'feminism' covered both at once, I agree to the idea that the term has to be more specifically defined as anti-sexism, not anti-genderism because it is indeed anti-sexism. Egalitarians include mens rights activists (which should be called masculists but that would maybe trigger some people as seeming offensive).
I'm not offending anyone. Whole world agrees with me.
You say stupid, it's a fact children know less and think less well than adults. You can bullshit all you want. That's the entire reason it's wrong to take advantage of them, they're naive and vulnerable.
I suggest you watch your next words carefully, spreading shit about me hating children or whatever.
I would die to protect children in an emergency especially if they're related to me or to someone close to me. You don't know shit about me to say that.
Put a penalty mark on whiteflame for this RFD please. I report primarily for the sources point allocation.
they were very possible to fake and were indeed faked but not only has nevets blocked me which means i can't accept his debates but this debate has very little understanding from voters usually so it's a waste of effort for Con to try.
I have had enough of you, this is the limit where I am done tolerating your bullcrap bias. Your RFD showed 0 brainpower applied to the Pro's case or understanding of my side even as a concept.
This is getting so ridiculous that you vote Sources based on even more bullshit than that. My sources were reliable and very well used. Censor did not mean 'more than already is', it is never once said this is the case in the resolution or description, you decided to not apply tabula rasa and be a prick with your vote.
This is it, I am done with you. I have tolerated your shit votes long enough, I used to admire you but you are now the ultimate bullshiter whether it's bsh1's debate agaisnt me or this. Sure, you are smart and you put effort in but that doesn't mean anything when you are just loading your opinion into an RFD that barely has anything to do with the actual case of Pro when you analysed it.
coward, voting so it can't be removed in last minute.
No he didn't invent much at all, he got credit for other's work. Gravity wasn't his idea, the apple story was invented by others he hired to make a captivating lie.
Einstein could run circles around newton and still beat the shit out of him intellectually. Stop bullshitting.
Pls help get fair votes
bump
@Nevets
Your vote makes no sense at all even though you voted for me
"Tank Girls"
I gave a remix, not the original, in case someone is listening by searching the song, it's the 8Er$ remix of it.
You may want to vote.
That is revenge then, which I didn't say was important. Payback and retribution are revenge, it's just semantics.
I said that when your bully dominates you by breaking the rules, you need to use the rules to defend yourself. It's not a coward move.
yes five rounds 1 per round
I meant from Con, not Pro in my Round 4.
I forgot to mention kavita seth
I love Krewella.
Never ever let anyone treat you like a bitch for too long, too severely. You have ways out almost always, get them caught, be smart.
Being a snitch is an underrated overly mocked tactic.
Bait your bullies into bullying you in front of witnesses who will be honest or authority figures and they're fucked when and if they go too far (such as the toilet incident).
Keep a diary/record of all the incidents, don't run to the teacher or campus leader or whatever immediately. Bide your time, wait for them to go too far and they won't touch you again unless they want to risk expulsion.
This doesn't work in super, extreme rough schools but in those places, you indeed can't avoid being bullied and instead need to strategise so your bullies find others easier to pick on.
I forgot to switch Points system to winner selection, I hope this doesn't affect who ends up winning or not with different point splits.
I think that will spoil too much to even answer.
I also have a very unusual take/taste because I think the Professor and his half-brother (this is an indirect spoiler, you don't know his brother is his brother at first) are not good/benevolent overall (professor is more good than his brother) and enjoy the series more when most dislike it I am quite sure.
nevets at it again, pure votebomb reasoning ignore's Pro's flawed neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Heist
define 'we' and 'should' and I will probably take it. Also 15k chars or nearer to that than 5k
"You talking shit behind my back? That really pisses me off." Exclaims Undefeatable while exiting the cubicle.
"You caught us red handed but we caught you with your pants down." Say the fake friends while fist bumping.
Not only are you being a coward about this but you're also insulting everyone you haven't ruled out. I don't know why you keep doing that but I find it very immature.
Why can't fourtrouble and blamonkey accept the debate
Next time I'll post 'you suck' instead of a forfeit. That means they have to consider arguments.
'might have' is a truism
You voting doesn't fix the core problem but thank you.
"And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
There is nothing short of an issue of competence of moderator when you think this should be the case.
Yes I would prefer that actually, if you can't see the flaw and correct the writing then I'd prefer you apply it with common sense.
please quit your role as a voting moderator.
Thanks for the vote. :)
A magical fact of nature needn't be gravity.
Gravity should be visible on mountain, blue whales and skyscrapers. If massive things pull tjings to themw, even if it's weak, it should be a consistently visible and proportional thing.
It makes absolutely no sense that being massive pulls things to you, even as a magical, mystical thing it doesn't have any linl to real life seen proportionality.
Definitions, time-limits-for-abortion-from-conception and the specific, detailed definition of 'valuable' are necessary.
That entire neptune thing is potentially a full on hoax and if it isn't it doesn't prove gravity just what appeared in the sky (which isn't necessarily what's actually out there, if it's a screen of sorts).
What G is, in Cavendish's experiment, is Torsion combined with the 9.8ms^2 thing I have said is a magical downwards pull for denser objects to fall through less dense ones at that rate. Cavendish committed several fallacies in assuming he was measuring gravity.
It took me some research but I am certain what I am saying here is accurate.
Welcome to the website and all its dirty ways.
The debate is finished now, if you want to vote.
I'm specifically referring to sports and affirmative action quotas. Those are the two primary clashes.
So, norm or not, do you agree or disagree with denying that trans-female athlete the eight to rob cis females of their medals? Yes or no.
In an official form that asks for your sex, some want an 'other' or 'prefer not to say' option, while others will lie.
It is considered transphobic to count a trans male as female sex in an affirmative action stat and vice versa with trans females.
Trans people are outliers, among some within them, it's becoming more the norm as things become more dictated by an agenda that involves denying gender even exists, let alone biological sex.
one of many growing conflicts between feminism and 'full-on trans acceptance' that do occur.
I must reiterate, I am not transphobic, I am just not afraid to make a trans person admit what their biological sex is for OFFICIAL things that separate and study the statistics of people based on that, while absolutely respecting their pronouns.
When a Male-to-female can rob cis females of their medals (or even the FtM, because the opposite usually prefer to stay in the female sports, though exceptions to occur) it's an unfair advantage because of the undeniable DNA advantage (for trans females) and testosterone muscle-hardness etc advantage of trans males who still want to compete as females.
The problem is that sports isn't the only place it happens, it's just where it's most blatant. When trans females become counted as females for official affirmative action quotas, there is absolutely 100% an undeniable conflict. When a trans woman can enter a female washroom/bathroom, it defeats the core basis and purpose of such female-only safe zones, however I do understand why a trans female would feel uncomfortable entering a male-only bathroom/washroom and I am open to the idea of intersex bathrooms/washrooms becoming more commonplace to render it moot, however again this is only one blatant example. Let's say a group of women start a book club intended to not just be to discuss books but also a safe zone for the women to gossip (you cannot deny this happens, it's not sexist generalising it's a genuine thing females do), suddenly a trans female turns up and they reject her. They do not want to be branded as transphobic (and in no shape or form does this mean they are, since if they reject males from the book club or even another cis female, it doesn't mean they hate that person's gender identity), the problem is at what stage is society allowed and not allowed to blackmail those females to artificially need to feign social acceptance of someone to avoid being branded as something that can destroy their careers and livelihood.
This is happening already in certain places, namely in the UK with people such as JK Rowling who is very vocal of her stance. The issue here is that sexism is about sex, not gender. It used to be the two (sex and gender) were fairly identical so 'feminism' covered both at once, I agree to the idea that the term has to be more specifically defined as anti-sexism, not anti-genderism because it is indeed anti-sexism. Egalitarians include mens rights activists (which should be called masculists but that would maybe trigger some people as seeming offensive).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ-bO2GFJdg
not really, please see my other debate with him to see why it's wrong from all angles.
Correct