Ironically, you are wrong and so are MMA-supremacists.
MMA-supremacists believe thar MMA ring-fighting is the supreme sport environment to judge one's real world application of their martial arts. The reason Kung Fu is rarely the championed martial art of am MMA fighter is that they tend to specialise either in striking or grappling, not in swift combo maneuvers that revolve around dodging and turning aggression against the opponent, that makes for a weak MMA show.
Wrestling is great once you're neck and neck with the enemy, however even then, what will you do when a Kung Fu master uses their elbows and leg-positioning to make you incapable of maintaining the grapple?
A lot of MMA-supremacists talk about how now superstar champions Kung Fu, yet if they properly knew what Kung Fu was, so many of these MMA guys are using Kung Fu and Karate principles and footwork, let alone specific teachings of how to angle kicks and grappling that aren't part of their claimed martial art.
I have seen guy say they are thai boxers in MMA who are actually doing Karate style roundhouse instead of Muay Thai when they deliver the killer kick.
People think Kung Fu is just for show, instead it is one of the best martial arts for show because it has so much depth to it. It is a way of life.
Karate is also a way of life but a very aggressive one with a type of discipline that Kung Fu preaches differently. Both are 'deep' though, however Kung Fu is definitely 'deeper' and any Karate master would admit that because simplicity is an important aspect of how Karate combos are developed, whereas the highest level of Kung Fu involves extremely nuance, bluffing and calculated tactics in ways Karate does not.
I'm not keen on the hard rock song but that one punch man amv is incredible for the editing. The madoka one is extremely good and I don't always dig when it's a very 'cartoony' style anime but it's a really good AMV. I think I went with some one hit wonders whereas you tried to stick only to solid and consistent editors who specialise in AMVs (my first one that you like, is one of the only AMVs that user has done, she mainly does GMVs and Movie type stuff)
Yeah I wanted to use almost all of light raider's AMVs lol. They were almost all contenders but I knew overusing one editor wouldn't be a good idea just because on principle some would vote against and also it may not be the style some like. For instance, Light Raider constantly avoids stringing a story along and building with/to the song's lyrics in a significant way.
I don't regret any of my choices but I accept your taste. There's people into more hardcore or furious AMVs than the type you seem to primarily watch, so I wanted to appeal to them and I am even one of them. I like all kinds as long as there's good flow and matching to the song. Sometimes less editing with more matching the vibe and lyrics can counter Light Raider's edit-heavy style.
"no scientific or scholarly source can debunk NASA."
That's because if it does debunk NASA, the writer gets fired and the company disassociates themselves with the article or removes it completely from view. You have a lot to learn.
They said Saudis did it... Saudis, as in Saudi Arabian citizens and natives.
Then they bombed Afghanistan and Pakistan, demonised Iran while also claiming there were Nukes in Iraq yet what happened to Saudi?
Jack shit, that's what. Stay blinkered, it's not my issue. This is a very sensitive topic where it's too easy to demonise Con as not caring about what happened. Bush Jr. did filthy things to justify revenge for his father's legacy against Saddam Hussein (the most overt high-ranking opposer to American influence to the Middle East), you can believe what you want.
Truth is truth regardless of voting outcome. The same isn't true for debates. I also wouldn't do this even if it were unrated because at the true depth of the conspiracy comes things that aren't appropriate to type (especially not as now anything can suddenly be twisted to be a conspiracy about Covid, which is separate but too hot a topic).
I'd be much more open to an unrated debate about the feasibility of flat earth working physically (including me debunking newton's laws of mass vs force and gravity as an absolute truth).
If you're willing to have the debate where you prove flat earth physically unfeasible, I'd be open to it. This debate as it is now can't be won by Con due to bias and source authority.
Firstly, a formal debate is about reducing your opponent's persuasion of the audience, not at all about persuading the opponent.
Secondly, I have taken debates and lost enough to tell you that I know when a debate is unwinnable or not (if both sides play correctly). You will win this debate because I cannot and will not type out deep conspiracy theories.
This is not the place to do it. If you want to discuss and understand me or any flat earther, you need to first do so in an environment that doesn't allow gaslighting or 'my source has more authority than yours' dynamics. This environment always favours the round-earther.
This may have been edgy and funny in early 2000s but the world has moved tf on. This is just cringe af now.
When I say world, I mean world. Even sexist nations are starting to realise how futile it is to assume all women are equally feminine and wired the same and vice versa for men and masculinity.
Now let's observe Con try to explain why there is no such thing as reasonable corporal punishment other than extremee soft ends of the spectrum like making someone run laps.
Then let him prove you wrong on the long-term benefits.
Then let's see you say 'oh, but in the debate description it says you agree to only discuss reasonable and fair spanking of a booty and more'
Bugsy doesn't meet the minimum stat requirements to vote on debates. He hasn't completed 2 without any forfeits to the end of voting period, nor has he posted 100 forum posts.
There is a rule on this website that until the voting period is over a debater can't actively explain to a voter why their vote was 'wrong' other than by asking to look at a point in the debate. It is a rule known as 'anti-voter-manipulation' similar to the rule that bans revenge voting and quid pro quo win-win voting arrangements.
So, I can just encourage you to read the Round 2 you said I sacrificed my win condition on, I guarantee you that is the Round you have not properly read.
did you actually read my Round 2 at all? Your RFD implies you didn't, if that is your full RFD then this comment is my report of it to Ragnar and Misterchris
Ridiculous semantics. Corporal punishment isn't fucking reasonable, it barely teaches the children why what rhey did was even wrong in the first place. Physical pain is also less effective on females than males when it comes to controlling them. Feminine-minded individuals will firstly both accurately expose the school for what it's doing and willingly cry and tell how they were victimised. Secondly, it isn't bearly as effective as emotionally tough situations (sitting bored in detention, picking up litter in front of fellow students, having to make a public apology).
Masculine-minded students can initially respond better to this but it almost always leads to PTSD in the long run. Some get over it, others don't and becime abusers themselves due to deep subconscious scarring.
There is no corporal punishment that isn't abusive, which is also arguably effective. The abusive and effective punishment scars (psychologically at least) and damages in the long run. Therefore, the semantics in the debate description make this an unfair win for Pro.
I am left-wing and very pro-BLM but the violence cycle is indeed a cycle.
This is actually not just a racism issue of course (that is an issue with who they are more willingly aggressive with but this is an ancient thing from the beginning of our species to now).
The more aggressive wrongdoers are usually the initial aggressors in any new society. This inspires hostility from the enforcers of peace and order (not always cops in our species' history, sometimes more like antihero mafia).
These enforcers then start to forget that not every criminal is as brutal and fast-to-attack as the one or two who ended up killing or severley wounding one of their fellow policemen/policewomen. They begin to become vigilant, actively and passionately ready to 'disarm and disable' before the average criminal has even got over the initial panic and frustration with the sudden situation they've found themselves in.
This cycle has a next stage. People who are friends and families of the trodden upon, become increasingly hostile to said enforcers. People who would never before have spat at, verbally lashed out, really try and wrestle with and physically overpower the enforcers, suddenly are a lot more willing and ready to do so as they feel it's pure life or death and that these are pure-evil demons apprehending them.
This typically (in civilised societies) leads to reform and 'let's be friends again' from the government and law enforcement in a weaving limbo where the one or two criminals who really are rabid psychopaths, sociopaths etc kill off, severely wound, put-in-a-coma some cops and the partners get PTSD from it and vow to never let one of the criminals get the upper hand in a confrontation again. So on and so forth.
In other societies they never try to be friends again.
It is not nearly as simple as 'cops are the mean ones', I know they can be indeed but the initial aggressors in any society were typically the worst of criminals who traumatised the fellow cops and made them feel a deep need to be fast and brutal in their taking down of any criminal, in fear of what they'll do.
Also, within the FBI there are several distinct specialisations, one being what the standard agent is; literally it is called 'agent'.
You have:
Agent
Profiler
Explosives expert
Negotiation expert (work closely with profilers but specialise in negotiating with criminals in emergencies whereas profilers specialise in long-term, slow and deep reads on criminals).
Then you have the undercover specialists. Any agent can be undercover but the undercover specialists are specially trained in acting skills, rivalling the average professional actor in fact.
Then you have the IT technician (often could just as easily work for NSA).
The final category is director/leader, who began as other types.
You do have FBI-dedicated medics but you can't truly call them a branch of law enforcement.
I am very interested both in the youth getting quality education and in whether or not the Earth is Round or flat.
This debate is concerning neither of these things, it is a means of flexing one's muscle at being more cunning than the opponent in a 500 char per round shitshow.
Circles have 360 degrees. Additionally degrees aren't 'proven' by circling the Earth and then dividing it by 360, that is still proof it's circular, not necessarily spherical by any means of genuine deduction.
Upper class, as well as upper-middle class, Caucasians in 'western' societt have a more privileged life due both to prejudice amongst the elite as well as money itself and all the advantages that their
Relatives and their associates give them.
See that money aspect? Yeah, that's inherited, not earned, as are all their advantages. So, perhaps think a bit before typing your "both sides are equally wrong" edgy takes.
Even the middle class Caucasians tend to have an edge in opportunities and advantages vs their African-American and Carribean-American (and other black-ethnic variants) counterparts.
I am reporting both because I fully understand flat-earth theory and because the vote is simply unacceptably short and blatantly a result of confirmation bias.
I report FLRW's vote (I have had my ability to 'click-report' removed) and I report it because not only is it entirely insufficient to even begin to justify the 7 points (let alone the 3 for arguments) but because it highlights a classic bullshit tactic of round-earth proponents against the flat Earth's physical plausibility.
A plane will end up where it began on a circular flat Earth that has Antarctica as an outer edge (rather than an island).
You are confusing kung fu for karate or something. Kung fu isn't a strike-specific martial art, it's an extreme hybrid.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/AMR51/097/2011/en/
Read the PDF, solid stuff even ignoring 9/11.
Legally there's a difference, morally not much. Innocent lives lost for the sake of greed and power either way.
Ironically, you are wrong and so are MMA-supremacists.
MMA-supremacists believe thar MMA ring-fighting is the supreme sport environment to judge one's real world application of their martial arts. The reason Kung Fu is rarely the championed martial art of am MMA fighter is that they tend to specialise either in striking or grappling, not in swift combo maneuvers that revolve around dodging and turning aggression against the opponent, that makes for a weak MMA show.
Wrestling is great once you're neck and neck with the enemy, however even then, what will you do when a Kung Fu master uses their elbows and leg-positioning to make you incapable of maintaining the grapple?
A lot of MMA-supremacists talk about how now superstar champions Kung Fu, yet if they properly knew what Kung Fu was, so many of these MMA guys are using Kung Fu and Karate principles and footwork, let alone specific teachings of how to angle kicks and grappling that aren't part of their claimed martial art.
I have seen guy say they are thai boxers in MMA who are actually doing Karate style roundhouse instead of Muay Thai when they deliver the killer kick.
People think Kung Fu is just for show, instead it is one of the best martial arts for show because it has so much depth to it. It is a way of life.
Karate is also a way of life but a very aggressive one with a type of discipline that Kung Fu preaches differently. Both are 'deep' though, however Kung Fu is definitely 'deeper' and any Karate master would admit that because simplicity is an important aspect of how Karate combos are developed, whereas the highest level of Kung Fu involves extremely nuance, bluffing and calculated tactics in ways Karate does not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dxab06e91A
https://youtu.be/PcEvGP7eVPE?t=95
You'd best be ready.
this is an English speaking website
Swahili
Can't attack feasibility as Pro needn't offer a single realistic plan,
Can't attack ethics or reasonability as it's defined as self-evidently reasonable...
What can you attack? Nothing. There is no debate.
rigged, bullshit semantics and rule-limitations for side of Con to attack or demnd things from Pro in the description, boring to watch.
It's okay, you can stay level zero as long as you want.
lol
I'm not keen on the hard rock song but that one punch man amv is incredible for the editing. The madoka one is extremely good and I don't always dig when it's a very 'cartoony' style anime but it's a really good AMV. I think I went with some one hit wonders whereas you tried to stick only to solid and consistent editors who specialise in AMVs (my first one that you like, is one of the only AMVs that user has done, she mainly does GMVs and Movie type stuff)
Yeah I wanted to use almost all of light raider's AMVs lol. They were almost all contenders but I knew overusing one editor wouldn't be a good idea just because on principle some would vote against and also it may not be the style some like. For instance, Light Raider constantly avoids stringing a story along and building with/to the song's lyrics in a significant way.
I don't regret any of my choices but I accept your taste. There's people into more hardcore or furious AMVs than the type you seem to primarily watch, so I wanted to appeal to them and I am even one of them. I like all kinds as long as there's good flow and matching to the song. Sometimes less editing with more matching the vibe and lyrics can counter Light Raider's edit-heavy style.
Your Round 2 first entry was something I was genuinely hovering over as a choice btw. I also liked your R1 first and third quite a lot.
Not dissing the rest of what you chose, I'm not the voters or you, just saying what stood out so far (pre-R4 from you).
You may be interested in voting.
"no scientific or scholarly source can debunk NASA."
That's because if it does debunk NASA, the writer gets fired and the company disassociates themselves with the article or removes it completely from view. You have a lot to learn.
They said Saudis did it... Saudis, as in Saudi Arabian citizens and natives.
Then they bombed Afghanistan and Pakistan, demonised Iran while also claiming there were Nukes in Iraq yet what happened to Saudi?
Jack shit, that's what. Stay blinkered, it's not my issue. This is a very sensitive topic where it's too easy to demonise Con as not caring about what happened. Bush Jr. did filthy things to justify revenge for his father's legacy against Saddam Hussein (the most overt high-ranking opposer to American influence to the Middle East), you can believe what you want.
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-10-unanswered-questions-of-911.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/all-you-need-to-know-about-9-11-to-prove-it-was-an-inside-job/26517
Truth is truth regardless of voting outcome. The same isn't true for debates. I also wouldn't do this even if it were unrated because at the true depth of the conspiracy comes things that aren't appropriate to type (especially not as now anything can suddenly be twisted to be a conspiracy about Covid, which is separate but too hot a topic).
I'd be much more open to an unrated debate about the feasibility of flat earth working physically (including me debunking newton's laws of mass vs force and gravity as an absolute truth).
If you're willing to have the debate where you prove flat earth physically unfeasible, I'd be open to it. This debate as it is now can't be won by Con due to bias and source authority.
Firstly, a formal debate is about reducing your opponent's persuasion of the audience, not at all about persuading the opponent.
Secondly, I have taken debates and lost enough to tell you that I know when a debate is unwinnable or not (if both sides play correctly). You will win this debate because I cannot and will not type out deep conspiracy theories.
This is not the place to do it. If you want to discuss and understand me or any flat earther, you need to first do so in an environment that doesn't allow gaslighting or 'my source has more authority than yours' dynamics. This environment always favours the round-earther.
This may have been edgy and funny in early 2000s but the world has moved tf on. This is just cringe af now.
When I say world, I mean world. Even sexist nations are starting to realise how futile it is to assume all women are equally feminine and wired the same and vice versa for men and masculinity.
I address it 100% directly.
Now let's observe Con try to explain why there is no such thing as reasonable corporal punishment other than extremee soft ends of the spectrum like making someone run laps.
Then let him prove you wrong on the long-term benefits.
Then let's see you say 'oh, but in the debate description it says you agree to only discuss reasonable and fair spanking of a booty and more'
You'll win on semantics.
Bugsy doesn't meet the minimum stat requirements to vote on debates. He hasn't completed 2 without any forfeits to the end of voting period, nor has he posted 100 forum posts.
I curious if you'd care to (please) vote on this debate. You'll either laugh or cringe, either way I'm @ing for your attention.
There is a rule on this website that until the voting period is over a debater can't actively explain to a voter why their vote was 'wrong' other than by asking to look at a point in the debate. It is a rule known as 'anti-voter-manipulation' similar to the rule that bans revenge voting and quid pro quo win-win voting arrangements.
So, I can just encourage you to read the Round 2 you said I sacrificed my win condition on, I guarantee you that is the Round you have not properly read.
did you actually read my Round 2 at all? Your RFD implies you didn't, if that is your full RFD then this comment is my report of it to Ragnar and Misterchris
Your description disallows Con to argue that corporal punishment is very often unreasonable and asinine.
Ridiculous semantics. Corporal punishment isn't fucking reasonable, it barely teaches the children why what rhey did was even wrong in the first place. Physical pain is also less effective on females than males when it comes to controlling them. Feminine-minded individuals will firstly both accurately expose the school for what it's doing and willingly cry and tell how they were victimised. Secondly, it isn't bearly as effective as emotionally tough situations (sitting bored in detention, picking up litter in front of fellow students, having to make a public apology).
Masculine-minded students can initially respond better to this but it almost always leads to PTSD in the long run. Some get over it, others don't and becime abusers themselves due to deep subconscious scarring.
There is no corporal punishment that isn't abusive, which is also arguably effective. The abusive and effective punishment scars (psychologically at least) and damages in the long run. Therefore, the semantics in the debate description make this an unfair win for Pro.
Do not expect a friendly debate.
You actually do agree with me, I said it's the minority of both who spiral the cycle on.
I am left-wing and very pro-BLM but the violence cycle is indeed a cycle.
This is actually not just a racism issue of course (that is an issue with who they are more willingly aggressive with but this is an ancient thing from the beginning of our species to now).
The more aggressive wrongdoers are usually the initial aggressors in any new society. This inspires hostility from the enforcers of peace and order (not always cops in our species' history, sometimes more like antihero mafia).
These enforcers then start to forget that not every criminal is as brutal and fast-to-attack as the one or two who ended up killing or severley wounding one of their fellow policemen/policewomen. They begin to become vigilant, actively and passionately ready to 'disarm and disable' before the average criminal has even got over the initial panic and frustration with the sudden situation they've found themselves in.
This cycle has a next stage. People who are friends and families of the trodden upon, become increasingly hostile to said enforcers. People who would never before have spat at, verbally lashed out, really try and wrestle with and physically overpower the enforcers, suddenly are a lot more willing and ready to do so as they feel it's pure life or death and that these are pure-evil demons apprehending them.
This typically (in civilised societies) leads to reform and 'let's be friends again' from the government and law enforcement in a weaving limbo where the one or two criminals who really are rabid psychopaths, sociopaths etc kill off, severely wound, put-in-a-coma some cops and the partners get PTSD from it and vow to never let one of the criminals get the upper hand in a confrontation again. So on and so forth.
In other societies they never try to be friends again.
It is not nearly as simple as 'cops are the mean ones', I know they can be indeed but the initial aggressors in any society were typically the worst of criminals who traumatised the fellow cops and made them feel a deep need to be fast and brutal in their taking down of any criminal, in fear of what they'll do.
That's why the departments are specialised, so that what others lack expertise at, the others step in and assist with.
FBI does deal with the general population, it's CIA who doesn't.
Also, within the FBI there are several distinct specialisations, one being what the standard agent is; literally it is called 'agent'.
You have:
Agent
Profiler
Explosives expert
Negotiation expert (work closely with profilers but specialise in negotiating with criminals in emergencies whereas profilers specialise in long-term, slow and deep reads on criminals).
Then you have the undercover specialists. Any agent can be undercover but the undercover specialists are specially trained in acting skills, rivalling the average professional actor in fact.
Then you have the IT technician (often could just as easily work for NSA).
The final category is director/leader, who began as other types.
You do have FBI-dedicated medics but you can't truly call them a branch of law enforcement.
There are already specialised cops and equivalent agencies to the general police departments, especially in the US.
Knowing about the topic is not always that important.
You already are aware of this, it's how you reply so rapidly to Rounds.
Lowering by how much? This is way too easy for Pro to play semantics with.
I'm going to counter primarily on the basis that deforestation and climate change due to human activity is.
If you prepare to be against an animal hater or cynic about poaching who'd say it's okay, it will ruin the tone and discussion.
I am very interested both in the youth getting quality education and in whether or not the Earth is Round or flat.
This debate is concerning neither of these things, it is a means of flexing one's muscle at being more cunning than the opponent in a 500 char per round shitshow.
Are you pro or con on the topic?
War takes many forms and everyone is defeatable.
I am fairly certain that you have no proof my intellect is low. You merely are trying to make me feel bad.
Circles have 360 degrees. Additionally degrees aren't 'proven' by circling the Earth and then dividing it by 360, that is still proof it's circular, not necessarily spherical by any means of genuine deduction.
This debate doesn't involve you or require your assistance to either side.
Upper class, as well as upper-middle class, Caucasians in 'western' societt have a more privileged life due both to prejudice amongst the elite as well as money itself and all the advantages that their
Relatives and their associates give them.
See that money aspect? Yeah, that's inherited, not earned, as are all their advantages. So, perhaps think a bit before typing your "both sides are equally wrong" edgy takes.
Even the middle class Caucasians tend to have an edge in opportunities and advantages vs their African-American and Carribean-American (and other black-ethnic variants) counterparts.
Better reason not to is this guy will read nothing you wrote and then reply "both sides are equally wrong heee haww I'm so clever!"
ignorance and bigotry go hand in hand. (I am referring to you as well as many of the Conservatives who say that, not BLM)
That's not how you define it in your own description. You wanted to be Con, not Pro. Stop lying to win.
I am reporting both because I fully understand flat-earth theory and because the vote is simply unacceptably short and blatantly a result of confirmation bias.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2838/vote-links/6424
I report FLRW's vote (I have had my ability to 'click-report' removed) and I report it because not only is it entirely insufficient to even begin to justify the 7 points (let alone the 3 for arguments) but because it highlights a classic bullshit tactic of round-earth proponents against the flat Earth's physical plausibility.
A plane will end up where it began on a circular flat Earth that has Antarctica as an outer edge (rather than an island).