RationalMadman

He's not wrong, cash games are closer to chess' game theory than tournaments are.

The point is that tournaments involve far more (not less) theory and concepts. This was going to be very demanding for me to go in detail so I just gave it up. I also don't mind losing to someone that I regularly win against, on the topic that is going to demand the most out of me. It's a net-gain for me in terms of effort vs output in rating.

the science behind why inbreeding destroys bloodlines due to maladaptive recessive alleles becoming commonly activated in the genes among the later generations is going to be a major contention of mine.

https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=what-are-the-effects-of-inbreeding

thanks very much for this vote, brilliant rfd

Adding to my RFD: only Pro used sources.

That1 is female?

You will rue the day you debated against BLM once I challenge you to that. First finish this debate then challenge me.

I don't want to help either side as it has been mentioned here that this is not wanted. Once the debate is over, I will provide links to articles and documentaries that will help open the mind of people who don't know why BLM is good and necessary.

Ignorance meeting arrogance.

How exactly does this person know what black people have endured to cops and bosses who refused to hire and/or promote them based on this?

How does Pro know about the difference in wages when it's based on agreement on contracts (not fixed wages for all of the same rank)?

Pro says there isn't any systemic issues because Pro has never had to live a day in their shoes.

Welcome to the site Kbub.

I think based on recent accusations that you're a Nazi sympathiser as well as some devil's advocate positions you've taken in order to question people on their views, you should take this debate down and tone it down with the extreme positions you take just to question someone with a politically correct and (dare I say) sane outlook.

This is advice to you because I know that you're making these debates just to question people and make them think, as well as to better understand why the mainstream loathing of something like Nazism and white supremacy exist. You are using a debate website to make your opponents debate and that's fine but I highly recommend that you think a little bit about how far you're going with your devil's advocate positions and questioning and how this reflects on the views that you, the user, actually hold. At some point trolling isn't lighthearted fun anymore.

You can choose not to post that.

Why?

your point 2 was about 6 different points combined in one, it is literally breaking the agreement.

while you are asking me to play dirty, I doubt I'll regret it. You didn't even touch on conscious (political) rap and your point 2 is a cheatcode that isn't a real contention. You can't just say 'the internal elements' as if that is a contention.

your point 2 is unfair, I will repeat it and justify why. You went so vague that can't count as your actual contention.

please can you start making your debates have 3-day deadlines, these 2-day ones are too much to handle many of for me.

that doesn't make them less luck based, it makes them simpler. The fact you don't have to factor in the logical and emotional aspect of ICM and how shallow stacks evolve when it's worth a bluff and/or an honest shove, simply means that you aren't cut out for poker and game theory when your back is against the wall.

I will explain this more in the debate, but essentially the superior display if skill is when both are forced to take risks again and again. This can appear like luck, feel like luck and make people like Seldiora say there's no real guarantee of who wins tournaments repeatedly, yet how many bracelets did Hellmuth win vs other GOATs? Why was that? It's because he understood ICM and nuances of tournament poker long before they were mainstream-taught theories. Even now, not everyone truly grasps them.

Do I state my two contentions in Round 1? Or you go first?

thanks for warning me, i probably wouldn't have noticed

you need to set constraints to the time-span of the plan, so that Con can argue it's a waste of resources in that span of time.

You are wrong, it could make Gmail an entirely pay-to-get elite/exclusive service if it wanted to.

I also could be lying and playing devil's advocate inside this debate to get the win, your 'double standards' attack is not just a fallacy of hypocrisy but also an assumption that I believe what I wrote in this debate.

This is a sport, I want to win. I say what I do to win the debate. Whether I think it's debatable or not, I had to defend that in order to get the win, to do otherwise would be gamethrowing.

I also can think it's debatable to discuss and defend any stance I disagree with on politics and philosophy, that doesn't mean that I think that side should win or have any validity.

I'm curious what you think of this debate. By the way, I am debating the side I believe in this debate and I used to believe the Con side (Seldiora picked being Con).

it's 'case in point' not 'case and point'.

Lucky that I missed the deadline and forgot about this

You bring up some good points if you'd expand them but I'm going to win. Pro is the easier side to debate, to win as Con requires more abstract thinking.

Your scholarly article doesn't even remotely suggest that onlime poker has no tournament format. There is not a single provider of online poker that lacks the tournament format but there are some that lack/struggle significantly with providing the ring-game format.

Of freaky friday or what?

https://www.pokerology.com/lessons/cash-games-vs-tournaments/

this will be a highly detailed debate with a lot of points of contention and depth to each rebuttal so it's not really my type of thing.

yes, easily, because everything you say will be better is not only based on pure guesswork/conjecture but is going to come at a price of something that Con can prove is worse.

Lol, my opponent, who you say I harassed argues the ban is total bs as Pro side can't be debated

So the entire community that agrees with them is on a side that can't be debated?

you made an extreme error, you think the pro side is the con side, you are saying the opposite side can't be debated than the one you have.

I report fauxlaw's vote for the Conduct point allocation.

I think the sources is barely enough explanation of why Con didn't earn the point too, it only says why Pro did.

I can't physically report the vote as the period is over, so I am tagging you here.

rep as a rapper*

but rap kind of works

hobble as* you wobble

as, not was

They are dividing and conquering by making you oppose a movement that is against them while thinking you are against them.

That is real dividing and conquering, LOL.

I'm only interested in challenging Virtuoso to it.

I am sacrificing nothing.

This debate may interest you.

sit back and observe.

NEVER EVER USE SHORTURL FUCK THAT WEBSITE!!!!

It removed my links?!!!!!! I just relaised it now when reading Ragnar's RFD more in depth.

Death23 has just revealed that they are an Ancap posing as a Socialist. There is no surprise there, for me.

describe*

@Death23

You just let slip that you are not a socialist. You desribe the mentality of a diehard capitalist who adores the unfair and brutal competition of selfish interest and holding onto wealth:

"I'm a bit of a nihilist and really, my house would let the world burn and not care much except to the extent the interests of myself and family are adversely impacted."

As for why I called you a 'bigot', your entire attack on BLM was rooted in the idea that blacks only look out for blacks because that's how you feel about all human groups.

'assumption'

Trusting the witness is lying to defend Martin rather than Zimmerman is confirmation bias. It's also entirely viable to see clothes but not specific movements in the dark with one guy on top of another.

It's not like there's another option.

Not my problem.