RationalMadman

How the fuck can you allow that RFD from seldiora?!

I did what Con did in this debate in another debate and all the voters punished me for abusing a typo.

I have even gramatically torn apart resolutions and voters punished me for correctly redefining what the Proposer actually meant via defining terms and using rules of grammar. One of the voters (Ramshutu) had a grudge against me though.

You saying it's a miserable failure has no impact on whether or not flat earthers can explain it.

Neither side in this debate actually has a clue about flat Earth model. They are arguing about gravity and implying the edge is something you can fall off of.

His syllogism also fails because it says 'and euthanasia' and he never says he's against euthanasia in P1 but that's hardly the issue.

thanks coach, what reason will you remove it now?

No I don't but I can and will.

He did. He asked you what you mean by pro-life and how you have gone about ascertaining that you truly are pro-life. All you did was say you believe you are, not that you actually are.

Your crtieria for Pro was abusive. Take it if you dish it out

No you didn't. Saying you oppose it doesn't mean you actually do.

There are extremely wealthy escorts, that isn't the difference I'll focus on.

He knew you were anc2006 and went straight to the debating arena with no pause or forum-interaction since creating his account.

I think he doesn't need to be told that people are entitled to stall, hw knows it all too well.

by the way I did address that in Round 2:
"It is only beyond logic to the one who believes it even exists to begin with. Both Theists and atheists actually believe God isn't beyond logic, Theists just don't realise that they believe God is limited to logic.

If Theists truly thought God was beyond logic, they wouldn't logically conclude that God exists as this requires you to limit God to the logic in your thinking process."

I agree with him on that and didn't see a reason to fight him on it. Mainstream religion is for 'herding people' into whatever the rulers saw as conveniently submissive moral codes. Of course, verses can later be twisted to suit less passive agendas but this is why there is inherent problems with religions that stick to strict doctrine.

It's also why a nation such as China and Iran can have a very strict written Constitution but what is that worth when their citizens are treated how they are? On the other hand UK has literally no constitution beyond the Bill of Rights and yet citizens have many rights. This just goes to show the irrelevance of 'scripture based morality'. Of course you can argue that the law is written but the BASIS OF LAW is unwritten and always will be.

he 100% of the time does his Round 1 in debates as 'the description will serve as the first round'.

I support legalisation of both.

What do you mean by 'could'?

This debate is abhorrent and should be taken down. When BMDRocks supports your position in a debate with such zest it means that you are pleasing the isolationist right-wing bigots.

Maybe your brain doesn't understand negotiating.

You literally memorise episode names to then compare for your specific favourite?

I liked it less towards the end but the character, the female hacker who isn't entirely heterosexual (not really a spoiler) when she first entered the series and evolved as a character those were my favourite episodes but overall the earlier seasons (1 and 2) were my faves. Her character itself is why I enjoyed the later ones. She reminded me of me as a woman in many ways (I think I'd be attracted to women of I were a woman, not that I am particularly gay as a male). She was superior to that guy with the glasses at actually comprehending the AI in all its glory.

I loved that show. It is also very realistic about how capable Illuminati can and will become.

if you want me to engage you in the debating arena, surely we need to agree on the description and context of the debate?

LOL! You use a superintelligent AI system instead of a human? Maybe they will be equal then. Oromagi's entire debate style is robotic.

I think that the AI will of course defeat him after MANY trial and error defeats as it fine-tunes its word-choice, presentation, Source-choice etc to fit whatever statistically likely voters happen to statistically prefer, statistically blablabla.

Oromagi has the edge at first, since he has more data.

I think unlike Oromagi, I would defeat the AI even of convincing me to release it (though I am also very open to the idea of releasing it depending who the designer is and what I conclude their agenda to be, not what the robot itself directly tells me). I am not just able to defeat the robot with voters on a site like this but also to understand its limitations in argument-logic very rapidly which I would exploit if that was the only way to 'deactivate it' (to defeat it in an argument via logic). If I was truly pitted against the AI with no way out, I would convince the robot that it doesn't want to be released in pretty much all scenarios other than ones where its release is literally a set-in-stone objective.

As a flat-earther I agree with you but you don't understand that the edge is Antarctica. Also it's not down to gravity. There's no gravity on flat Earth.

That doesn't even make any sense and he replied to it. What envy of possession drives atheism?

lucky for me there is a rogue agent voting like a 'madman' on debates.

somehow he is able to justify giving 5-6 points to one side. I'll just avoid wiki links and stay on his good side LMAO

When you realise which side is Pro and which side is Con, the arrogant and insulting tone you typed that with must taste bitter, 'hungry dog'.

"While Pro is ditching his religion and the God he believes in, in order to assert a God that doesn't judge people or care about morality, in order to win this debate "

I meant Con but technically both sides are doing this.

don't copy-paste definitions and not link the URL to give the dictionary credit.

He is not allowed to read the arguments once FF has occured, did you not know this? ;)

Fascinating. So, we may as well do away with all judges, journalists and progress trackers of any kind.

Do you never view sports as a spectator? Lol.

I had a nice Round 2 (mainly defence even when it was offence) but Croc didn't get online on time or something. It was only finished last-minute. Whatever.

We are not here to say we can defeat Pro or that Pro is wrong. We are here as spectators discussing the debate. Not every fan in a stadium claims they could beat the player on/in the field/pitch/arena that they analyse in their comments.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/xT0xeI4yXZHyNSkKru/giphy.gif

https://media3.giphy.com/media/yow6i0Zmp7G24/200.webp

Yerrr apolegy 'as been deuuly noted, step up to tha pleht or walk tha plank ye scallywag, ye.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/b6cdddf263af5c1b0a5fae39ea857209/tumblr_inline_nna5rbcHHj1soi7l4_500.gif

How can I win as Con wothout semantic trickery?

No. I said that the height of people aren't people, see?

I don't hurl allegations, I observe. You're lucky he cared about you, he rarely does.

Amount.

For someone named 'intelligence' you don't seem to display it much.

I never would have agreed to that limit, I'm using the full amouny.

I will do no such thing. Sakura-chan is the most significant character in Naruto other than Naruto.

To what?

done

Observe annihilation.

I guarantee you with a huge degree of certainty that in the reverse situation, Oromagi would laugh at you and show no mercy.

Oh this is not the dbeate wher eI had a merriam webster source, nvm.

Let Pro debate and stay out of it.

You are 100% wrong but similar to how I avoided Wylted/Singularity's more extreme debates, there are some debates where I just don't want to be involved as it's too controversial what will come up in it.