Mafia isn't a game I hate, it's the crowd and type of people (manipulative, arrogant) who are attracted to it that I prefer to avoid. That's not at all a DART thing, it's a 'social game' thing. Whether it's survivor, big brother, mafia or something along those lines, the crowd are always majority cunning bullies who are unpleasant even to one another but especially to someone who is both very good at the game and unwilling to join the sheep they rule.
If you were curious how I garner reads on people, you just word-for-word revealed that you're anger-driven in that post. I insert it into a mental profile that I have on you in my head and it transforms a puzzle-like web into a more developed and clearer formation.
I want it stated in the description that economics alone isn't how to determine 'better'. Then I will join as pro for marxist-leninism as being better than fascism.
How severe will it be enforced? No offence but other countries are already beginning to relax their lockdown rules, US is only starting to properly ramp theirs up.
while it is actually a lie that injury isn't part of it, the main issue is deeper than just this. The frequency of wrongful convictions, overly-brutal sentences and the very pressures (financial and sociological) that drive one to crime are all very much harshest against those of the 'black' race due to many things in the past trickling down generations.
The gap between whites and blacks of average income, education quality and stuff like that is getting worse (but obviously not 'worse' than literal slavery) as time goes by. The less opportunity they have, the more pressures there are to become a criminal to ever be more than a blue collar worker for life on a dirt-cheap wage that can barely uphold themselves, let alone their families, especially if relatives get sick.
It's also the case that generally speaking, caucasians in poverty have somehow got distant relatives to help them out, however I am not suggesting that they have it 'easier' by a large margin at all. The issue is that the system is overall rigged against blacks because due to all the things I've mentioned there is a bias against people of that ethnicity that says they are more likely to have done crimes (since they're more commonly driven towards it as they are desperate for money and have far less opportunity to get it). This bias runs deep in both mentality of not hiring and promoting them as well as convicting them of crimes.
This is the core thing that needs to be altered in MANY 'white' countries that previously enslaved and continually discriminated against blacks in recent generations. The effect is still being had on blacks alive today and that is what needs to be stopped.
He has proven himself wrong throughout the debate, he had to take a very cynical and nihilistic outlook that denied anything being true, to win this debate and instead conceded that the truth was objective and that we interpret it wrong often.
I would have proven that he'd proven himself wrong, in the final Round where I'd run through the points and logic.
If you want to have an 'actual discussion' you can make a forum thread or alternatively can make a debate yourself as the Con to this topic or Pro to the opposite.
'Obscure' can mean that the song's message is hard to grasp, or it can mean that it's unfound and unknown. It clearly isn't truly obscure if we've found it, but what exactly is the battle on?
Absolutely nothing in the definition of 'truth' that you have provided (which is actually the definition of the word 'true') hints at it being subjective or bound by human linguistics in and of itself.
No, because this debate (the word 'debate') refers to the overall debate, when in the title. Your 'debate' or rather your 'side of the debate' can be stupid, while the debate itself is not.
Death23's entire 'gig' on this website is cheap wins where he/she/they pressures the opponent to appear as the villain and preys on their agitation making them appear like the less morally correct site within the debate construct.
I did not allow Death23 to do this in this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/517/sea-lions-are-seals
Nonetheless I lost due to voters failing to grasp that science trumps semantics in the hierarchy of which should be amended if out of tune with the other.
I am doing this publicly to avoid any claims of corruption or shadiness.
Let me know when this debate is over, I will vote. Something I despise more than unwinnable position debates where the instigator has the autowin position, are debates where the other side farms a win out of bullshit hypocrisy while claiming the other side is doing that.
I do not care if I am accused of something here, this is utter bullshit and it is important that I reassure you of that before something like this corrupts you as a debater or makes you afraid to participate in this website. I have been wrongly voted against for CORRECTLY capitalising on instigator errors in the past by Ramshutu and Ragnar especially, whereas here you are being incorrectly and hypocritically preyed upon and I will not stand by and watch without at least getting my vote in and stating this publicly here in the comments.
It is hilarious that you portray what I do as immoral. You got your wins by semantic and BoP abuse entirely, don't even fucking try to sit on a high horse.
Mafia isn't a game I hate, it's the crowd and type of people (manipulative, arrogant) who are attracted to it that I prefer to avoid. That's not at all a DART thing, it's a 'social game' thing. Whether it's survivor, big brother, mafia or something along those lines, the crowd are always majority cunning bullies who are unpleasant even to one another but especially to someone who is both very good at the game and unwilling to join the sheep they rule.
You should delete this debate, I had 14 wins denied to me by bsh1 deleting me debating type1 alts.
If you were curious how I garner reads on people, you just word-for-word revealed that you're anger-driven in that post. I insert it into a mental profile that I have on you in my head and it transforms a puzzle-like web into a more developed and clearer formation.
We have blocked each other. I can't ping him.
How will he find a Fascist sympathiser to team with? Maybe someone good can play devil's advocate or whatever?
so it's not 3v3?
I want it stated in the description that economics alone isn't how to determine 'better'. Then I will join as pro for marxist-leninism as being better than fascism.
Is gradual repeal a K?
Gradually they should be repealed but US is on upswing of Covid-19 spread, not downswing (unlike all other highly developed nations).
How severe will it be enforced? No offence but other countries are already beginning to relax their lockdown rules, US is only starting to properly ramp theirs up.
while it is actually a lie that injury isn't part of it, the main issue is deeper than just this. The frequency of wrongful convictions, overly-brutal sentences and the very pressures (financial and sociological) that drive one to crime are all very much harshest against those of the 'black' race due to many things in the past trickling down generations.
The gap between whites and blacks of average income, education quality and stuff like that is getting worse (but obviously not 'worse' than literal slavery) as time goes by. The less opportunity they have, the more pressures there are to become a criminal to ever be more than a blue collar worker for life on a dirt-cheap wage that can barely uphold themselves, let alone their families, especially if relatives get sick.
It's also the case that generally speaking, caucasians in poverty have somehow got distant relatives to help them out, however I am not suggesting that they have it 'easier' by a large margin at all. The issue is that the system is overall rigged against blacks because due to all the things I've mentioned there is a bias against people of that ethnicity that says they are more likely to have done crimes (since they're more commonly driven towards it as they are desperate for money and have far less opportunity to get it). This bias runs deep in both mentality of not hiring and promoting them as well as convicting them of crimes.
This is the core thing that needs to be altered in MANY 'white' countries that previously enslaved and continually discriminated against blacks in recent generations. The effect is still being had on blacks alive today and that is what needs to be stopped.
You have. Just paste what you had on the same debate before and edit it.
Cheers
Experience is not the same as skill.
He has proven himself wrong throughout the debate, he had to take a very cynical and nihilistic outlook that denied anything being true, to win this debate and instead conceded that the truth was objective and that we interpret it wrong often.
I would have proven that he'd proven himself wrong, in the final Round where I'd run through the points and logic.
If you want to have an 'actual discussion' you can make a forum thread or alternatively can make a debate yourself as the Con to this topic or Pro to the opposite.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2041/2015-underrated-song-battle
This is an OG topic. Always has been a debate topic in school tournaments and will remain a pressing issue, no matter how the world progresses.
No thank you, it will make my Round 1 opener make no sense.
'Obscure' can mean that the song's message is hard to grasp, or it can mean that it's unfound and unknown. It clearly isn't truly obscure if we've found it, but what exactly is the battle on?
Absolutely nothing in the definition of 'truth' that you have provided (which is actually the definition of the word 'true') hints at it being subjective or bound by human linguistics in and of itself.
what definition of 'obscure' are you using? Also, picking the Con side doesn't stop you going first.
Then you and I agree but 'ok' doesn't mean 'good'.
Everything is justified, literally. The question is if the justification is fair or not.
Change the word 'justified' to 'fair'.
Done. Make sure to contact the user Virtuoso or the user Ragnar if people keep voting Con.
No, because this debate (the word 'debate') refers to the overall debate, when in the title. Your 'debate' or rather your 'side of the debate' can be stupid, while the debate itself is not.
You vote well in debates, even when you vote against me. Please vote.
Had a wrong link sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvuN_WvF1to
This is Earth by Lil Dicky
The link to the actual song I represent is correct.
Please lower the rating and I'll accept. I took a dip due to some forfeits and genuine losses recently.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Maldini
I will back Paolo Maldoni as the GOAT and in part will be explaining why a best defender is ultimately superior to a best striker.
Death23's entire 'gig' on this website is cheap wins where he/she/they pressures the opponent to appear as the villain and preys on their agitation making them appear like the less morally correct site within the debate construct.
I did not allow Death23 to do this in this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/517/sea-lions-are-seals
Nonetheless I lost due to voters failing to grasp that science trumps semantics in the hierarchy of which should be amended if out of tune with the other.
No I haven't, what's sarcasm?
As a Pagan-Taoist free thinker, I agree completely to this resolution and consider it a fact, not an opinion.
I am doing this publicly to avoid any claims of corruption or shadiness.
Let me know when this debate is over, I will vote. Something I despise more than unwinnable position debates where the instigator has the autowin position, are debates where the other side farms a win out of bullshit hypocrisy while claiming the other side is doing that.
I do not care if I am accused of something here, this is utter bullshit and it is important that I reassure you of that before something like this corrupts you as a debater or makes you afraid to participate in this website. I have been wrongly voted against for CORRECTLY capitalising on instigator errors in the past by Ramshutu and Ragnar especially, whereas here you are being incorrectly and hypocritically preyed upon and I will not stand by and watch without at least getting my vote in and stating this publicly here in the comments.
Hussein was a complete scumbag but he was taken down by a big lie.
Even if Con properly does semantic kritiks on you, you can invert the kritiks by saying that they have a moral weight of 0 (arbitrary unit).
Therefore, you automatically win this debate if both sides play correctly.
Clarification for mods: I said this before the debate had a contender, not after.
So far*
Wrong. The reason you remove it is because he has to justify tying arguments, he can't just award conduct on its own.
it will come in the debate
The definition of sane is part of the debate but can't solely mean to not be mentally ill in an official sense.
It is hilarious that you portray what I do as immoral. You got your wins by semantic and BoP abuse entirely, don't even fucking try to sit on a high horse.
this is utter bs. Your head mod of voting is mocking me saying I didn't address Con in the Round by quoting only sentence from me.
my entire R3 had 'aw-im' or 'aw-em' constant rhyming internally and at the end of all lines
foursome. watchin', often
these three rhymed. hold ctrl+f and type 'often' and look at R3 to catch it.
You are lying
Whiteflame lied and said I even remotely conceded and didn't elaborate on anything like that.
MMFF foursome is a foursome with 2 males and 2 females.
rap rounds are done, appreciate a vote from anyone tagged.
sitch = situation
that was a pretty important one to define :P
smule.com is down for me, is it also down for you?