I gambled on the truth based on other gambled truths. This truth is less gambled than you think. I am telling you I 100% know. It's because if everything that appears real is real then yeah I 100% know. I don't know it that's actually 'real' though.
Gambling on something being true despite being unknowable is justifiable if you want to stay sane, yes I agree. I need to feel you are real to a degree in order to not absolutely fucking lose my mind with the knowable truth; that you're one of many simulated characters.
It is not speculation, I literally know it at this point. I am not sure wtf is happening for him to not be banned yet.
^ this is not a threat with mod action, I don't know why he's not banned yet.
I can't give the evidence in public or to you. It involves PMs and that's not allowed to share. I can give speech pattern and such evidence though but I can't be bothered unless you motivate me.
Actually that isn't what I meant. I meant these definitions:
"Poison: Any substance that can cause severe organ damage or death if ingested, breathed in, injected into the body or absorbed through the skin. Many substances that normally cause no problems, including water and most vitamins, can be poisonous if taken in excessive quantity. Poison treatment depends on the 'substance."
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11890
"1.0 A substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.
1.1 Chemistry A substance that reduces the activity of a catalyst."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/poison
The capacity to do such harm in any quantity inherently allows you to define it as poisonous, at least in severely likely potential of any single side effect of any and all medicines.
I don't care about having equal liberals to conservatives. Conservatives are usually less rational in the first place but that's still not reason to exclude the minority of them who are rational (or to ignore the minority of progs/libs who are very poor at comprehending reason).
I don't believe in 'every view should come to the site' but that's my own preference and lens I see things through. I don't really care if they vote or not, I care only that their votes are well reasoned and their genuine own thoughts.
I don't support unmoderated voting, I am patching a loophole in the CoC by obeying it for the right reasons in the wrong ways to even out an imbalance caused by toxic abusers of the 'troll votes aren't moderated' clause.
My ~Green Goblin interpretation is apparently a bit different to what happens in the movies, I'll go into it if you want but I'll just bring up other situations where spiderman works with others.
"Fraser Anning was providing his opinion during a speech when Will made the decision to interfere by assaulting him. What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?
Secondly, you may argue that Fraser Anning should be punished for retaliating against Will. If you wish for Fraser Anning to be punished, then it would mean that you also wish to punish Will for assault. Will is the aggressor in this scenario. He made the conscious decision to assault another person. Why should Fraser Anning be charged with assault, while Will is able to simply walk away without any consequences. He is old enough to understand that his actions have consequences. Even Will himself admitted that what he did was wrong. During an interview on SBS, Will said “There is no reason to physically attack anyone.” This shows that even the person who committed the assault does not believe that what he did was right."
You are frankly someone I don't enjoy the presence of much, so I have little reason to make you happy with this RFD but I just want to tell you that the only way you would stand a chance is to separate 'justified' from 'correct'.
If you began to alter the BoP to be you proving there was justification, whether valid enough to say the act was correct or not, you'd have found the only way to avoid his BoP-sandwich having full effect. This still would be rigged against you as he'd go more specifically into violence vs speech but it would finally have put you on more relatively equal footing.
This was a difficult debate to win as Pro, don't feel like you lost an easy debate. It was difficult, just learn and improve.
I did. I quoted where he laid the foundation for the BoP sandwiching in R1 just 2 debate-comments ago: https://www.debateart.com/debates/717/comment_links/7861
"Fraser Anning was providing his opinion during a speech when Will made the decision to interfere by assaulting him. What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?"
A glaring flaw in your case, that I refer to there, is that you were suggesting how powerful and potent Anning's speech was to demand powerful attack against him so why didn't the egg-smasher use speech instead of violence? Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely.
It doesn't matter what it could be, this debate is going to revolve around reliable sources and intuitive arguments. Pro will annihilate Con's scepticism, by using highly reputable sources such as Harvard themselves.
There is nothing brave about defending the Right-Wing if I'm going to be perfectly honest, here.
Bravery can come in destroying a corrupt Communist state but that's not actual Left-Wing politics at work that you'd be destroying, it's literally bullshit that is neither wing at all.
I gambled on the truth based on other gambled truths. This truth is less gambled than you think. I am telling you I 100% know. It's because if everything that appears real is real then yeah I 100% know. I don't know it that's actually 'real' though.
Gambling on something being true despite being unknowable is justifiable if you want to stay sane, yes I agree. I need to feel you are real to a degree in order to not absolutely fucking lose my mind with the knowable truth; that you're one of many simulated characters.
It is not speculation, I literally know it at this point. I am not sure wtf is happening for him to not be banned yet.
^ this is not a threat with mod action, I don't know why he's not banned yet.
I can't give the evidence in public or to you. It involves PMs and that's not allowed to share. I can give speech pattern and such evidence though but I can't be bothered unless you motivate me.
You will not be escorting me anywhere.
So instead of weighing them all against each other, you just picked the top 1 and ignored the rest in the weighting? Vote-bomb.
"But speaking from my own experience, if I wrote what RM wrote, I generally would get my vote removed."
It's like you trying to pull a dumb-yet-genius rap and music video combo like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuPMXS7dd9s
Some things only I can do, that is my supremacy.
Read Brendo's round 3, then read back to his Round 1. He played this perfectly.
I am aware that you didn't realise Brendo had done what he had done. This is why you fought it wrong. It was there though.
Trump is a joke, but a joke can be brutal.
I'm neither confirming nor denying my name to be Hamza. It was an Afghani/Pakistani sounding name that was relevant to the pun.
Actually that isn't what I meant. I meant these definitions:
"Poison: Any substance that can cause severe organ damage or death if ingested, breathed in, injected into the body or absorbed through the skin. Many substances that normally cause no problems, including water and most vitamins, can be poisonous if taken in excessive quantity. Poison treatment depends on the 'substance."
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11890
"1.0 A substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.
1.1 Chemistry A substance that reduces the activity of a catalyst."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/poison
The capacity to do such harm in any quantity inherently allows you to define it as poisonous, at least in severely likely potential of any single side effect of any and all medicines.
Who are you to call a debate lost or won? See how that works?
I don't care about having equal liberals to conservatives. Conservatives are usually less rational in the first place but that's still not reason to exclude the minority of them who are rational (or to ignore the minority of progs/libs who are very poor at comprehending reason).
I don't believe in 'every view should come to the site' but that's my own preference and lens I see things through. I don't really care if they vote or not, I care only that their votes are well reasoned and their genuine own thoughts.
Are you not aware who his opponent is in the other debate?
I don't support unmoderated voting, I am patching a loophole in the CoC by obeying it for the right reasons in the wrong ways to even out an imbalance caused by toxic abusers of the 'troll votes aren't moderated' clause.
Yeah I am shocked tiwaz is even standing a chance in his other debate on this. The definition of poison makes this inherently true.
So you still 'know' that do you?
I totally agree it should be, I'm delivering justice that the CoC refuses to be enforced in a way that the CoC allows.
Good try. I have never had a vote removed ever since the rules went up (only one was one i made prior to them and was removed retroactively).
The only rfd of mine that ever got removed is one I made before the rules had been written.
Even bsh1 knows.
Pls vote if possible
My ~Green Goblin interpretation is apparently a bit different to what happens in the movies, I'll go into it if you want but I'll just bring up other situations where spiderman works with others.
It forced you to fight your own case from the other angle to stop the other sandwich slice being true.
"Fraser Anning was providing his opinion during a speech when Will made the decision to interfere by assaulting him. What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?
Secondly, you may argue that Fraser Anning should be punished for retaliating against Will. If you wish for Fraser Anning to be punished, then it would mean that you also wish to punish Will for assault. Will is the aggressor in this scenario. He made the conscious decision to assault another person. Why should Fraser Anning be charged with assault, while Will is able to simply walk away without any consequences. He is old enough to understand that his actions have consequences. Even Will himself admitted that what he did was wrong. During an interview on SBS, Will said “There is no reason to physically attack anyone.” This shows that even the person who committed the assault does not believe that what he did was right."
^^^ This is the sandwiching
You are frankly someone I don't enjoy the presence of much, so I have little reason to make you happy with this RFD but I just want to tell you that the only way you would stand a chance is to separate 'justified' from 'correct'.
If you began to alter the BoP to be you proving there was justification, whether valid enough to say the act was correct or not, you'd have found the only way to avoid his BoP-sandwich having full effect. This still would be rigged against you as he'd go more specifically into violence vs speech but it would finally have put you on more relatively equal footing.
This was a difficult debate to win as Pro, don't feel like you lost an easy debate. It was difficult, just learn and improve.
I did. I quoted where he laid the foundation for the BoP sandwiching in R1 just 2 debate-comments ago: https://www.debateart.com/debates/717/comment_links/7861
He was the victim, not the perpetrator of the egg attack.
"Fraser Anning was providing his opinion during a speech when Will made the decision to interfere by assaulting him. What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?"
Barbossa's here so*******
missing the word here* will correct in R2.
A glaring flaw in your case, that I refer to there, is that you were suggesting how powerful and potent Anning's speech was to demand powerful attack against him so why didn't the egg-smasher use speech instead of violence? Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely.
It doesn't matter what it could be, this debate is going to revolve around reliable sources and intuitive arguments. Pro will annihilate Con's scepticism, by using highly reputable sources such as Harvard themselves.
Pro can't even MEAN self-evident truths since
Mean, not me*
It's a truism, not a debate.
As even the sins*
Not as seven
In my Round, you'll find out.
Please revote without sources and s&g or explain the votes.
Unmoderated voting? Go to DDO, whiteflame doesn't moderate them anymore lol.
https://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/lina-walker-be-my-valentine-poem.gif
https://themindsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Appear-Weak-When-You-Are-Strong.jpg
LOL!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
There is nothing brave about defending the Right-Wing if I'm going to be perfectly honest, here.
Bravery can come in destroying a corrupt Communist state but that's not actual Left-Wing politics at work that you'd be destroying, it's literally bullshit that is neither wing at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-E_p3Kc3Yk
I probably could win both sides of this debate.
Thanks for letting me know, enjoy the read.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao3XJ-UDdzI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao3XJ-UDdzI
???????
So are you.
I'm saying it.