Continental Drift (CD) may be a lie as I support flat earth theory and think that is potentially a lie about how things came to be how they are physically (there's only records post-drift it seems) but even on the flat earth some CD is possible, basically Antarctica is the outer ring and the Arctic is inside and the way the oceans and land interact position-wise can be phenomenally mystical indeed, so CD is neither here nor there in my eyes. I believe in it because it makes sense that the African-type humans moved around and ended up fucking and reproducing with the Inuit-type humans to create the variation in races and such. That doesn't fully explain 'white people' but that's because I believe there was a race/ethnicity that is in between Jew and Caucasian that... Well, it's a long story and I don't fully understand it myself.
Time changing with acceleration is to do with what you define as 'time'. If time is the 'true timeline' then you are correct. If time is the time we perceive and observe and experience, then you are incorrect as that time can truly make a second become a year if the disparity in acceleration is that severe. I don't believe in outer space being what we're told but there is still acceleration and Einstein wasn't in on any lie, he's a genius of great proportions that blatantly was unfairly able to succeed due to a rich and influential father in the science industry but nonetheless he used that to rebel against the system in a non-revolt type way. There is no way Einstein would make a truly hoax theory for the sake of the Illuminati, I DO NOT consider this viable. Newton, sure, Einstein no.
CO2 and climate change is sort of true. It's utter bullshit why they keep talking about carbon footprint as in CO2 instead of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. Carbon is an issue but CO2 is not the main reason.
@Somebody
https://www.debateart.com/rules
"6. Threats
Misconduct should be reported to moderation rather than complained about in the forums. Even if an accusation or complaint is justified, it is not permissible to threaten another user on the basis of those accusations or complaints. Allow moderation to handle the situation. Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are not limited to):
RFD 1/8
If this had been entitled 'viruses don't exist' I would have to write several more paragraphs than I’m writing here. Somehow, Pro thought this would be easier to win than his/her original 'viruses don't exist' and was goaded into challenging Ramshutu with an even easier topic for Con than the original one.
Ramshutu gives both proof and mention of multiple experiments (who can't all be in on the same conspiracy without proof from Pro that they're linked and allied somehow) that prove the existence of:
1. Tobacco Mosaic Virus
2. The Smallpox Virus
RFD 2/8
The effects of the virus, and results associated with it cannot be explained by anything Pro suggests. Pro thinks nutrition is to blame (not even exercise or lifestyle, literally only diet) for every single viral disease there is. Pro thinks if you eat right and every single person around you has a viral disease that you won't catch it. Pro is not only completely futile in an attempt to prove that 'viruses don't exist' but never once, not even slightly came near fighting Pro on the notion that those 2 viruses, given what has happened before and after both in an experiment and in the real world events of the human race and discovering the vaccine and ways they are spread (and informing the public of it), is in any way capable of meaning viruses can't exist since the reduction in the disease (especially with smallpox) is nigh-irrefutable proof that there was a smallpox virus which explains not just the spread but absolutely everything including how it reacts in a lab and can move through what bacteria can't; sticky semi-solidified gunk (this is something bacteria get trapped by but viruses don't). This is fundamentally what most virus experiments are based on and in the tobacco mosaic virus experiment there is something that bacteria physically can't do which WAS DONE by something that CANNOT BE due to diet. Pro never even replied to Con on the matter, he/she says "I have inspected your reference (6) and found that the primary cause of the problem was soil nutrient depletion." because tobacco crop does something to soil... WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE EXPERIMENT? DO NOT TELL THIS MEANT VIRUSES CANNOT EXIST, LOL!
RFD 3/8
Also, Pro uses YouTube videos, blogs and baseless opinionated sourced that SCREAM BIAS to back up his/her case while Con does similar things using fucking Wikipedia and all but what happens is that when ever Pro (I mean every single time) brings up a reliable source that isn't a blog-rant on the matter, he/she uses it to simply state a random tangent that is never brought up as his/her own point. I will give three examples of Pro doing what I said with his/her 'reliable' sources and then show how Con uses them much better and the sources are peer-reviewed science experiments and other such quality of reliability.
Pro:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298925/ - This is about Diabetes and is used to suggest there ever has been a doctor who came close to successfully proving that all diseases are caused by diet. Even Diabetes is only partially caused by diet, if you don't have the Diabetes genes you won't get fucking Diabetes no matter how much or little sugar you have, This was about type 2 diabetes which is partially lifestyle-triggered but you still need a genetic disposition for it. I don't have a clue why this is used in the way it is but it's a complete misrepresentation of what the source suggests and does.
RFD 4/8
2. http://www.vaclib.org/news/vaccinenotflu.htm This antivax conspiracist rant of a link doesn't remotely suggest that "The vaccinations proved to be more dangerous than any germ and killed people in the thousands." actually the conspiracy says they created an even stronger virus than the Spanish Flu and that because seven soldiers dropped dead from health issues (or perhaps due to Spanish Flu but no citation within the source is provided for that) that this proves the vaccine was not really a vaccine for a Spanish Flu virus. This source is used to prove that the Spanish Flu vaccine was more dangerous than any germ and killed people in the thousands. This isn't remotely proven by the antivax conspiracy rant in the link, which used seven soldiers dying as proof that the vaccine did nothing at all for the others. Some bodies react differently and even then, what is that link's rant proving? It was a rant where it cited no facts it stated at all. Just because it's '.org' doesn't make it really that reliable of a link.
3. https://www.highveld.com/virology/animal-viruses.html this was the funniest of all his/her links and usage of them. The link was a reliable source that supported, studied and explained the existence of and variations between animal-hosted viruses. LOL! This was used, by Pro, to prove that fossils are unreliable and part of a conspiracy that used pseudo-science to assert the existence of things.
RFD 5/8
Now for Con's usage of reliable sources, 3 examples:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048519/?page=1 While the additional source to this was very weak sourcing by Con (linked to the fucking Wikipedia, seriously) this could have been a brilliant combined ncbi-nlm source-strike onto Con that used both the Tobacco Mosaic Virus experiment and this Fowl Plague virus, to prove that viruses move through what bacteria can’t; thick, gunk-like substance. BEFORE PRO RANTS AT ME IN THIS COMMENTS-SECTION I WILL SAY THIS: This doesn’t mean you having mucus while sick with the flu disproves viruses, those viruses have been very ‘injured’ or killed by your body’s white blood cells before ending up there. Bacteria can live inside the mucus but be trapped by it, that’s the point. You don’t have mucus for viral infections, it’s neither proof nor disproof of viruses that you produce it while infected non-bacterially. Not all viruses that end up in the mucus are dead, some are just hampered or transferred into it as they can’t fight back to white blood cells very well once the antibodies are shaped properly in the white blood celll to the specific virus, so of course when you cough on someone with mucus within the spit, it ends up infecting them, there’s not only dead viruses in that mucus; some are just grabbed and dropped by your body, so to speak. On the other hand, if you have a bacterial infection and produce mucus and cough on someone, it is is the SPIT or THIN MUCUS that enables bacteria to spread via coughing and such, despite the thickness of the mucus-gunk. The spread is much slower than virus spread due to this and is largely why non-mucus-proficient humans were killed off in our evolution such that essentially all humans alive today produce it.
Look, in the source, at this image: https://microscopy-analysis.com/sites/default/files/19-20-2018-ebolaimagebody.jpg
NOW LOOK AT THIS IMAGE I EDITED THAT TO MAKE: https://i.imgur.com/PWkW96b.jpg
This spaghetti-ball formation is not supposed to have the stuff on it. I have highlighted most of the ‘buds’ in yellow to explain how viruses ‘birth’ from the cells they infect proving not only that they are seen infecting but that they truly use the host cell to thrive and reproduce themselves via it.
Con uses this source to disprove Pro on the notion that viruses have never been seen infecting. This is a very good use of a reliable source but could have been done even better if he did what I did with the image.
3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/grassy-narrows-toxic-tap-water-not-fixed-by-boiling-expert-says-1.3211220 While SOME VIRUSES do get affected by severe boiling, it takes much higher temperatures and harsher conditions overall, than to kill bacteria. This source excellently supports the idea that there is an infectious pathogen superior to bacteria in survivability and ‘cunning’ such that you would be a fool to think you’d killed it off using methods that kill bacteria.
RFD 7/8
Conduct goes to Con because Con never has bad conduct in the whole debate while Pro has the following:
1
“ Con is getting more and more assertive as the debate progresses and is now becoming annoyingly dictatorial. Declaring that he was won the debate! ........and with very flimsy and almost laughable lack of information and zero logic. Not to mention his dozens of references which he probably hasn't read or checked to see if the link works or not. Yes, folks! That's what con did in our last debate. He gave me several faulty links which he obviously didn't bother to read himself. “
Pro actually said Con did what Pro did (use bullshit sources that even backfired on their case) but even if Pro didn’t and EVEN if Con did, this is rude. The entire thing is rude, I don’t know how to explain why saying ‘ flimsy and almost laughable lack of information and zero logic.’ and ‘Con is getting more and more assertive as the debate progresses and is now becoming annoyingly dictatorial.’ are rude but they are. It’s not the arrogance that’s the issue, it’s the way Con is spoken to. You can tell someone they’re shit in a nice way, that’s literally the finesse required to have good conduct with an aggressive debate-style. Learn to have it or learn to be so good, you can afford to lose the conduct-point.
2
“ Illness has an emotional context which plants don't have. lol Unless you are a Greeny. Then, plants have emotions too. Lol”
This is utterly horrendously sarcastic humiliation to avoid addressing a point. This is so logically fallacious and attitude-sickening that it deserves mention. Plants lacking emotions doesn’t mean they don’t get sick from viruses (them lacking emotions is an assumption by the way, we have no fucking clue how deeply a plant feels us tearing it apart we just assume everything without nerves and a brain doesn’t have another way of experiencing conscious thought and emotions).
3
“Its called logic con. But don't worry con, you haven't got any of that preciously rare stuff in your small little head. Lol”
*It’s
*there’s no fucking word called preciously
*small or little, don’t use both “lol”.
4
“Read it dumb arse!”
Read this RFD and weep, dumb arse.
That isn’t even the half of it but it’s probably enough.
If you mean glossing over the specifics within the thought experiment that lead you to conclude the conclusion they are trying to seem smart and superior to you by making you feel stupid for not having concluded, yes indeed.
I don't care how I originated there, I care only about the situation and analysing the odds that would lead to me making a gamble of it being morally optimal (AKA consequentially good) to 'kill' as opposed to 'not kill'. There's no third option as far as this thought experiment goes and that's fine, the point is that the gamble on it being 'good' not only is stupid, it defeats itself in that it forgets how much (including computers, many psychological, biological and chemical discoveries and the inhibiting of the Illuminati family Rothschild happened indirectly or directly due to Hitler's reign)
I vehemently loathe the ethics professors that bring this up and go 'heee heee you are wrong for not killing the baby and not considering more than just the scenario in and of itself in the blinkered view I want you to take it in to prove myself correct.'
If you give an analogy to prove that killing a baby is good, prove the student who says 'I actually have legit reasons to not kill the baby.' wrong without dismissing them as a subjectivity-clouded moron.
What is funniest is that he thinks that highly intelligent geniuses of strategy and war gambled on every single college student who ever did a practical exam involving viruses never once exposing the truth. Either that, or he thinks every single sample is tampered with by the professors to trick their students but that is ignoring PhD students who investigate without their professors in the labs at the time, often working late at night when it's only them in the lab meaning they're trusted equally to their superiors in terms of handling the Virus samples.
It is true that it's easier to see cancer cells or baceria cells than teeny tiny RNA strands but that doesn't explain what the hell his 'nutrition is the answer' as there's so much it doesn't fill in the gap of. How the fuck could AIDS be cured by informing the public about sex and telling someone with AIDS to fuck the brains out of someone with a condom in between them so fluids don't properly transfer, if the answer was really nutrition? Utter bullshit.
The Nazis made many accurate scientific discoveries that have helped Chemistry develop as well as Biology. Just because something is cruel in its means doesn't mean it's incorrect in its conclusions.
@Somebody
Virologists combined with the doctors who administer vaccines have saved more humans than any other profession on Earth if you consider what could and would happen if they hadn't discovered, invented and administered what they did. you should learn to speak with some respect or believe me you will be put in your place with defamation lawsuits and many other things, you putrid wisher of Ebola, AIDS, Yellow Fever and many other things to end humankind. You don't know what you're talking about.
Stress has everything to do with loose bowels when you have lifelong IBS like I do. There's two variants and I have the loose bowel, leaky gut variant as opposed to the constipation variant.
We both agree where the debate ultimately came down to and are both perplexed at why neither debater defined 'work' but where you and I differ is in how close this debate was. This is actually type1's closest debate other than his flat earth debate, in my opinion. Ragnar severely underperformed.
On here, since then, you have trash-talked me with Supadudz on a thread just barely 2 weeks ago. You like to interject into any thread about me and say 'I really don't like RM, he is so arrogant and really isn't that great he just debates alot.'
If you don't like me and want to spread that message, you can deal with the block. If you can't handle being blocked then learn to keep your mouth shut before you think and speak respectfully about me in public.
The lockout window doesn't exist at the moment. Ragnar is referring to a window of time before Ratings change where the mods can still remove vote(s). Currently votes physically can't be removed after a debate as it will screw up the entire Rating system.
I don't think you understand. Blamonkey, if he had the same amount of debates as us, would be a flailing fish with an elo of possibly 1400. He struggles immensely with handling one debate, this is why he can maximum have that at one time. He waits so long and thinks so hard about every tiny point and will only engage in a topic that has been literally debated in the exact formal structure that our debates are in so that he needn't think himself of any creative angle or worry about any new angle holding weight if the opponent brings it. He copycats professional debaters and alters the wording here and there, that's it. He physically couldn't keep up with our rate of debating because of how careful and terrified he is of picking topics that more casual debaters engage in as he lacks the creativity and perhaps even motivation to do so.
blamonkey picks topics that have already been debated in-depth formally before and copy-pastes angles withhold copying the wording as such. I am superior to him in my capacity to debate the undebated and win anyway.
No. In fact you are only there as you got a ridiculous boost (and me a severe hit) as you were low-elo when magicaintreal abused alts to give you that win vs me.
As someone who actually has IBS of the diarrhoea variant (not the constipation variant), I know for a fact that this does indeed have nothing to do with viruses at all and that 'leaky gut syndrome' is from a period where I have either had too much food that I'm intolerant to (not everyone is the wheat/barley/rye intolerant type, 'gluten intolerance' is a bullshit term invented by brands to sell you 'gluten free' products even though the glutea-variant molecular formations are present in rice, which 'gluten intolerant' people aren't intolerant to) or I have been too stressed (anxiety affects much stronger than sadness/pain/envy but all forms of distress make my shit become looser).
What I know is that viruses still exist because IBS doesn't claim to be caused by fucking viruses in the first place. It's true, during some viral infections (especially food poisoning), you will have severe leaky gut syndrome whether you have natural propensity for IBS or not but you're talking utter shit when you come and tell me that what I go through disproves anything about AIDS, the Flu, Polio, Yellow Fever, Ebola and whatever else.
I am such a terrible debater that you forfeited 2 debates which were IDENTICAL (or at least one was, the other allowed a new angle for me to counter you with) to the one you already had with me. Yeah, I must be so shit for you to forfeit every single Round twice over.
It's clear to anyone who sees our debates and the forfeits, who the little bitch is and who the alpha dog in the pound is. I needn't specify and incriminate myself in a flame war.
Unlike Ramshutu, I put you in the dirt so hard that you are too terrified to type a single letter more, let alone word or sentence, in the other 2 debates we're having on the subject. Don't you dare even think to talk to me that way again, I am not some filth beneath your shoe; I am a fucking champion.
You don't even know the true conspiracy, Somebody. Of course viruses exist because how else could the government have then created some of the diseases to make us dependent on their vaccines?
It's not wrong to believe in conspiracy theories; it's wrong to not fully comprehend them and make our side seem like idiots. People like you give conspiracy theorists a very idiotic image and I am not happy about it. Viruses absolutely exist, that is how the entire virus-creation conspiracy evolved. You are misrepresenting the case you're trying to make so severely that you're on the opposite side of it that neither conspiracy-theorists nor mainstream sheep believe in.
Do you want to know who agrees with you? African Pagans who think a witch doctor is going to save them and who are dying of AIDS, Ebola and Malaria. I wonder if they keep doubting viruses how long they will last. Do you want them to be wiped out? That is a horrific thing to wish, I want to inform them and also make clear that Paganism actually supports science as it's Christians and Muslims who are anti-science; we are their rivals ideologically.
Please remake this saying 'airsoft guns' instead of 'airsoft' because currently you have an unfair semantic-legal-loophole to argue that airsoft be legal while the guns remain illegal (which is genuinely how the laws were/are constructed).
you seem like you would be into Electronic music (yeah being ageist here) https://www.debateart.com/debates/557 please give a vote if you got time (any scoring system will do, just explain it please thanks)
You have to wait, google-docs is a free way to begin formatting it (but paste it without formatting and reformat inside the argument section as formatting takes up a lot of characters somehow if you just paste it)
But, I do agree with you that this is a bit silly if the owner is say 16+ and held responsible for the injuries caused, it's pretty safe for a social democracy with sane citizens like Australia to legalise.
I was kind of asking you what's the issue with it being illegal. Also, if you use the 'gel ball blasters are similar' argument, then a skill Con-sided debater here will say 'and that is proof that gel ball blasters should be outlawed as well' and reverse your dynamic to cancel that argument out.
Okay, sorry
Is the virus in the second photo like the black plague virus? The pattern seems similar on the skin.
Continental Drift (CD) may be a lie as I support flat earth theory and think that is potentially a lie about how things came to be how they are physically (there's only records post-drift it seems) but even on the flat earth some CD is possible, basically Antarctica is the outer ring and the Arctic is inside and the way the oceans and land interact position-wise can be phenomenally mystical indeed, so CD is neither here nor there in my eyes. I believe in it because it makes sense that the African-type humans moved around and ended up fucking and reproducing with the Inuit-type humans to create the variation in races and such. That doesn't fully explain 'white people' but that's because I believe there was a race/ethnicity that is in between Jew and Caucasian that... Well, it's a long story and I don't fully understand it myself.
Time changing with acceleration is to do with what you define as 'time'. If time is the 'true timeline' then you are correct. If time is the time we perceive and observe and experience, then you are incorrect as that time can truly make a second become a year if the disparity in acceleration is that severe. I don't believe in outer space being what we're told but there is still acceleration and Einstein wasn't in on any lie, he's a genius of great proportions that blatantly was unfairly able to succeed due to a rich and influential father in the science industry but nonetheless he used that to rebel against the system in a non-revolt type way. There is no way Einstein would make a truly hoax theory for the sake of the Illuminati, I DO NOT consider this viable. Newton, sure, Einstein no.
CO2 and climate change is sort of true. It's utter bullshit why they keep talking about carbon footprint as in CO2 instead of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. Carbon is an issue but CO2 is not the main reason.
Let's have a sue-each-other party and see who falls the hardest.
@Somebody
https://www.debateart.com/rules
"6. Threats
Misconduct should be reported to moderation rather than complained about in the forums. Even if an accusation or complaint is justified, it is not permissible to threaten another user on the basis of those accusations or complaints. Allow moderation to handle the situation. Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are not limited to):
1. Threats of legal action."
Please state which songs scored which and perhaps even 'why' and then leave the physical vote.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71Jp4TrpRNL.jpg
RFD 1/8
If this had been entitled 'viruses don't exist' I would have to write several more paragraphs than I’m writing here. Somehow, Pro thought this would be easier to win than his/her original 'viruses don't exist' and was goaded into challenging Ramshutu with an even easier topic for Con than the original one.
Ramshutu gives both proof and mention of multiple experiments (who can't all be in on the same conspiracy without proof from Pro that they're linked and allied somehow) that prove the existence of:
1. Tobacco Mosaic Virus
2. The Smallpox Virus
RFD 2/8
The effects of the virus, and results associated with it cannot be explained by anything Pro suggests. Pro thinks nutrition is to blame (not even exercise or lifestyle, literally only diet) for every single viral disease there is. Pro thinks if you eat right and every single person around you has a viral disease that you won't catch it. Pro is not only completely futile in an attempt to prove that 'viruses don't exist' but never once, not even slightly came near fighting Pro on the notion that those 2 viruses, given what has happened before and after both in an experiment and in the real world events of the human race and discovering the vaccine and ways they are spread (and informing the public of it), is in any way capable of meaning viruses can't exist since the reduction in the disease (especially with smallpox) is nigh-irrefutable proof that there was a smallpox virus which explains not just the spread but absolutely everything including how it reacts in a lab and can move through what bacteria can't; sticky semi-solidified gunk (this is something bacteria get trapped by but viruses don't). This is fundamentally what most virus experiments are based on and in the tobacco mosaic virus experiment there is something that bacteria physically can't do which WAS DONE by something that CANNOT BE due to diet. Pro never even replied to Con on the matter, he/she says "I have inspected your reference (6) and found that the primary cause of the problem was soil nutrient depletion." because tobacco crop does something to soil... WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE EXPERIMENT? DO NOT TELL THIS MEANT VIRUSES CANNOT EXIST, LOL!
RFD 3/8
Also, Pro uses YouTube videos, blogs and baseless opinionated sourced that SCREAM BIAS to back up his/her case while Con does similar things using fucking Wikipedia and all but what happens is that when ever Pro (I mean every single time) brings up a reliable source that isn't a blog-rant on the matter, he/she uses it to simply state a random tangent that is never brought up as his/her own point. I will give three examples of Pro doing what I said with his/her 'reliable' sources and then show how Con uses them much better and the sources are peer-reviewed science experiments and other such quality of reliability.
Pro:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298925/ - This is about Diabetes and is used to suggest there ever has been a doctor who came close to successfully proving that all diseases are caused by diet. Even Diabetes is only partially caused by diet, if you don't have the Diabetes genes you won't get fucking Diabetes no matter how much or little sugar you have, This was about type 2 diabetes which is partially lifestyle-triggered but you still need a genetic disposition for it. I don't have a clue why this is used in the way it is but it's a complete misrepresentation of what the source suggests and does.
RFD 4/8
2. http://www.vaclib.org/news/vaccinenotflu.htm This antivax conspiracist rant of a link doesn't remotely suggest that "The vaccinations proved to be more dangerous than any germ and killed people in the thousands." actually the conspiracy says they created an even stronger virus than the Spanish Flu and that because seven soldiers dropped dead from health issues (or perhaps due to Spanish Flu but no citation within the source is provided for that) that this proves the vaccine was not really a vaccine for a Spanish Flu virus. This source is used to prove that the Spanish Flu vaccine was more dangerous than any germ and killed people in the thousands. This isn't remotely proven by the antivax conspiracy rant in the link, which used seven soldiers dying as proof that the vaccine did nothing at all for the others. Some bodies react differently and even then, what is that link's rant proving? It was a rant where it cited no facts it stated at all. Just because it's '.org' doesn't make it really that reliable of a link.
3. https://www.highveld.com/virology/animal-viruses.html this was the funniest of all his/her links and usage of them. The link was a reliable source that supported, studied and explained the existence of and variations between animal-hosted viruses. LOL! This was used, by Pro, to prove that fossils are unreliable and part of a conspiracy that used pseudo-science to assert the existence of things.
RFD 5/8
Now for Con's usage of reliable sources, 3 examples:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048519/?page=1 While the additional source to this was very weak sourcing by Con (linked to the fucking Wikipedia, seriously) this could have been a brilliant combined ncbi-nlm source-strike onto Con that used both the Tobacco Mosaic Virus experiment and this Fowl Plague virus, to prove that viruses move through what bacteria can’t; thick, gunk-like substance. BEFORE PRO RANTS AT ME IN THIS COMMENTS-SECTION I WILL SAY THIS: This doesn’t mean you having mucus while sick with the flu disproves viruses, those viruses have been very ‘injured’ or killed by your body’s white blood cells before ending up there. Bacteria can live inside the mucus but be trapped by it, that’s the point. You don’t have mucus for viral infections, it’s neither proof nor disproof of viruses that you produce it while infected non-bacterially. Not all viruses that end up in the mucus are dead, some are just hampered or transferred into it as they can’t fight back to white blood cells very well once the antibodies are shaped properly in the white blood celll to the specific virus, so of course when you cough on someone with mucus within the spit, it ends up infecting them, there’s not only dead viruses in that mucus; some are just grabbed and dropped by your body, so to speak. On the other hand, if you have a bacterial infection and produce mucus and cough on someone, it is is the SPIT or THIN MUCUS that enables bacteria to spread via coughing and such, despite the thickness of the mucus-gunk. The spread is much slower than virus spread due to this and is largely why non-mucus-proficient humans were killed off in our evolution such that essentially all humans alive today produce it.
RFD 6/8
2. https://microscopy-analysis.com/editorials/editorial-listings/clearest-ever-image-ebola-virus-protein
Look, in the source, at this image: https://microscopy-analysis.com/sites/default/files/19-20-2018-ebolaimagebody.jpg
NOW LOOK AT THIS IMAGE I EDITED THAT TO MAKE: https://i.imgur.com/PWkW96b.jpg
This spaghetti-ball formation is not supposed to have the stuff on it. I have highlighted most of the ‘buds’ in yellow to explain how viruses ‘birth’ from the cells they infect proving not only that they are seen infecting but that they truly use the host cell to thrive and reproduce themselves via it.
Con uses this source to disprove Pro on the notion that viruses have never been seen infecting. This is a very good use of a reliable source but could have been done even better if he did what I did with the image.
3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/grassy-narrows-toxic-tap-water-not-fixed-by-boiling-expert-says-1.3211220 While SOME VIRUSES do get affected by severe boiling, it takes much higher temperatures and harsher conditions overall, than to kill bacteria. This source excellently supports the idea that there is an infectious pathogen superior to bacteria in survivability and ‘cunning’ such that you would be a fool to think you’d killed it off using methods that kill bacteria.
RFD 7/8
Conduct goes to Con because Con never has bad conduct in the whole debate while Pro has the following:
1
“ Con is getting more and more assertive as the debate progresses and is now becoming annoyingly dictatorial. Declaring that he was won the debate! ........and with very flimsy and almost laughable lack of information and zero logic. Not to mention his dozens of references which he probably hasn't read or checked to see if the link works or not. Yes, folks! That's what con did in our last debate. He gave me several faulty links which he obviously didn't bother to read himself. “
Pro actually said Con did what Pro did (use bullshit sources that even backfired on their case) but even if Pro didn’t and EVEN if Con did, this is rude. The entire thing is rude, I don’t know how to explain why saying ‘ flimsy and almost laughable lack of information and zero logic.’ and ‘Con is getting more and more assertive as the debate progresses and is now becoming annoyingly dictatorial.’ are rude but they are. It’s not the arrogance that’s the issue, it’s the way Con is spoken to. You can tell someone they’re shit in a nice way, that’s literally the finesse required to have good conduct with an aggressive debate-style. Learn to have it or learn to be so good, you can afford to lose the conduct-point.
RFD 8/8
2
“ Illness has an emotional context which plants don't have. lol Unless you are a Greeny. Then, plants have emotions too. Lol”
This is utterly horrendously sarcastic humiliation to avoid addressing a point. This is so logically fallacious and attitude-sickening that it deserves mention. Plants lacking emotions doesn’t mean they don’t get sick from viruses (them lacking emotions is an assumption by the way, we have no fucking clue how deeply a plant feels us tearing it apart we just assume everything without nerves and a brain doesn’t have another way of experiencing conscious thought and emotions).
3
“Its called logic con. But don't worry con, you haven't got any of that preciously rare stuff in your small little head. Lol”
*It’s
*there’s no fucking word called preciously
*small or little, don’t use both “lol”.
4
“Read it dumb arse!”
Read this RFD and weep, dumb arse.
That isn’t even the half of it but it’s probably enough.
I know who you are and who you are mocking with your about me. Do not think you will succeed in fucking with me in the long run, MAR.
Also, that cannot be your RFD. You cannot bring your own arguments or help a debater in the comments section like this.
If you mean glossing over the specifics within the thought experiment that lead you to conclude the conclusion they are trying to seem smart and superior to you by making you feel stupid for not having concluded, yes indeed.
I don't care how I originated there, I care only about the situation and analysing the odds that would lead to me making a gamble of it being morally optimal (AKA consequentially good) to 'kill' as opposed to 'not kill'. There's no third option as far as this thought experiment goes and that's fine, the point is that the gamble on it being 'good' not only is stupid, it defeats itself in that it forgets how much (including computers, many psychological, biological and chemical discoveries and the inhibiting of the Illuminati family Rothschild happened indirectly or directly due to Hitler's reign)
I vehemently loathe the ethics professors that bring this up and go 'heee heee you are wrong for not killing the baby and not considering more than just the scenario in and of itself in the blinkered view I want you to take it in to prove myself correct.'
If you give an analogy to prove that killing a baby is good, prove the student who says 'I actually have legit reasons to not kill the baby.' wrong without dismissing them as a subjectivity-clouded moron.
Not saving anyone in your/our timeline **
Your story is the joke to laugh at.
What is funniest is that he thinks that highly intelligent geniuses of strategy and war gambled on every single college student who ever did a practical exam involving viruses never once exposing the truth. Either that, or he thinks every single sample is tampered with by the professors to trick their students but that is ignoring PhD students who investigate without their professors in the labs at the time, often working late at night when it's only them in the lab meaning they're trusted equally to their superiors in terms of handling the Virus samples.
It is true that it's easier to see cancer cells or baceria cells than teeny tiny RNA strands but that doesn't explain what the hell his 'nutrition is the answer' as there's so much it doesn't fill in the gap of. How the fuck could AIDS be cured by informing the public about sex and telling someone with AIDS to fuck the brains out of someone with a condom in between them so fluids don't properly transfer, if the answer was really nutrition? Utter bullshit.
The Nazis made many accurate scientific discoveries that have helped Chemistry develop as well as Biology. Just because something is cruel in its means doesn't mean it's incorrect in its conclusions.
@Somebody
Virologists combined with the doctors who administer vaccines have saved more humans than any other profession on Earth if you consider what could and would happen if they hadn't discovered, invented and administered what they did. you should learn to speak with some respect or believe me you will be put in your place with defamation lawsuits and many other things, you putrid wisher of Ebola, AIDS, Yellow Fever and many other things to end humankind. You don't know what you're talking about.
Food poisoning can be bacterial and it can be viral.
Stress has everything to do with loose bowels when you have lifelong IBS like I do. There's two variants and I have the loose bowel, leaky gut variant as opposed to the constipation variant.
We both agree where the debate ultimately came down to and are both perplexed at why neither debater defined 'work' but where you and I differ is in how close this debate was. This is actually type1's closest debate other than his flat earth debate, in my opinion. Ragnar severely underperformed.
On here, since then, you have trash-talked me with Supadudz on a thread just barely 2 weeks ago. You like to interject into any thread about me and say 'I really don't like RM, he is so arrogant and really isn't that great he just debates alot.'
If you don't like me and want to spread that message, you can deal with the block. If you can't handle being blocked then learn to keep your mouth shut before you think and speak respectfully about me in public.
No, I cannot.
I have not.
The lockout window doesn't exist at the moment. Ragnar is referring to a window of time before Ratings change where the mods can still remove vote(s). Currently votes physically can't be removed after a debate as it will screw up the entire Rating system.
I will unblock you when you apologise for how you spoke to me in the Hangouts chat and take back what you said.
I don't think you understand. Blamonkey, if he had the same amount of debates as us, would be a flailing fish with an elo of possibly 1400. He struggles immensely with handling one debate, this is why he can maximum have that at one time. He waits so long and thinks so hard about every tiny point and will only engage in a topic that has been literally debated in the exact formal structure that our debates are in so that he needn't think himself of any creative angle or worry about any new angle holding weight if the opponent brings it. He copycats professional debaters and alters the wording here and there, that's it. He physically couldn't keep up with our rate of debating because of how careful and terrified he is of picking topics that more casual debaters engage in as he lacks the creativity and perhaps even motivation to do so.
blamonkey picks topics that have already been debated in-depth formally before and copy-pastes angles withhold copying the wording as such. I am superior to him in my capacity to debate the undebated and win anyway.
Participation-frequency is hardly proportional to rank. Type1 is testament to that.
No. In fact you are only there as you got a ridiculous boost (and me a severe hit) as you were low-elo when magicaintreal abused alts to give you that win vs me.
As someone who actually has IBS of the diarrhoea variant (not the constipation variant), I know for a fact that this does indeed have nothing to do with viruses at all and that 'leaky gut syndrome' is from a period where I have either had too much food that I'm intolerant to (not everyone is the wheat/barley/rye intolerant type, 'gluten intolerance' is a bullshit term invented by brands to sell you 'gluten free' products even though the glutea-variant molecular formations are present in rice, which 'gluten intolerant' people aren't intolerant to) or I have been too stressed (anxiety affects much stronger than sadness/pain/envy but all forms of distress make my shit become looser).
What I know is that viruses still exist because IBS doesn't claim to be caused by fucking viruses in the first place. It's true, during some viral infections (especially food poisoning), you will have severe leaky gut syndrome whether you have natural propensity for IBS or not but you're talking utter shit when you come and tell me that what I go through disproves anything about AIDS, the Flu, Polio, Yellow Fever, Ebola and whatever else.
I am such a terrible debater that you forfeited 2 debates which were IDENTICAL (or at least one was, the other allowed a new angle for me to counter you with) to the one you already had with me. Yeah, I must be so shit for you to forfeit every single Round twice over.
It's clear to anyone who sees our debates and the forfeits, who the little bitch is and who the alpha dog in the pound is. I needn't specify and incriminate myself in a flame war.
Unlike Ramshutu, I put you in the dirt so hard that you are too terrified to type a single letter more, let alone word or sentence, in the other 2 debates we're having on the subject. Don't you dare even think to talk to me that way again, I am not some filth beneath your shoe; I am a fucking champion.
You don't even know the true conspiracy, Somebody. Of course viruses exist because how else could the government have then created some of the diseases to make us dependent on their vaccines?
It's not wrong to believe in conspiracy theories; it's wrong to not fully comprehend them and make our side seem like idiots. People like you give conspiracy theorists a very idiotic image and I am not happy about it. Viruses absolutely exist, that is how the entire virus-creation conspiracy evolved. You are misrepresenting the case you're trying to make so severely that you're on the opposite side of it that neither conspiracy-theorists nor mainstream sheep believe in.
Do you want to know who agrees with you? African Pagans who think a witch doctor is going to save them and who are dying of AIDS, Ebola and Malaria. I wonder if they keep doubting viruses how long they will last. Do you want them to be wiped out? That is a horrific thing to wish, I want to inform them and also make clear that Paganism actually supports science as it's Christians and Muslims who are anti-science; we are their rivals ideologically.
Mornism was a typo of Monism, nor Mormonism, just to be clear.
part of my debate will be semantically trolling the shit out of you. Read the word 'than' and think ahead. Good luck.
Please remake this saying 'airsoft guns' instead of 'airsoft' because currently you have an unfair semantic-legal-loophole to argue that airsoft be legal while the guns remain illegal (which is genuinely how the laws were/are constructed).
He wants it legal for under-18
you seem like you would be into Electronic music (yeah being ageist here) https://www.debateart.com/debates/557 please give a vote if you got time (any scoring system will do, just explain it please thanks)
You have to wait, google-docs is a free way to begin formatting it (but paste it without formatting and reformat inside the argument section as formatting takes up a lot of characters somehow if you just paste it)
Heck, let's leave it at 18+ to avoid too much hoo-ha
But, I do agree with you that this is a bit silly if the owner is say 16+ and held responsible for the injuries caused, it's pretty safe for a social democracy with sane citizens like Australia to legalise.
I was kind of asking you what's the issue with it being illegal. Also, if you use the 'gel ball blasters are similar' argument, then a skill Con-sided debater here will say 'and that is proof that gel ball blasters should be outlawed as well' and reverse your dynamic to cancel that argument out.