So naive you are, and even when a victim of the guy himself. He is telling me somethign with that post. It is why I haven't voted on your debate vs him yet.
I don't know if the issue is you lack IQ, information or both but I am not going to prove to you something that won't matter to you anyway. See, whether it was grudge-voting or not, you are better off either believing it wasn't and priding yourself on this win or knowing that you can rally voters against me.
Either way, I'm worse off so I'm going to stop explaining it to you, I've said my piece.
I am telling you a truth, the three people who voted for you stretched point-allocation and the capacity to vote for a non-winner via ignoring arguments to the maximum capacity that they could (or at least 2 did, bifolkal was kinder).
In the first he/she is speaking in terms of him playing devil's advocate (debate strategy he'd take representing the opposite side to what he/she believes).
I did attack the genus level. I said it's pinniped and that a pinniped is not seal which is why seal is specified every single time it's mentioned so as to separate it from non-seal pinnipeds. Read my R2.
"Just to be clear, the request for RM not to debate is not a rule, merely a request, and I make it for the same reason nearly every competent debater that refuses to debate him makes it for."
The reason is that I am the only debater capable of making the competent feel incompetent and to suddenly make them slip up in ways no other can.
RFD 1/6
First things first, Pro has a faulty YouTube video choice in the debate's description. You don't do something like that man, you do something like this:
ESPECIALLY FOR THIS DEBATE TOPIC ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8A2JQp0A3s
You should read up on that anime's storyline. It's one of the best single pieces of art to make it clear why vigilante justice can be superior morally to bureaucratic justice but still leaves a lot to question about the main 2 char's moral compass overall as it progresses.
Now, blamonkey boy did his usual shit here at first but then he went proper RM on Virty Boo... He brings in that raw on-the-spot counter-martial-art and WRECKS THAT BOY awoooo!!! Con stands there rebuking Pro's case against the validity of Juries and the justice system itself being sufficient to decide who is guilty and thus deserves death by saying... "Oh yeah juries are indeed an issue"... Oh yeah, LET'S JUST DO AWAY WITH PLEA BARGAINING AND THAT WILL SOLVE IT ALL... WOOP! WOOP! wait... Hold on, I hear something....
"I am assuming that he is referring to one of the many flaws of the voir dire system that I mention. However, the latter portion of his plan creates a gargantuan skew that perverts justice. For one thing, judges are not representative of the people that they represent."
AYOOO, Virty made the dirty justice system MORE CORRUPT! What's the reply? What's the retort? NONE.
Then I hear a RREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAWWWwwww, the monkey dragon is about to breath some gentle smoke before the fire consumes Con...
RFD 2/6
"Even if we get rid of the laws that penalize drug offenders, we still do not grant clemency to every single person convicted of a non-violent crime under Virt’s plan. Money is still used to feed and clothe people in prison, which means declining resources still present us with the problem of weakened representation for poor defendant"
How will we AFFORD TO IMPROVE public defence? Reply is?... Con? Smoke begins to make him cough bim bam boom it's only just begun...
See, Con is already barely gasping for air at this point as Contention 1, that the system is biased, bent in favour of the rich and that the least we could do is to stop them killing those found guilty before they have the chance to be cleared is not only conceded entirely, it’s compounded back onto Con with Contention 2 (cost) adding to the brutality of the strike.
Con begins his rebuttals with:
“As noted in my opening, I agree with my opponent's framework of consequentialism. The government's duty to protect the welfare of the people is utmost important.”
and Pro points out that earlier, Con says
“If I can justify the death penalty in even one case or rare and extreme cases then repealing the death penalty would ensure that justice in those cases can never be properly done.”
RFD 3/6
But this is contradicted by the fact that Con admits that if the OVERALL drawbacks of having the death penalty outweigh the OVERALL benefits, then one instance or a rare case where DP would be desirable is INSUFFICIENT because this isn’t consequentialist but absolutist.
Pro attacks this first, asking WHY morals should supercede implementation/application:
“Where is the reference to moral imperatives? If the resolution had the word “ought,” then my opponent would be correct in his analysis. As it stands though, I see no reason to value moral principles over substantial, tangible benefits to the people.“
Then later by clarifying that Con just conceded something:
“My opponent cedes that consequentialism should be the method that we use to determine who wins the debate. He drops his argument suggesting that if Con can prove one instance in which capital punishment is justified then he wins.”
Con ends the debate summing up his ENTIRE CASE as the following:
“Recall the syllogism I posted
P1: If the death penalty is sometimes morally justified then it should not be abolished
P2: The death penalty is sometimes morally justified
C1: Therefore the death penalty should not be abolished.
P2 has conclusively been proven as Pro completely concedes. I've shown why p1 is true and now we are left with the inevitable conclusion: the death penalty should not be repealed. A vote for CON is in order.“
RFD 4/6
But wait a minute, P2 was just clarified by Pro in the quotation-chain I brought up, to be insufficient to prove your case in and of itself. Pro makes it very clear that one needs to explain how they can apply their system and how the real-world consequences of it matter more than the moral absolutes or justification behind it. So, while Pro does concede P2, Pro also sufficiently cornered you, Con, into conceding consequentialism and not moral absolutism is the framework in the debate. Pro even clarifies what this entails in the quotes I brought up.
Something else I noticed Con did wrong is to bring up Hitler when the debate was restricted to the US and on top of that to a time-scale of ‘from this day towards the near future’ given that it says ‘should abolish’ and now ‘should have’ or ‘should permanently’.
“It is a bold, but nonetheless false argument to suggest that by proving that the death penalty should be used in a few circumstances that the Con side automatically wins. While morality is tantamount to this debate, we still need to weigh the arguments of the Pro and the Con, which is something that I originally brought up in my framework.
“Ergo, the consequences of my plan and contentions should be weighed against my opponent’s to see who poses more tangible benefits to the people.” – Me in my first post.”
This entirely decimates the HItler point, you can’t just say ‘oh yes it’s relevant’ and expect to win.
The ENTIRE CASE OF CON is literally that all practical applications of DP in the US should be IGNORED if even in one or two cases it can be proven to be morally desirable to have (and not even to a US-specific villain or present-day figure, no he brought up Hitler…).
RFD 5/6
Pro explains how it’s neither financially nor morally net-beneficial to keep the DP legalised and implemented as it is now nor even in any way that Con could offer in a counter-plan.
Con’s counter-plan was to genuinely, unironically abolish plea bargaining, to do ‘something’ to make public defenders better at their jobs and to go to the most extreme cases of a ‘supervillain’ to explain how we must legalise the DP for him. Even more curious to me, is that Con assumes he explained why the DP is desirable over life imprisonment or even rehabilitation (which he concedes from the get-go is an aim of the justice system) and basically says KILL THEM BEFORE THEY HAVE THE CHANCE TO BECOME BETTER, WORSE OR THE SAME. This is literally his case. I am sorry but the entire Contention 2 of Pro was not even touched on by Con. Con is saying it saves money to slaughter them and then does the most hilarious thing of the entire debate… Oh Virt, just listen here:
You, Virtuoso as Con, said that if you can prove in one case or rare cases that DP is desirable that DP must be kept legal and implemented as is. Conversely, you completely concede that all proven cases of wrongly accused people who got killed by DP are one-off and rare cases that decimate your cases at the core AND AT the seams as if we invert your standard onto you, you lose. Pro simply leaves it as this:
“Due to bias in the current system that:
a) Cannot be addressed by my opponent unless he shifts the goal posts and
b) Cannot be solved by his proposed ideas even if he could use a CP halfway into the debate,
We see that innocents will likely die. Under the agreed framework of consequentialism and fulfilling the role of government, we scan easily
You genuinely conceded a and b to him because you said:
“The current way in which the jury selection is used is deeply flawed in my opinion. Pro highlights some of these important issues. I agree that an all-white jury on an African American defendant is highly problematic.”
Er… So how will you fix that? Letting JUDGES DECIDE MORE?!
Then you say “we need to completely abolish all victimless crimes such as prostitution, drug possession, selling drugs, etc. We need to completely stop prosecuting such crimes”... What the hell do you know about how pimps treat prostitutes? Do you even know how horrific human trafficking is? Your source is so superficial with what it proves, Pro retorts:
“Even if we get rid of the laws that penalize drug offenders, we still do not grant clemency to every single person convicted of a non-violent crime under Virt’s plan. Money is still used to feed and clothe people in prison, which means declining resources still present us with the problem of weakened representation for poor defendants. “
MagicAintreal gets his IRL colleagues and friends/family to help him with his debates. They will even gang up on others who aren't debating against him to teach them 'a lesson'.
It's best to sit tight for now, eventually they will get banned permanently for it if they pick on enough people.
^ This is not a threat, it's encouraging peace for now.
To be fair to Swag here, he had a completely unwinnable position. I would be happy to explain a Pagan take on OT vs NT where NT's "God" is not the same as the OT's God and one where Jesus is not only Lucifer but furthermore Satan is not Lucifer, instead Satan is the God of the OT.
This required so much research to prove each point. I had a good syllogism and all, whatever. I will just post in R2.
NOTE: THIS IS NOT ABOUT ARTIFICIAL GMO, IT'S A TRAP.
We all naturally evolved and so did plants and animals THIS IS NATURAL GMO AND THIS WILL BE PRIMARY ANGLE!
ALTERNATIVE SEMANTIC ABUSE ANGLE::::::::::::::::::
HE WILL WAY THAT we eat GMOs at times, THEREFORE IT'S FOOD AND FOOD IS ESSENTIAL TO LIFE
this is a logical fallacy, OF COURSE bit since........
EVEN THE WORD 'MODIFIED' IS ALTERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THE WORD MODIFIED I GET IT NOW WAHOOOOOOOHA
HUMAN-DEFINITION WARNING, HE IS GOING TO SAY THAT GMO IS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF WHAT HUMANS MAKE AND DO
ALERT ALERT, LIFE-DEFINITION ALLOWS ACTIVITIES TO BE 'ESSENTIAL' to THE LIVING BEING.
Alert!!!!! Alert !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT ACCEPT THIS SEMANTIC HOOLABULLOO DEBATE THIS IS YOUR DAILY WARNING.
I was fully aware of Pro's line of reasoning, Pro has copy pasted their R1 from their DDO account which is the same username.
I was prepared fully for all angles of semantics vs science and how to prove that it's the English semantics which are at fault, not the science.
So naive you are, and even when a victim of the guy himself. He is telling me somethign with that post. It is why I haven't voted on your debate vs him yet.
Yeah you ask magicaintreal LOL
I don't know if the issue is you lack IQ, information or both but I am not going to prove to you something that won't matter to you anyway. See, whether it was grudge-voting or not, you are better off either believing it wasn't and priding yourself on this win or knowing that you can rally voters against me.
Either way, I'm worse off so I'm going to stop explaining it to you, I've said my piece.
Two are friends IRL or colleagues IRL of Magicaintreal. The account DebateVoter's only activity on the site ever was to make that vote.
All 3 had an agenda to vote against me.
I am telling you a truth, the three people who voted for you stretched point-allocation and the capacity to vote for a non-winner via ignoring arguments to the maximum capacity that they could (or at least 2 did, bifolkal was kinder).
You didn't. You were a bystander who profited from a grudge and rivalry.
In the first he/she is speaking in terms of him playing devil's advocate (debate strategy he'd take representing the opposite side to what he/she believes).
Because he has honour.
Please vote
So I won't bother flagging it as it passes for valid even though it's not.
But virtuosos and the idiotic vote standards will allow your lie to pass for valid RFD.
I did attack the genus level. I said it's pinniped and that a pinniped is not seal which is why seal is specified every single time it's mentioned so as to separate it from non-seal pinnipeds. Read my R2.
and you are solely there because of ratoing-feeding thanks to one of these debaters grudge voting against me
He is going to semantically decimate you, I wouldn't be begging for it if I were you.
Thank you, I pride myself on it.
The naming and semantics is the only line of argumentation you have. The rest is defeated by science and by the logic of the naming paths.
I could not win on your side against me on my side.
I meant Round 1 = R1 oh my god, I did not mean R2 is my R1
will appreciate a vote.
Yes, you are indeed meant to judge this in that way.
this is true skill.
those are the only 2 errors I see.
It's meant to be eared pinniped or the latin version.
sea lions moan LOUDER not lower.
Exactly.
Yes I will not reply to your r2 in my r2
"Just to be clear, the request for RM not to debate is not a rule, merely a request, and I make it for the same reason nearly every competent debater that refuses to debate him makes it for."
The reason is that I am the only debater capable of making the competent feel incompetent and to suddenly make them slip up in ways no other can.
Fear is the reason, simple as that.
There you go.
RFD 1/6
First things first, Pro has a faulty YouTube video choice in the debate's description. You don't do something like that man, you do something like this:
ESPECIALLY FOR THIS DEBATE TOPIC ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8A2JQp0A3s
You should read up on that anime's storyline. It's one of the best single pieces of art to make it clear why vigilante justice can be superior morally to bureaucratic justice but still leaves a lot to question about the main 2 char's moral compass overall as it progresses.
Now, blamonkey boy did his usual shit here at first but then he went proper RM on Virty Boo... He brings in that raw on-the-spot counter-martial-art and WRECKS THAT BOY awoooo!!! Con stands there rebuking Pro's case against the validity of Juries and the justice system itself being sufficient to decide who is guilty and thus deserves death by saying... "Oh yeah juries are indeed an issue"... Oh yeah, LET'S JUST DO AWAY WITH PLEA BARGAINING AND THAT WILL SOLVE IT ALL... WOOP! WOOP! wait... Hold on, I hear something....
"I am assuming that he is referring to one of the many flaws of the voir dire system that I mention. However, the latter portion of his plan creates a gargantuan skew that perverts justice. For one thing, judges are not representative of the people that they represent."
AYOOO, Virty made the dirty justice system MORE CORRUPT! What's the reply? What's the retort? NONE.
Then I hear a RREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAWWWwwww, the monkey dragon is about to breath some gentle smoke before the fire consumes Con...
RFD 2/6
"Even if we get rid of the laws that penalize drug offenders, we still do not grant clemency to every single person convicted of a non-violent crime under Virt’s plan. Money is still used to feed and clothe people in prison, which means declining resources still present us with the problem of weakened representation for poor defendant"
How will we AFFORD TO IMPROVE public defence? Reply is?... Con? Smoke begins to make him cough bim bam boom it's only just begun...
See, Con is already barely gasping for air at this point as Contention 1, that the system is biased, bent in favour of the rich and that the least we could do is to stop them killing those found guilty before they have the chance to be cleared is not only conceded entirely, it’s compounded back onto Con with Contention 2 (cost) adding to the brutality of the strike.
Con begins his rebuttals with:
“As noted in my opening, I agree with my opponent's framework of consequentialism. The government's duty to protect the welfare of the people is utmost important.”
and Pro points out that earlier, Con says
“If I can justify the death penalty in even one case or rare and extreme cases then repealing the death penalty would ensure that justice in those cases can never be properly done.”
RFD 3/6
But this is contradicted by the fact that Con admits that if the OVERALL drawbacks of having the death penalty outweigh the OVERALL benefits, then one instance or a rare case where DP would be desirable is INSUFFICIENT because this isn’t consequentialist but absolutist.
Pro attacks this first, asking WHY morals should supercede implementation/application:
“Where is the reference to moral imperatives? If the resolution had the word “ought,” then my opponent would be correct in his analysis. As it stands though, I see no reason to value moral principles over substantial, tangible benefits to the people.“
Then later by clarifying that Con just conceded something:
“My opponent cedes that consequentialism should be the method that we use to determine who wins the debate. He drops his argument suggesting that if Con can prove one instance in which capital punishment is justified then he wins.”
Con ends the debate summing up his ENTIRE CASE as the following:
“Recall the syllogism I posted
P1: If the death penalty is sometimes morally justified then it should not be abolished
P2: The death penalty is sometimes morally justified
C1: Therefore the death penalty should not be abolished.
P2 has conclusively been proven as Pro completely concedes. I've shown why p1 is true and now we are left with the inevitable conclusion: the death penalty should not be repealed. A vote for CON is in order.“
RFD 4/6
But wait a minute, P2 was just clarified by Pro in the quotation-chain I brought up, to be insufficient to prove your case in and of itself. Pro makes it very clear that one needs to explain how they can apply their system and how the real-world consequences of it matter more than the moral absolutes or justification behind it. So, while Pro does concede P2, Pro also sufficiently cornered you, Con, into conceding consequentialism and not moral absolutism is the framework in the debate. Pro even clarifies what this entails in the quotes I brought up.
Something else I noticed Con did wrong is to bring up Hitler when the debate was restricted to the US and on top of that to a time-scale of ‘from this day towards the near future’ given that it says ‘should abolish’ and now ‘should have’ or ‘should permanently’.
“It is a bold, but nonetheless false argument to suggest that by proving that the death penalty should be used in a few circumstances that the Con side automatically wins. While morality is tantamount to this debate, we still need to weigh the arguments of the Pro and the Con, which is something that I originally brought up in my framework.
“Ergo, the consequences of my plan and contentions should be weighed against my opponent’s to see who poses more tangible benefits to the people.” – Me in my first post.”
This entirely decimates the HItler point, you can’t just say ‘oh yes it’s relevant’ and expect to win.
The ENTIRE CASE OF CON is literally that all practical applications of DP in the US should be IGNORED if even in one or two cases it can be proven to be morally desirable to have (and not even to a US-specific villain or present-day figure, no he brought up Hitler…).
RFD 5/6
Pro explains how it’s neither financially nor morally net-beneficial to keep the DP legalised and implemented as it is now nor even in any way that Con could offer in a counter-plan.
Con’s counter-plan was to genuinely, unironically abolish plea bargaining, to do ‘something’ to make public defenders better at their jobs and to go to the most extreme cases of a ‘supervillain’ to explain how we must legalise the DP for him. Even more curious to me, is that Con assumes he explained why the DP is desirable over life imprisonment or even rehabilitation (which he concedes from the get-go is an aim of the justice system) and basically says KILL THEM BEFORE THEY HAVE THE CHANCE TO BECOME BETTER, WORSE OR THE SAME. This is literally his case. I am sorry but the entire Contention 2 of Pro was not even touched on by Con. Con is saying it saves money to slaughter them and then does the most hilarious thing of the entire debate… Oh Virt, just listen here:
You, Virtuoso as Con, said that if you can prove in one case or rare cases that DP is desirable that DP must be kept legal and implemented as is. Conversely, you completely concede that all proven cases of wrongly accused people who got killed by DP are one-off and rare cases that decimate your cases at the core AND AT the seams as if we invert your standard onto you, you lose. Pro simply leaves it as this:
“Due to bias in the current system that:
a) Cannot be addressed by my opponent unless he shifts the goal posts and
b) Cannot be solved by his proposed ideas even if he could use a CP halfway into the debate,
We see that innocents will likely die. Under the agreed framework of consequentialism and fulfilling the role of government, we scan easily
RFD 6/6
Last part of RFD
You genuinely conceded a and b to him because you said:
“The current way in which the jury selection is used is deeply flawed in my opinion. Pro highlights some of these important issues. I agree that an all-white jury on an African American defendant is highly problematic.”
Er… So how will you fix that? Letting JUDGES DECIDE MORE?!
Then you say “we need to completely abolish all victimless crimes such as prostitution, drug possession, selling drugs, etc. We need to completely stop prosecuting such crimes”... What the hell do you know about how pimps treat prostitutes? Do you even know how horrific human trafficking is? Your source is so superficial with what it proves, Pro retorts:
“Even if we get rid of the laws that penalize drug offenders, we still do not grant clemency to every single person convicted of a non-violent crime under Virt’s plan. Money is still used to feed and clothe people in prison, which means declining resources still present us with the problem of weakened representation for poor defendants. “
So what now?
What now?!!!!
WHAT?!
No.
LOL, you are a victim of a crime you are angry at me for exposing. Hilarious irony.
virt, there's zero rule against what I am doing.
This is also a reason I am avoiding voting on his debate, including this one. I am hoping he stops picking on me.
MagicAintreal gets his IRL colleagues and friends/family to help him with his debates. They will even gang up on others who aren't debating against him to teach them 'a lesson'.
It's best to sit tight for now, eventually they will get banned permanently for it if they pick on enough people.
^ This is not a threat, it's encouraging peace for now.
Please vote mod this votebomber ty
Do not accept truism debates unless they are made by the false side.
This debate is a fact and is impossible to lose.
Bump
Sorry, some say Loki isn't Odin's son. I wasn't aware of this.
This fucking hypocrite is saying we can't even vote on this debate when he does that to me there xD
https://www.debateart.com/debates/478
Magicaintreal and his gang sabotaged a debate of mine and failed to sabotage another.
Biggest example:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/478
I expressed my agony in the comments and he relished in it.
So, please, ignore the hypocritical sadist and vote against him as you please.
To be fair to Swag here, he had a completely unwinnable position. I would be happy to explain a Pagan take on OT vs NT where NT's "God" is not the same as the OT's God and one where Jesus is not only Lucifer but furthermore Satan is not Lucifer, instead Satan is the God of the OT.
I directly fucking cited the Qur'an at several points.