Wylted, you cannot change the flaws of the voters, you can only change the way you work WITH the flaws.
Sure, this is an excuse to be like MagicAintReal and debate purely by noob-trapping. This is also an excuse to be like bsh1 and debate on extremely vague topics where your side simply is the one that has so much more data and research done in favour of it that you know, for a fact, your opponent can't stack it up against you in quantity and that the voter base, on average, are a safe-bet on voting based on quantity of 'won arguments' and not quality of decimating arguments of less quantity. This is how whiteflame erroneously voted me the loser of the environment vs resource extraction debate with bsh1. I am not saying I was always a great debater, fucking hell look at RM account early debates, I was a childish little shit (sorry young-RM I love you dearly, don't get me wrong but you were a little arrogant rascal, let's be real).
The issue here is that while the mentality I have can lead you to be a cowardly debater, it also is how you can be a brave-yet-efficient debater in spit of said courage. Just do you and flow with the voters. Study human psychology, study the local-site-sociology of voters and how vote mods do and don't mod votes. Use it, don't abuse it (even though you can when you know as much as I do). Just roll with the punches and say "this is the first debate of the rest of my debating life." every single time your record looks like shit or you take an L. That's the way, man... The only one there is.
I gave a fair and accurate vote on this debate. Ramshutu gave a shortened version of this same vote, to be frank and I didn't even give the S&G vote to Pro because I was fairer than Ramshutu, to you.
WARNING
He lies as proven by my call-out on his Conifer debate and just look at his technique in the Sun rising debate.
DO NOT ACCEPT, you CAN NOT WIN. I am the only person supreme enough to beat him at his own game and I know when it's possible/plausible. I did so but voters struggled to grasp what I did so it is absolutely risky to do even when as amazing at debating as me, I tell you explicitly this particular debate (unlike the one I was vs him) has no reverse-troll technique. You have no superior semantic alteration to counter him with. He will call all luck as evidence of said definition of God. Read it, all random events and coincidental occurrences are proof of this kind of God. As a Pagan myself, I know how my fellow Pagans abuse semantics to prove nature is god itself, this is faulty Paganism and is what Pro is going to use. I know, already, his technique inside out.
Reason: Pro never has bad conduct the entire debate. Con says the following:
“taste like shit”
“hot shitty tasting soda.”
“you are just being a fat ass.“
^ On their own, these would be a slap on the wrist but no conduct vote on my scaling but if you combine this with the following phrases it compounds the degree of bad conduct in both tone and direct language used to be worse conduct than without these phrases…
“It's honestly retarded.”
“It's just like the idiots”
“some retard who needs to be sterilized.”
“Please Do not be a fat ass, who holds up the line and drives up the cost of delicious beverages by being an idiot...”
Con also intentionally misportrays what Pro has done and then sardonically self-insults to set up a means of insulting the performance of his opponent in relation to himself (there is no way this is accidental):
“Pro has not contested any of these things successfully or has dropped them completely. Despite my poor performance he has surprisingly performed worse thus far.“
“Him quoting articles by experts is not superior source material than an actual expert engaging in a debate with him.”
I am not sure if these are Con being delusional and speaking what he sees as truth or intentional lying but this is not at all how I perceive either case (the second is even more undeniably false and is a huge reason why Con lost the Sources vote).
S&G: Con has terrible usage of commas in general and doesn’t understand what punctuation is for, in general. This would be fine if he wasn’t so arrogant and cruel to his opponent in the last Round, parading his superior intellect and what-not. Fuck off with the attitude when you can’t use punctuation correctly. It doesn’t merit the vote being taken but honestly, Con uses commas and a lot of punctuation completely wrong. He sets up sentences very suboptimally so that he actually should be using a semicolon in the middle of many of his run-on sentences but on top of that he puts the commas not where the semicolon should be always but instead in two random places in the sentence surrounding the section in which the entire thing should be split up by a full-stop/period. Since I am tying the vote, I will not give examples. I am just triggered from Con’s general attitude in debates and especially in this one. I don’t care about humility, I care about how you treat others. You can think you're above everyone else without abusing everyone else and talking ‘down to’ them openly. It’s called lying and being superficially polite, Con needs to learn to keep his ego to himself and he’d perhaps fare well in debates conduct-wise. One thing I found hilarious is he does the opposite of a run-on sentence here:
“I am con on this issue. My opponent is pro.”
Also he uses a semicolon instead of a colon with bullet-points following it in R3. This is undeniable wrong colon-type usage but whatever, really I don’t give a shit about grammar. I give a shit about how one conducts themselves in the debating arena and this was shoddy sportsmanship all-round.
Sources and Arguments: Pro wins. Con never once, all debate, uses a source to illustrate a point. The only time he appears to use a source is actually an illusion. He is copy and pasting a hyperlinked text from Pro. Con literally used 0 sources to illustrate his point. Pro’s quoted hyperlink was about Ad Hominem attacks, it was nothing to do with the debate so even that isn’t an indirectly relevant link via Con’s quoting.
The Sourcing is literally the primary (if not sole) reason that Con loses arguments as well. Whenever Con says something, rude or not, it is emphasised strongly by… Con’s anecdotal experience as a deputy manager in a fast food joint or whatever he is. I don’t, at all, mean to demean Con’s job here, this is not a vegan rant or ‘ha you work fast-food loser’ taunt, this is about his sourcing being literally his own experience. We have two issues:
1) he can lie
2) he can be wrong (or only half-right) due to little experience and thus ignorance.
These issues are present in ALL points he raises. This means that even if what he is saying is valid, and disproves Pro if true due to well-formed argumentation and logic, we have to favour Pro in every single clash due to Pro backing himself up and thus being more reliable a bet on who is speaking truth.
Now, let’s look specifically at where this erroneous lack of sourcing is directly why he loses Arguments vote as well.
Because in his store, or what he’s been told about stores, there is apparently an automated system that has no function to press a button that automates non-ice-delivery, an argument is put forth by Con that the time-wastage is reason to not order drinks with no-ice at a drive-thru. The reason is ultimately rooted in the desire of the corporation and employees that don’t want cars to get bored and drive away as the car is more interested in a far ‘grab and go’ than being at the particular chain/brand of fast food establishment, on average.
To counter this, Pro states that this is firstly a point in favour of ordering drinks with no ice being allowed and frowned upon less as it is an example of customer choice and pleasure. Then, to counter this angle, Con retorts that the debate is not about the freedom to order with no ice but that people should not do so. Yet, the entire reason they ‘should not’ do so is that apparently it is too annoying to the corporation and other customers… Who says you should care about that as a customer? Nowhere, in the entire debate is this highlighted apart from that Con says the corporation will then increase the price of drinks to make it worth catering to the lesser customers. Isn’t that a good thing for the corporation then? Maybe after making enough profit they can afford a machine that has an option to toggle between automated ice and non-ice delivery. I don’t get what the point Con was making here is. I also didn’t understand why Pro didn’t attack him along the lines of ‘the corporation should charge more for non-ice order than ice, that seems the optimal outcome’ but since Pro didn’t do that I simply render the point negated and 0-0 as opposed to in Pro’s favour.
Con’s second point is that the quantity of soda you get extra by not having that space filled with ice is not worth it because the amount of extra liquid you sip and swallow is negligible in comparison to the dissatisfaction you’ll receive from the temperature and texture of the warmer drink on your tongue. This is, again, anecdotal and the problem with this being anecdotal isn’t just ‘Con could be lying or wrong’ but rather that this is purely subjective. Why is room temperature so bad in winter, for instance? Isn’t Con liquidating the entire notion of ordering ice to be optimal in some conditions and only suboptimal when the person would have blatant motive to order ice anyway as it would be so hot outside? This debate wasn’t necessarily based in a hot season of any particular location, it was a debate about ordering ice in itself across all conditions. Perhaps Con meant in the average weather conditions of the State of the US where he is deputy manager of that particular chain… Either way, I’m very confused how this is a valid source to trust (himself on a subjective, context-specific conclusion).
Pro combats this by having a “The Atlantic” business-section article where it’s strongly hinted at that the ‘extra sips’ Con refers to are much larger in percentage of drink than Con made it out to be. On top of this, from the same source, Pro gives a more reputable third-party’s opinion on the matter where there is reverse-example of the corruption of corporations and how they use ice to mask how little drink you get when one particular customer at (admittedly a non fast-food chain) orders chai without ice and is told sternly by the one serving her that the reason for the cup only being approximately half-full is the lack of ice in her order. Pro leads on to say how Burger King (a well-known brand in the fast food chain market) has its publicly stated ethos as revolving around catering to the customer and how the customer wants to be served. I was sad to see Pro not bring up Subways’ slogan and ethos but I admit, Subway drive-thrus are less well known and rare as the company specialises in face-to-face fast food, which is the way they ensure to be above others in quality of service. It’s sneaky, but effective… Anyway, Pro wins this point-clash hands down due to sourcing and elaboration on said sourcing. 0-1
Con’s final point is both laughable and horrific depending how sarcastic or genuinely harsh Con is being. Con begins fairly alright taking an anti-Libertarian stance on health; in short, people should not feel entitled or correct in choosing the higher calorie option if it costs the same as one that gives less for the same amount of liquid while maintaining similar quality of taste of said product. I am actually being kind to Con here, he didn’t put the point across properly at all and basically summed it up by calling Pro and all that adhere to the resolution as fatasses. Following this, Con builds further up his authoritarian stance on food and beverage by saying that behind the scenes, experts have decided even the dumbest-appearing foods you are served at your fast-food chain so basically shut the fuck up and drink your soda how it’s given or you’re a ‘retard who needs to be sterilized’. This is, literally without exaggeration, the point Con was making… So how does Pro respond?
Pro responds by linking on from the Burger King official motto, to exploring the effect that said service-attitude has on customers and their online reviews. He sources a Yelp review that directly highlights what customers will do to your online-credibility as a less-well-reviewed fast-food establishment if you treat them in the way Con has suggested and then does something even better in Round 2; he combats fallacy with fallacy but my dear Fiora (my god), he does it well. What Con did was actually not Ad Hominem attack, it was something one-step-back from Ad Hominem. What Con did was bullying people to strengthen how strongly he believes in a point being made clear to the reader, but Ad Hominem is saying that said insult makes him more right (which Con never states or implies). What Pro did, in return to Con, is commit false-equivalence fallacy as well as fallacy-fallacy. False-equivalence speaks for itself but fallacy-fallacy is the idea that because the opponent committed a logical fallacy in how they went about proving their view that their view itself is actually the incorrect one. Regardless, Pro wins the point due to using real-life example on Yelp as well as masterfully combatting fallacy with fallacy. You see, Con DID ACTUALLY commit a fallacy, the fallacy is ‘genetic fallacy’ meaning that he argues that because the opinion of drinks being good with ice comes from experts who decided the corporation should default to ice-with-drinks, it therefore is inherently superior to the non-default option of drinks without ice… Genetic Fallacy is committed here because the sole thing Con justifies the correctness with is the authority in the industry or in society relative to said topic that the idea supporting one side came from (i.e. the genetics of that idea). 0-2
The debate here devolves into smear campaigning the other debater on both sides. Pro wins.
IQ isn't the same as output. You didn't grasp me at all in a couple of debate you've voted (magicaintreal and death23 enemy debates are highlights of this but even when you've voted for me you have sometimes not fully grasped my case) but you are unbiased overall and quality in the depth you justify votes with which is always welcome.
He will argue that God exists as a concept central to human civilisations throughout history to today and that the 'reliance/dependence' is a psychological and sociological one.
Okay, his stat for aliens (his 12 mill, mine 11.1 mill) ends up being negated as being relevant to his case as I prove they pay take (8/11.1 ratio) and they create far more jobs than they 'take' net-benefit to the nation. Also when they take jobs they do them very well but that's not the point I was making.
When he talks obamacare, I explain that hillary and bernie has a single payer system and furthermore that Trump's 'fuck the poor pull all funding' way of dealing with it has literally caused the poor to have no way to seek healthcare at all without maybe pulling off somethign to be in debt for many decades to come.
I explain how Trump's own grandfather was essentially a borderline legal alien who was allowed in as at his time it was still the mentality that immigrants build the nation etc.
In fact he has 0 points against the feasibility issue. If it's never ever going to get the funding by any legal means necessary, how is it ever going to get built? This is a debate about it actually being built not just 'should it be'. I specifically highlight how impossible getting said funding is in my R1 rap with stats and multiple sources.
Given that God of OT is actually Satan and that Lucifer is Jesus and later on is Allah, I completely agree with your Kritik here but that is not allowed in this debate as it forces OT and NT to have the same God among other things.
Go back to the beginning of their won debates (not all debates, let's only look at won) and observe the RFD quality even after vote-modding was introduced.
Mikal and bluesteel were such close friends that bluesteel as vote mod led to Mikal being able to easily slip past the radar so he lasted far longer with the BS votes in his favour whereas the others had to earn earlier on (3 years ago or so) but there's a reason why the top are form 'way back' it's because they are from the gang-voting era.
He's talking about where the core community of this site came from. He is missing out (intentionally) how it used to be gang-voting mentality and shit. Mikal climbed by literally having a voting ring that to this day people half admit was really arranged.
Thanks for the vote though, it was accurate. I didn't even understand his global warming point and you're correct that he can't inspire said chain-suicides with his hiding of the suicide scam.
MY rebuttal to his scheme is that after a long enough time with a life insurance company killing yourself is also insured against, just with a lower payout. The only exception is if you actively hid clinically diagnosed mental illness beforehand from them.
Not sure if trolling or unintentionally ignorant.
How do you justify the sources and conduct points?
Wylted, you cannot change the flaws of the voters, you can only change the way you work WITH the flaws.
Sure, this is an excuse to be like MagicAintReal and debate purely by noob-trapping. This is also an excuse to be like bsh1 and debate on extremely vague topics where your side simply is the one that has so much more data and research done in favour of it that you know, for a fact, your opponent can't stack it up against you in quantity and that the voter base, on average, are a safe-bet on voting based on quantity of 'won arguments' and not quality of decimating arguments of less quantity. This is how whiteflame erroneously voted me the loser of the environment vs resource extraction debate with bsh1. I am not saying I was always a great debater, fucking hell look at RM account early debates, I was a childish little shit (sorry young-RM I love you dearly, don't get me wrong but you were a little arrogant rascal, let's be real).
The issue here is that while the mentality I have can lead you to be a cowardly debater, it also is how you can be a brave-yet-efficient debater in spit of said courage. Just do you and flow with the voters. Study human psychology, study the local-site-sociology of voters and how vote mods do and don't mod votes. Use it, don't abuse it (even though you can when you know as much as I do). Just roll with the punches and say "this is the first debate of the rest of my debating life." every single time your record looks like shit or you take an L. That's the way, man... The only one there is.
I gave a fair and accurate vote on this debate. Ramshutu gave a shortened version of this same vote, to be frank and I didn't even give the S&G vote to Pro because I was fairer than Ramshutu, to you.
WARNING
He lies as proven by my call-out on his Conifer debate and just look at his technique in the Sun rising debate.
DO NOT ACCEPT, you CAN NOT WIN. I am the only person supreme enough to beat him at his own game and I know when it's possible/plausible. I did so but voters struggled to grasp what I did so it is absolutely risky to do even when as amazing at debating as me, I tell you explicitly this particular debate (unlike the one I was vs him) has no reverse-troll technique. You have no superior semantic alteration to counter him with. He will call all luck as evidence of said definition of God. Read it, all random events and coincidental occurrences are proof of this kind of God. As a Pagan myself, I know how my fellow Pagans abuse semantics to prove nature is god itself, this is faulty Paganism and is what Pro is going to use. I know, already, his technique inside out.
PART 1 OF 8 RFD
Conduct: Pro.
Reason: Pro never has bad conduct the entire debate. Con says the following:
“taste like shit”
“hot shitty tasting soda.”
“you are just being a fat ass.“
^ On their own, these would be a slap on the wrist but no conduct vote on my scaling but if you combine this with the following phrases it compounds the degree of bad conduct in both tone and direct language used to be worse conduct than without these phrases…
“It's honestly retarded.”
“It's just like the idiots”
“some retard who needs to be sterilized.”
“Please Do not be a fat ass, who holds up the line and drives up the cost of delicious beverages by being an idiot...”
Con also intentionally misportrays what Pro has done and then sardonically self-insults to set up a means of insulting the performance of his opponent in relation to himself (there is no way this is accidental):
“Pro has not contested any of these things successfully or has dropped them completely. Despite my poor performance he has surprisingly performed worse thus far.“
“Him quoting articles by experts is not superior source material than an actual expert engaging in a debate with him.”
I am not sure if these are Con being delusional and speaking what he sees as truth or intentional lying but this is not at all how I perceive either case (the second is even more undeniably false and is a huge reason why Con lost the Sources vote).
PART 2 OF 8 RFD
S&G: Con has terrible usage of commas in general and doesn’t understand what punctuation is for, in general. This would be fine if he wasn’t so arrogant and cruel to his opponent in the last Round, parading his superior intellect and what-not. Fuck off with the attitude when you can’t use punctuation correctly. It doesn’t merit the vote being taken but honestly, Con uses commas and a lot of punctuation completely wrong. He sets up sentences very suboptimally so that he actually should be using a semicolon in the middle of many of his run-on sentences but on top of that he puts the commas not where the semicolon should be always but instead in two random places in the sentence surrounding the section in which the entire thing should be split up by a full-stop/period. Since I am tying the vote, I will not give examples. I am just triggered from Con’s general attitude in debates and especially in this one. I don’t care about humility, I care about how you treat others. You can think you're above everyone else without abusing everyone else and talking ‘down to’ them openly. It’s called lying and being superficially polite, Con needs to learn to keep his ego to himself and he’d perhaps fare well in debates conduct-wise. One thing I found hilarious is he does the opposite of a run-on sentence here:
“I am con on this issue. My opponent is pro.”
Also he uses a semicolon instead of a colon with bullet-points following it in R3. This is undeniable wrong colon-type usage but whatever, really I don’t give a shit about grammar. I give a shit about how one conducts themselves in the debating arena and this was shoddy sportsmanship all-round.
PART 3 OF 8 RFD
Sources and Arguments: Pro wins. Con never once, all debate, uses a source to illustrate a point. The only time he appears to use a source is actually an illusion. He is copy and pasting a hyperlinked text from Pro. Con literally used 0 sources to illustrate his point. Pro’s quoted hyperlink was about Ad Hominem attacks, it was nothing to do with the debate so even that isn’t an indirectly relevant link via Con’s quoting.
The Sourcing is literally the primary (if not sole) reason that Con loses arguments as well. Whenever Con says something, rude or not, it is emphasised strongly by… Con’s anecdotal experience as a deputy manager in a fast food joint or whatever he is. I don’t, at all, mean to demean Con’s job here, this is not a vegan rant or ‘ha you work fast-food loser’ taunt, this is about his sourcing being literally his own experience. We have two issues:
1) he can lie
2) he can be wrong (or only half-right) due to little experience and thus ignorance.
These issues are present in ALL points he raises. This means that even if what he is saying is valid, and disproves Pro if true due to well-formed argumentation and logic, we have to favour Pro in every single clash due to Pro backing himself up and thus being more reliable a bet on who is speaking truth.
Now, let’s look specifically at where this erroneous lack of sourcing is directly why he loses Arguments vote as well.
Because in his store, or what he’s been told about stores, there is apparently an automated system that has no function to press a button that automates non-ice-delivery, an argument is put forth by Con that the time-wastage is reason to not order drinks with no-ice at a drive-thru. The reason is ultimately rooted in the desire of the corporation and employees that don’t want cars to get bored and drive away as the car is more interested in a far ‘grab and go’ than being at the particular chain/brand of fast food establishment, on average.
PART 4 OF 8 RFD
To counter this, Pro states that this is firstly a point in favour of ordering drinks with no ice being allowed and frowned upon less as it is an example of customer choice and pleasure. Then, to counter this angle, Con retorts that the debate is not about the freedom to order with no ice but that people should not do so. Yet, the entire reason they ‘should not’ do so is that apparently it is too annoying to the corporation and other customers… Who says you should care about that as a customer? Nowhere, in the entire debate is this highlighted apart from that Con says the corporation will then increase the price of drinks to make it worth catering to the lesser customers. Isn’t that a good thing for the corporation then? Maybe after making enough profit they can afford a machine that has an option to toggle between automated ice and non-ice delivery. I don’t get what the point Con was making here is. I also didn’t understand why Pro didn’t attack him along the lines of ‘the corporation should charge more for non-ice order than ice, that seems the optimal outcome’ but since Pro didn’t do that I simply render the point negated and 0-0 as opposed to in Pro’s favour.
PART 5 OF 8 RFD
Con’s second point is that the quantity of soda you get extra by not having that space filled with ice is not worth it because the amount of extra liquid you sip and swallow is negligible in comparison to the dissatisfaction you’ll receive from the temperature and texture of the warmer drink on your tongue. This is, again, anecdotal and the problem with this being anecdotal isn’t just ‘Con could be lying or wrong’ but rather that this is purely subjective. Why is room temperature so bad in winter, for instance? Isn’t Con liquidating the entire notion of ordering ice to be optimal in some conditions and only suboptimal when the person would have blatant motive to order ice anyway as it would be so hot outside? This debate wasn’t necessarily based in a hot season of any particular location, it was a debate about ordering ice in itself across all conditions. Perhaps Con meant in the average weather conditions of the State of the US where he is deputy manager of that particular chain… Either way, I’m very confused how this is a valid source to trust (himself on a subjective, context-specific conclusion).
PART 6 OF 8 RFD
Pro combats this by having a “The Atlantic” business-section article where it’s strongly hinted at that the ‘extra sips’ Con refers to are much larger in percentage of drink than Con made it out to be. On top of this, from the same source, Pro gives a more reputable third-party’s opinion on the matter where there is reverse-example of the corruption of corporations and how they use ice to mask how little drink you get when one particular customer at (admittedly a non fast-food chain) orders chai without ice and is told sternly by the one serving her that the reason for the cup only being approximately half-full is the lack of ice in her order. Pro leads on to say how Burger King (a well-known brand in the fast food chain market) has its publicly stated ethos as revolving around catering to the customer and how the customer wants to be served. I was sad to see Pro not bring up Subways’ slogan and ethos but I admit, Subway drive-thrus are less well known and rare as the company specialises in face-to-face fast food, which is the way they ensure to be above others in quality of service. It’s sneaky, but effective… Anyway, Pro wins this point-clash hands down due to sourcing and elaboration on said sourcing. 0-1
PART 7 OF 8 RFD
Con’s final point is both laughable and horrific depending how sarcastic or genuinely harsh Con is being. Con begins fairly alright taking an anti-Libertarian stance on health; in short, people should not feel entitled or correct in choosing the higher calorie option if it costs the same as one that gives less for the same amount of liquid while maintaining similar quality of taste of said product. I am actually being kind to Con here, he didn’t put the point across properly at all and basically summed it up by calling Pro and all that adhere to the resolution as fatasses. Following this, Con builds further up his authoritarian stance on food and beverage by saying that behind the scenes, experts have decided even the dumbest-appearing foods you are served at your fast-food chain so basically shut the fuck up and drink your soda how it’s given or you’re a ‘retard who needs to be sterilized’. This is, literally without exaggeration, the point Con was making… So how does Pro respond?
PART 8 OF 8 RFD
Pro responds by linking on from the Burger King official motto, to exploring the effect that said service-attitude has on customers and their online reviews. He sources a Yelp review that directly highlights what customers will do to your online-credibility as a less-well-reviewed fast-food establishment if you treat them in the way Con has suggested and then does something even better in Round 2; he combats fallacy with fallacy but my dear Fiora (my god), he does it well. What Con did was actually not Ad Hominem attack, it was something one-step-back from Ad Hominem. What Con did was bullying people to strengthen how strongly he believes in a point being made clear to the reader, but Ad Hominem is saying that said insult makes him more right (which Con never states or implies). What Pro did, in return to Con, is commit false-equivalence fallacy as well as fallacy-fallacy. False-equivalence speaks for itself but fallacy-fallacy is the idea that because the opponent committed a logical fallacy in how they went about proving their view that their view itself is actually the incorrect one. Regardless, Pro wins the point due to using real-life example on Yelp as well as masterfully combatting fallacy with fallacy. You see, Con DID ACTUALLY commit a fallacy, the fallacy is ‘genetic fallacy’ meaning that he argues that because the opinion of drinks being good with ice comes from experts who decided the corporation should default to ice-with-drinks, it therefore is inherently superior to the non-default option of drinks without ice… Genetic Fallacy is committed here because the sole thing Con justifies the correctness with is the authority in the industry or in society relative to said topic that the idea supporting one side came from (i.e. the genetics of that idea). 0-2
The debate here devolves into smear campaigning the other debater on both sides. Pro wins.
WARNING
He defined God as being a superhuman existence, the word 'existence' in the definition is how he is also going to abuse semantics to win.
Debate Island is her 'home site' and she still mains there, this is like her 'side hoe debate site'. I have it the other way around.
do you know her from tumblr or something?
You do not deserve your wins.
And yet I am doing it.
I will expose you and soon others will catch on and expose you even when I'm not around to post.
Debaters like you are a parasite to real debating. You get good winrate from terrible debating.
IQ isn't the same as output. You didn't grasp me at all in a couple of debate you've voted (magicaintreal and death23 enemy debates are highlights of this but even when you've voted for me you have sometimes not fully grasped my case) but you are unbiased overall and quality in the depth you justify votes with which is always welcome.
Do follow this, brethren. I believe this to interest you and you to be a great voter overall if I have tagged you.
He defined God as being a superhuman existence, the word 'existence' in the definition is how he is also going to abuse semantics to win.
He will argue that God exists as a concept central to human civilisations throughout history to today and that the 'reliance/dependence' is a psychological and sociological one.
Do not accept this.
https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cxkbennett0496.pdf
Did you read the actual arguments or just focus on some words?
Are you moving over to the left or something? I swear you were a very rightwing guy back a couple of months ago on ddo.
thanks to me pming him vvvvvvvvv
As for conduct, raps force you to be aggro. Look at his rapping in R2 and general tone.
Okay, his stat for aliens (his 12 mill, mine 11.1 mill) ends up being negated as being relevant to his case as I prove they pay take (8/11.1 ratio) and they create far more jobs than they 'take' net-benefit to the nation. Also when they take jobs they do them very well but that's not the point I was making.
When he talks obamacare, I explain that hillary and bernie has a single payer system and furthermore that Trump's 'fuck the poor pull all funding' way of dealing with it has literally caused the poor to have no way to seek healthcare at all without maybe pulling off somethign to be in debt for many decades to come.
I explain how Trump's own grandfather was essentially a borderline legal alien who was allowed in as at his time it was still the mentality that immigrants build the nation etc.
In fact he has 0 points against the feasibility issue. If it's never ever going to get the funding by any legal means necessary, how is it ever going to get built? This is a debate about it actually being built not just 'should it be'. I specifically highlight how impossible getting said funding is in my R1 rap with stats and multiple sources.
Would you like me to lay out where I rebuke all his points and where he fails to address mine?
Would you like me to point out his poor conduct?
I am sure you think so. You are arguing what you see as a truism so all points against are irrelevant as you'd think it wasn't a truism otherwise.
Would appreciate a vote here thanks.
Would highly appreciate a vote here.
Because it lets me flex and fill up the gaps of an otherwise simple 'there's no money, it's not worth it' case. I have won regardless.
Given that God of OT is actually Satan and that Lucifer is Jesus and later on is Allah, I completely agree with your Kritik here but that is not allowed in this debate as it forces OT and NT to have the same God among other things.
10 mins is the time. 15 mins is edit-window for forum posts etc but 10 mins is delete-window and you can't edit a vote.
I may be wrong, maybe both are 10 mins now.
What are the issue you are having?
I deny that their votes here are bad at all. I also deny that, overall, either is a net-bad voter relative to the norm.
Go back to the beginning of their won debates (not all debates, let's only look at won) and observe the RFD quality even after vote-modding was introduced.
Mikal and bluesteel were such close friends that bluesteel as vote mod led to Mikal being able to easily slip past the radar so he lasted far longer with the BS votes in his favour whereas the others had to earn earlier on (3 years ago or so) but there's a reason why the top are form 'way back' it's because they are from the gang-voting era.
He's talking about where the core community of this site came from. He is missing out (intentionally) how it used to be gang-voting mentality and shit. Mikal climbed by literally having a voting ring that to this day people half admit was really arranged.
https://www.debate.org/people/leaders/
There is no funny reply I could give to that, that wouldn't abuse him given the resolution. ;)
Your sarcasm slaughters me.
Bumping this debate for hype but just letting you know I'll post in time. Don't hope for a forfeit, I'm just pacing myself and thinking.
You are always welcome to say RFD in comments and post a comment-split RFD
Thanks for the vote though, it was accurate. I didn't even understand his global warming point and you're correct that he can't inspire said chain-suicides with his hiding of the suicide scam.
MY rebuttal to his scheme is that after a long enough time with a life insurance company killing yourself is also insured against, just with a lower payout. The only exception is if you actively hid clinically diagnosed mental illness beforehand from them.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/56
Second loss not first ** for my RFD
No it's not.
God is omniscient and omnipresent.