there is no way on earth your interpretation is logically sound. Even if it's feasible he didn't remotely prove it should be enacted that people have to do it. I disproved it entirely in R2 which you clearly never read.
Supa it probably is also an age thing. When I was 15 I was much less lethal and flawless of a rapper and debater than I am now. Give it time and let your brain mature, puberty and general biochemical changes will make you a smarter guy in your 20s.
[REASON FOR DECISION PART 1]
I'm just handing 7 points to the winner as I believe that will become the meta voting system of rap battles and the contestant who replied to me said do what I want.
Let's be clear here, this wasn't even close. Type1 won. It is apparent to me that SupaDudz is not able to separate his true self from his rap battle self. Your rap battle self has to be a merciless tyrant to the motherfucking core of its being. It can have no morals short of not being a snitch. You are not a human when you rap battle, not if you're doing it right... You're a monstrosity that none can decimate... You are Satan with the powers of God.
Type 1 slips in with the most brutal of opening bar line I've seen in a rap battle in a while:
You're nothing but a botched abortion
caught in the common thought distortion
OHHHHH IT’S ON but admittedly I didn’t quite get what the diss was about because The Last Jedi isn’t exactly regarded as a terrible movie by general consensus so I feel it’s too specialist of a diss for a mainstream site like this where barely anyone is a Star Wars specialist.
[REASON FOR DEBATING PART 2]
Compare this to the opening of SupaDudz:
Have you seen a man by the name of TypeOne?
Because ever since I beat the man he disappeared into the sun
Not only does he stop the rhyme scheme there… It’s kind of like what? Bit over the top in metaphor and lacking in sting.
Let’s move onto the highlights now.
SupaDudz stood out to me here:
His conspiracy theories are more fake
Than Kevin Durant, what a snake
Stalk my profile? I see how it is
My life's more interesting, yours is as boring as a quiz.
That girl I tried to kiss
Thankfully it was a miss
Continues the stringing of the diss in the next stanza:
Bring up the bios, that's an interesting game
Yours is like your mantle, empty and always the same.
Have you ever thought about cleaning sh*t
Because your rhymes are the epitome of it
Supa’s entire R3 was clearly him being angry and hurt at how brutal Type1 was being but the issue is that he wasn’t being brutal back he was tryharding to be SMART rather than MERCILESS and this was his fatal error. His entire R3 reads like a person new to rap and incapable of losing their need to seem human and kind limiting their rap battle persona.
Now for Type 1’s highlights… The entire thing had impeccable flow but he needs to work on his creativity. He’s improved a lot since I first battled him on CreateDebate and I commend him for it. He has definitely benefitted a lot from me introducing him to ‘smooth flow’ type rappers whereas he prefers ‘machine gun flow’ rappers by and large and it hurt his elegance in rapping which clearly he’s smoothed out.
Here is the best of Type1 in my eyes:
You're just a teenage
ween mage
still in your minecraft phase
who can't get your ass laid(1)
I'm past that stage
I've outgrown my past ways
I disappeared into the sun to blast rays
at SupaDudz in a glass maze
that magnifies the light and starts a vast blaze
that incinerates him, then I'll flick him in the ash tray
^ Excellent Stanza/verse. I was shocked at how well he did this. Note: It only rhymes if you read it in American accent so don’t read it in your own accent if not from a North American nation as the vowels will likely not rhyme such as ‘blast rays’ not rhyming with ‘ass laid’ and minecraft phast’ if you have a typical European or ANY Asian accent (or any African and/or Aussie/NZ for that matter).
Anyways, let’s move along it’s just that you need to bare in mind the accent as Type1 extremely flows well in an American accent but quite terribly if you read it in your own voice if you’re from the other ones as he exploits the ‘a’ and ‘o’ variant in American accent a lot to make what would be tarnished flows in other accents.
Let’s continue:
It's true, I am decayed, something loathsome to dread
but my tomb empty, cause' I rose from the dead
I'm a wraith that incants hexes as I flow from the head
when you're fifty one, you'll still have brought no one to bed
^ Epic comeback, he could not have executed this better other than added lines and more puns in them in the middle to extend it to an 8 line Stanza instead.
If I fought Rey
I'd saute'
the little thot, glaze
her and make her cosplay
as a ham on a hot tray
the plot saved
her every time she got played
she never earned her place at the top they
made her a Marry Sue, so stop say-
-ing the shit that you say, Sasuke
^ The accent he is rapping in would pronounce the name Sauce-kay which is totally incorrect as the undeniable correct annunciation is Sass (*twitch the tongue to extend the s as it fades*)- keh
I'm not Jesus, nor Yezus nor lead
I'm a cyanide breathing octo-shark with a dragon's head
you don't like big words? then I'll call you a fag instead
how can you think a bit of vocab is neg-
-ative as an attribute to have, it says
that you probably haven't read
since your mommy had to tuck your illiterate ass in bed
HOT DAMN this had it all, it had metaphor building (albeit barely) and smoothly goes to any vicious beat. It’s fucking brilliant and harsh too, this one stings for the opponent and is why the opponent became so infuriated and hurt by Round 4.
my masks?
Majora and Darth Nihilus both gave me half
so I could craft
the most evil mask at last
now a tentacle shoots from my face fast
and rapes fifteen year old girls in the ass
WOWOWOWOW This is referring back to the Star Wars diss from a whole Round or two before that (Rey is from Star Wars so it’s both).
I'm an evil genius
you're a weasel fetus
with a needle penis
your flow is more stale than dried out fecal pieces
catch some lethal breezes
of Zyklon-B, I'll breathe it
seamlessly, while you bleed from your weenus
HOLY FUCK THIS IS BRUTAL AND FLOWS SO GOOD and even better? It refers to himself earlier saying he’s a “I'm a cyanide breathing octo-shark with a dragon's head” as Zyklon-B is what cyanide is based on. Oh my fucking god this was incredible.
look at the description of the debate from outside here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates
Look at the description, it says "In this context, a civilisation refers to a type one or higher on the Kardashev Scale, not the traditional definition. My position is that all civilisations are Resource Based Economies (as in technocratic socialism)"
I don't think my start was screwy but I also think you are right in what I've conceded (I don't even understand the point in not conceding that your resolution would be best applied if enacted to the Senate and Presidential elections).
If you bring new points in the last round I may be forced to bring new things to rebuke them and will justify doing so. I can't really justify bringing new points in the last round because you won't get to reply to it and I will be the bad guy in the eyes of voters.
I meant to give conduct to Con and arguments to Pro but I ended up clicking the button for Con that was arguments and not conduct which negated what I gave to Pro.
I actually believe he has real ties to Anonymous man, I wouldn't want to piss him off too much personally. I disagree with him but I also have my doubts about Jacques Fresco.
I don't doubt that the founder of Anonymous is allied with trolls and knows the art of trolling in ways you and I are even not knowledgeable of. I wouldn't want to mess too hard with him though. If you think me and Bronto are dangerous you don't know real internet-threatening. Anonymous will literally ruin your life if you piss them off too much.
I am a person who hates both them and illuminati but I see Illuminati as the lesser evil as they actually do what they do for CONTROLLING the bad guys in humanity while Anonymous wants to never be controlled even if the bad guys are on their side.
Sorry, meant to add the arguments vote on top of the other 2 but I doubt severely that the one I voted for is going to lose. If you do lose let me know and I'll get the admin to add the 3 points. Otherwise I do not want to hassle him.
Yes but you did not do that in your first round perhaps because it was your constructive and you wanted LD I get why you did it. I voted for you but it's currently flipped because I voted "con" not thinking.
Opp finishes again in such a strangely successful manner. They attack exactly where Prop is defending instead of where Prop is weak and win the debate anyway because their points are sufficiently sound in logic and legal precedent. I really liked the whole inflation argument about how UBC pricing would cause market inflation that would end up hurting the poor. It was a total lie but since I can only assess how debaters fought each other, Prop never disproved this or laid out any logic for us to deny that this would occur.
I am not considering the part of Opp’s debate entitled ‘On the Proposed Benefits of a UBC’ because this was a series of brand new points brought in a Round that couldn’t be fought back by Prop and in a 2-round debate your entire ‘new points’ need to be in the first round unless they are rebuttals to what the other side says after you say your first round.
What I found in this debate’s conclusion was that Prop had basically said ‘UBC can be somehow justified by legal bending in the name of not being unreasonable’ whereas Opp said ‘It’s unconstitutional and hurts the poor.’
Overall, Opp wins as Prop has not only initial BoP but the burden to directly address matters like how he’d specifically make it accessible to the poor as well as justifying UBC and not considering it some kind of de facto means to control guns that is inherently good.
So, from the first round given by each debater we see Prop insufficiently attack and only defend the legality of UBC and Opp insufficiently defend the alternative to UBC but successfully launch powerful attacks on the very aspects of the resolution that Pro is defending and somehow doing well anyway… This is an example, to me, of how some of the best battles in any sport or martial art are usually between two equally skilled fighters even if both are only medium to the same degree at what they do. Both played suboptimally in their first rounds and somehow Opp ends up a major leader going into the second round of debates (which is the final round of debates since both ended up making this a 2-round debate).
Prop hits back in Round 2 saying fundamentally “I don’t care if it’s not really in line with specific laws, it’s not something to fear and doesn’t violate all that much.” While I don’t want to mock a debate with my Reason For Deciding (RFD) my vote, it is quite poor how Prop fights back purely because they again go pure defence and short of saying ‘unfounded fear’ literally have zero attacks in their second and final round of debating. Furthermore, just because something is not unreasonable does not make it legal or constitutionally sound. It also was a terrible comeback to say that because Opp is a hypocrite in showing care for the poor and the cost of the paperwork and licensing needed for UBC, that you are going to laugh at the poor who can’t afford guns and say Opp doesn’t care about the poor either. While true (I am 100% sided with Prop on this topic personally and even support outright gun bans with Japan-level gun control) this doesn’t make it okay to use in a debate. That’s a good quip to make in a political campaign or as a media headline or bolded caption in an article but it cannot be the basis on which you explain how you will make UBC accessible to everyone (hint, think left-wing politics you tax the middle and upper classes… Just admit it).
Let's get the equal votes out of the way, both had excellent sources, spelling and grammar. I found Virtuoso had better conduct than Buddamoose but that it wasn't such a disparity that would require a vote in Virtuoso's favour.
The issue I had this entire debate with Prop (Virtuoso was actually the side of proposition and not the green-appearing side) is that UBC was held to be a default and somehow an inherently good thing throughout. Virtuoso was continually defending that the resolution is able to be enacted constitutionally but never once (and I do mean not once to my eyes) actively made the case for UBC and didn't clarify the details of the UBC in both how it's carried out and why.
I believe that the reason Prop didn't actively push forth a case for UBC is that Prop felt they were on the side of status quo but the angle of this debate is such that you cannot be Proposing a resolution like that and just rely on people thinking you're on the blatantly right side leaving you only needing to defend rather than offend/attack.
Opp (side of opposition) doesn't ever call Prop out on this but instead decides to take Prop on exactly where Prop is defending their outlook. That is very poor strategy on the part of Opp because you always want to chip away at the weakest element of your opponent's skill-set and/or case but you were chipping at the forefront of what was being built by Prop. Nonetheless, Opp successfully hits hard in the beginning with clauses of laws and amendments that seemingly render Pro’s stance unconstitutional (and since the constitution is the highest authority in USA, this is a strong point but since that wasn’t mentioned I won’t congratulate Opp on securing their case in this way).
Common sense would lead one to be atheist, it takes sense far superior to common sense to conclude that God exists so saying 'common sense' is rigging it for you. The way to prove god requires very abnormal definitions and understating of what God is.
Actually it was partly plagiarism purely because I know that Pro was the guy who made the debate that Ragnar linked to and went by the name FactMachine (he's since been banned on the site and has ravaged it with alts) whereas the person he copied from was not him.
I have my reasons and I will not vote on this debate. I am just saying I will read it in detail but I will not say who I think won or why. This is a real thing they will detain you over.
I will not speak more about this one event tbph ever on the Internet and luckily I never did that in any public way did I focus on it.
I can admit I think it was an inside job but I will never ever prove it. I do nto want to imagine what can happen to Pro here or people like him if they prove it well enough.
Also that's the point, Cx is always meant to happen before anyone rebuts anyone so that the rebuttals can be based on questions that come up for both sides.
That is not true, there is a different time for Cx. After Virtu's first round should have been a virtu-only cx but it's supposed to be us asking you not you asking each other.
The problem here is this will be seen as me helping Virtuoso unless I go hard on him and I agree with his side overall heavily so Idk how to ask without explicitly helping him come up with rebuttals from my questions.
there is no way on earth your interpretation is logically sound. Even if it's feasible he didn't remotely prove it should be enacted that people have to do it. I disproved it entirely in R2 which you clearly never read.
Please unblock me, Type1.
Supa it probably is also an age thing. When I was 15 I was much less lethal and flawless of a rapper and debater than I am now. Give it time and let your brain mature, puberty and general biochemical changes will make you a smarter guy in your 20s.
[REASON FOR DECISION PART 1]
I'm just handing 7 points to the winner as I believe that will become the meta voting system of rap battles and the contestant who replied to me said do what I want.
Let's be clear here, this wasn't even close. Type1 won. It is apparent to me that SupaDudz is not able to separate his true self from his rap battle self. Your rap battle self has to be a merciless tyrant to the motherfucking core of its being. It can have no morals short of not being a snitch. You are not a human when you rap battle, not if you're doing it right... You're a monstrosity that none can decimate... You are Satan with the powers of God.
Type 1 slips in with the most brutal of opening bar line I've seen in a rap battle in a while:
You're nothing but a botched abortion
caught in the common thought distortion
OHHHHH IT’S ON but admittedly I didn’t quite get what the diss was about because The Last Jedi isn’t exactly regarded as a terrible movie by general consensus so I feel it’s too specialist of a diss for a mainstream site like this where barely anyone is a Star Wars specialist.
[REASON FOR DEBATING PART 2]
Compare this to the opening of SupaDudz:
Have you seen a man by the name of TypeOne?
Because ever since I beat the man he disappeared into the sun
Not only does he stop the rhyme scheme there… It’s kind of like what? Bit over the top in metaphor and lacking in sting.
Let’s move onto the highlights now.
SupaDudz stood out to me here:
His conspiracy theories are more fake
Than Kevin Durant, what a snake
Stalk my profile? I see how it is
My life's more interesting, yours is as boring as a quiz.
That girl I tried to kiss
Thankfully it was a miss
Continues the stringing of the diss in the next stanza:
Bring up the bios, that's an interesting game
Yours is like your mantle, empty and always the same.
Have you ever thought about cleaning sh*t
Because your rhymes are the epitome of it
[REASON FOR DECISION PART 3]
Supa’s entire R3 was clearly him being angry and hurt at how brutal Type1 was being but the issue is that he wasn’t being brutal back he was tryharding to be SMART rather than MERCILESS and this was his fatal error. His entire R3 reads like a person new to rap and incapable of losing their need to seem human and kind limiting their rap battle persona.
Now for Type 1’s highlights… The entire thing had impeccable flow but he needs to work on his creativity. He’s improved a lot since I first battled him on CreateDebate and I commend him for it. He has definitely benefitted a lot from me introducing him to ‘smooth flow’ type rappers whereas he prefers ‘machine gun flow’ rappers by and large and it hurt his elegance in rapping which clearly he’s smoothed out.
Here is the best of Type1 in my eyes:
You're just a teenage
ween mage
still in your minecraft phase
who can't get your ass laid(1)
I'm past that stage
I've outgrown my past ways
I disappeared into the sun to blast rays
at SupaDudz in a glass maze
that magnifies the light and starts a vast blaze
that incinerates him, then I'll flick him in the ash tray
^ Excellent Stanza/verse. I was shocked at how well he did this. Note: It only rhymes if you read it in American accent so don’t read it in your own accent if not from a North American nation as the vowels will likely not rhyme such as ‘blast rays’ not rhyming with ‘ass laid’ and minecraft phast’ if you have a typical European or ANY Asian accent (or any African and/or Aussie/NZ for that matter).
[REASON FOR DECISION PART 4]
Anyways, let’s move along it’s just that you need to bare in mind the accent as Type1 extremely flows well in an American accent but quite terribly if you read it in your own voice if you’re from the other ones as he exploits the ‘a’ and ‘o’ variant in American accent a lot to make what would be tarnished flows in other accents.
Let’s continue:
It's true, I am decayed, something loathsome to dread
but my tomb empty, cause' I rose from the dead
I'm a wraith that incants hexes as I flow from the head
when you're fifty one, you'll still have brought no one to bed
^ Epic comeback, he could not have executed this better other than added lines and more puns in them in the middle to extend it to an 8 line Stanza instead.
If I fought Rey
I'd saute'
the little thot, glaze
her and make her cosplay
as a ham on a hot tray
the plot saved
her every time she got played
she never earned her place at the top they
made her a Marry Sue, so stop say-
-ing the shit that you say, Sasuke
^ The accent he is rapping in would pronounce the name Sauce-kay which is totally incorrect as the undeniable correct annunciation is Sass (*twitch the tongue to extend the s as it fades*)- keh
[REASON FOR DECISION PART 5]
Anyway:
I'm not Jesus, nor Yezus nor lead
I'm a cyanide breathing octo-shark with a dragon's head
you don't like big words? then I'll call you a fag instead
how can you think a bit of vocab is neg-
-ative as an attribute to have, it says
that you probably haven't read
since your mommy had to tuck your illiterate ass in bed
HOT DAMN this had it all, it had metaphor building (albeit barely) and smoothly goes to any vicious beat. It’s fucking brilliant and harsh too, this one stings for the opponent and is why the opponent became so infuriated and hurt by Round 4.
my masks?
Majora and Darth Nihilus both gave me half
so I could craft
the most evil mask at last
now a tentacle shoots from my face fast
and rapes fifteen year old girls in the ass
WOWOWOWOW This is referring back to the Star Wars diss from a whole Round or two before that (Rey is from Star Wars so it’s both).
I'm an evil genius
you're a weasel fetus
with a needle penis
your flow is more stale than dried out fecal pieces
catch some lethal breezes
of Zyklon-B, I'll breathe it
seamlessly, while you bleed from your weenus
HOLY FUCK THIS IS BRUTAL AND FLOWS SO GOOD and even better? It refers to himself earlier saying he’s a “I'm a cyanide breathing octo-shark with a dragon's head” as Zyklon-B is what cyanide is based on. Oh my fucking god this was incredible.
Keep up this stuff FM.
The truth is vote me for arguments, not sources and if you want to know why I've won ask me.
I am the world's best debater and judge in one.
look at the description of the debate from outside here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates
Look at the description, it says "In this context, a civilisation refers to a type one or higher on the Kardashev Scale, not the traditional definition. My position is that all civilisations are Resource Based Economies (as in technocratic socialism)"
Do you want 3 or all 7 points to go to the one I vote the winner?
The debate wasn't if RBE is good or not but if the civilisations in the venus project all use RBE or not.
The Madman and the Batman have found an alliance.
I will vote on this and will tie the votes so I get a voting point.
because you didn't tag me i genuinely didn't see you ask that and I'm sorry.
The answer is in the PM I sent you.
good fight, may the best debater win ;)
I don't think my start was screwy but I also think you are right in what I've conceded (I don't even understand the point in not conceding that your resolution would be best applied if enacted to the Senate and Presidential elections).
If you bring new points in the last round I may be forced to bring new things to rebuke them and will justify doing so. I can't really justify bringing new points in the last round because you won't get to reply to it and I will be the bad guy in the eyes of voters.
My mistake, I will fix this later via the admin.
I meant to give conduct to Con and arguments to Pro but I ended up clicking the button for Con that was arguments and not conduct which negated what I gave to Pro.
I also forgot to cite my 17th amendment source. Will do so in R3
I say Round 1 meaning Round 2 and Round 2 meaning Round 3.
I will specify this in my Round 3, it was a mistake.
I actually believe he has real ties to Anonymous man, I wouldn't want to piss him off too much personally. I disagree with him but I also have my doubts about Jacques Fresco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMAh4JVn5_M
why does he have the exact same voice as the man in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMAh4JVn5_M&t=263s
I don't doubt that the founder of Anonymous is allied with trolls and knows the art of trolling in ways you and I are even not knowledgeable of. I wouldn't want to mess too hard with him though. If you think me and Bronto are dangerous you don't know real internet-threatening. Anonymous will literally ruin your life if you piss them off too much.
I am a person who hates both them and illuminati but I see Illuminati as the lesser evil as they actually do what they do for CONTROLLING the bad guys in humanity while Anonymous wants to never be controlled even if the bad guys are on their side.
You both hate Illuminati for the same reasons and use that as the reason you support and hate RBE. This is a hilarious debate to watch.
I guess I was wrong. I will do it soon, do not worry.
Source 5 is missing from ym list but is according a non-important one as it's within a quote. I'll reference it in Round 2 do not worry.
Since both debaters agreed on a tie I won't vote but if I notice someone else voting, I will vote.
Sorry, meant to add the arguments vote on top of the other 2 but I doubt severely that the one I voted for is going to lose. If you do lose let me know and I'll get the admin to add the 3 points. Otherwise I do not want to hassle him.
I'll do my round in 26 hours.
the definition of should is extremely deep and complex in 'should' debates and is a huge part of what SHOULD be explored in it.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/119?page=3&post_number=56
Yes but you did not do that in your first round perhaps because it was your constructive and you wanted LD I get why you did it. I voted for you but it's currently flipped because I voted "con" not thinking.
I voted Con thinking con was Opp I am sorry the red side was Prop and I forgot that in clicking the button. I have asked the admin to flip it.
Read bottom-to-top ty
Opp finishes again in such a strangely successful manner. They attack exactly where Prop is defending instead of where Prop is weak and win the debate anyway because their points are sufficiently sound in logic and legal precedent. I really liked the whole inflation argument about how UBC pricing would cause market inflation that would end up hurting the poor. It was a total lie but since I can only assess how debaters fought each other, Prop never disproved this or laid out any logic for us to deny that this would occur.
I am not considering the part of Opp’s debate entitled ‘On the Proposed Benefits of a UBC’ because this was a series of brand new points brought in a Round that couldn’t be fought back by Prop and in a 2-round debate your entire ‘new points’ need to be in the first round unless they are rebuttals to what the other side says after you say your first round.
What I found in this debate’s conclusion was that Prop had basically said ‘UBC can be somehow justified by legal bending in the name of not being unreasonable’ whereas Opp said ‘It’s unconstitutional and hurts the poor.’
Overall, Opp wins as Prop has not only initial BoP but the burden to directly address matters like how he’d specifically make it accessible to the poor as well as justifying UBC and not considering it some kind of de facto means to control guns that is inherently good.
So, from the first round given by each debater we see Prop insufficiently attack and only defend the legality of UBC and Opp insufficiently defend the alternative to UBC but successfully launch powerful attacks on the very aspects of the resolution that Pro is defending and somehow doing well anyway… This is an example, to me, of how some of the best battles in any sport or martial art are usually between two equally skilled fighters even if both are only medium to the same degree at what they do. Both played suboptimally in their first rounds and somehow Opp ends up a major leader going into the second round of debates (which is the final round of debates since both ended up making this a 2-round debate).
Prop hits back in Round 2 saying fundamentally “I don’t care if it’s not really in line with specific laws, it’s not something to fear and doesn’t violate all that much.” While I don’t want to mock a debate with my Reason For Deciding (RFD) my vote, it is quite poor how Prop fights back purely because they again go pure defence and short of saying ‘unfounded fear’ literally have zero attacks in their second and final round of debating. Furthermore, just because something is not unreasonable does not make it legal or constitutionally sound. It also was a terrible comeback to say that because Opp is a hypocrite in showing care for the poor and the cost of the paperwork and licensing needed for UBC, that you are going to laugh at the poor who can’t afford guns and say Opp doesn’t care about the poor either. While true (I am 100% sided with Prop on this topic personally and even support outright gun bans with Japan-level gun control) this doesn’t make it okay to use in a debate. That’s a good quip to make in a political campaign or as a media headline or bolded caption in an article but it cannot be the basis on which you explain how you will make UBC accessible to everyone (hint, think left-wing politics you tax the middle and upper classes… Just admit it).
Let's get the equal votes out of the way, both had excellent sources, spelling and grammar. I found Virtuoso had better conduct than Buddamoose but that it wasn't such a disparity that would require a vote in Virtuoso's favour.
The issue I had this entire debate with Prop (Virtuoso was actually the side of proposition and not the green-appearing side) is that UBC was held to be a default and somehow an inherently good thing throughout. Virtuoso was continually defending that the resolution is able to be enacted constitutionally but never once (and I do mean not once to my eyes) actively made the case for UBC and didn't clarify the details of the UBC in both how it's carried out and why.
I believe that the reason Prop didn't actively push forth a case for UBC is that Prop felt they were on the side of status quo but the angle of this debate is such that you cannot be Proposing a resolution like that and just rely on people thinking you're on the blatantly right side leaving you only needing to defend rather than offend/attack.
Opp (side of opposition) doesn't ever call Prop out on this but instead decides to take Prop on exactly where Prop is defending their outlook. That is very poor strategy on the part of Opp because you always want to chip away at the weakest element of your opponent's skill-set and/or case but you were chipping at the forefront of what was being built by Prop. Nonetheless, Opp successfully hits hard in the beginning with clauses of laws and amendments that seemingly render Pro’s stance unconstitutional (and since the constitution is the highest authority in USA, this is a strong point but since that wasn’t mentioned I won’t congratulate Opp on securing their case in this way).
In the future, link this in your debates, it enables people to screen your URL in a safe manner.
http://www.cekpr.com/decode-short-url/
One thing I don't like about the sourcing of Con is it requires trust. He could be linking to porn or a virus for all we know based on the URL.
This is the first debate where Type1 has genuinely impressed me even though he forfeited as per usual. He's improving, I like it.
Common sense would lead one to be atheist, it takes sense far superior to common sense to conclude that God exists so saying 'common sense' is rigging it for you. The way to prove god requires very abnormal definitions and understating of what God is.
Actually it was partly plagiarism purely because I know that Pro was the guy who made the debate that Ragnar linked to and went by the name FactMachine (he's since been banned on the site and has ravaged it with alts) whereas the person he copied from was not him.
I have my reasons and I will not vote on this debate. I am just saying I will read it in detail but I will not say who I think won or why. This is a real thing they will detain you over.
I will not speak more about this one event tbph ever on the Internet and luckily I never did that in any public way did I focus on it.
I can admit I think it was an inside job but I will never ever prove it. I do nto want to imagine what can happen to Pro here or people like him if they prove it well enough.
For reasons of personal safety I will not be voting on this debate.
I have strong feeling Pro is correct but I will not say definitely.
Pro, which journalist are you using?
Even edeb8 orders it wrong and has an 'all out' cx round
This is minimum one posted-round late as Virtu's second round gives him a disadvantage here as we can attack his attacks on you etc/
Also that's the point, Cx is always meant to happen before anyone rebuts anyone so that the rebuttals can be based on questions that come up for both sides.
That is not true, there is a different time for Cx. After Virtu's first round should have been a virtu-only cx but it's supposed to be us asking you not you asking each other.
The problem here is this will be seen as me helping Virtuoso unless I go hard on him and I agree with his side overall heavily so Idk how to ask without explicitly helping him come up with rebuttals from my questions.
That is an abstractly justified statement.