That all you got? Am I supposed to think there'll be a consequence?
Don't you dare drop your guard again against me. Fear me to the core of your being or lose every time.
I fear and respect all my opponents and that is why I'm so much better than all of them. When you are coming up with a rebuttal to me or an argument for the resolution, I already knew you'd come up with it and how to perfectly counter it.
If you think I have violated terms of service go ahead and report me to the admin. Then read what you have written here and how you've spoken to me and ask yourself who is violating the rule of 'don't be a dick' and then kindly shut the f*** up and get lost.
You reserve judgement because there will be zero consequence for what I have admitted here. You will look over-emotional and easy to trigger and that's about it.
"You're calling me a dick and I'm not!" is what you just did right there just before saying I did it.
If I lack effort and strategy and you lost to me then either I got lucky or you are wrong. Considering my track record so far on this site, it's apparent I have strategy even if it isn't taking me much effort to have such excellent strategy.
"Never said you cheated here"
You did.
"are willing to act unethically and cheat to win."
You separated it from the 'unethical' and added it on to the list of accusations.
"Devil's advocate is when you argue for something you disagree with. Devil's advocate is not, however, acting in an unethical manner when debating."
Such as me questioning your reasoning behind SCOTUS being entitled to override what the other 2 branches agreed on? Yeah that was Devil's Advocate prodding at your side, not unethical I'm glad we can agree.
You accuse me of projection but every time you call me a dick, it tends to be that the post before and after you calling me a dick make it quite blatant which of the two of us is more so a 'dick'.
Do you know what debating is? Do you think everything I state or ask is my real view? It is a war, a battle and I will do what I need to in order to bring as much doubt onto your side and confidence in my side.
RationalMadman Contender
Added: 1 hour ago
If something is written in a reliable and well-worded manner it is pure inane arrogance to reword it yourself.
Here I quote myself because I can't write it better see?
Considering how this site breaks the formatting completely upon pasting it is quite a grind to make it look as beautiful as I do. I also cut out parts that aren't relevant in what's written most evident in the last quote. Read the sections 1 and 2 of what I pasted on the actual site.
In DI there is a haphazard solution where we make the Cx a round of rebuttal-only for the opponent. Only edeb8 has proper Cx functionality that I know of.
Not the opponent, only the audience can ask, the opposing debater is not allowed to interact in the Cx of the Cx'd debater. It's one at a time and zero words from the mouth of the other debater at the end of each's constructive. LD also would have 3 for each and would enable an EXTRA ROUND for Affirmative.
"I'm sick of the useless pile
of juvenile
rappers, who defile
the game and make people like you misconstrue the style
and just because I use a ruthless style
that's often crude and vile
don't mistake me for the crap that promotes gangs and truth denial
I leave those rappers eatin' through tubes, it's why all
those bitches put in grills to cover their toothless smile
I got a huge supply full
of weapons to contuse a guy's skull
I use the bible
to wipe my ass as I SCUBA dive all
the way to hell, and tell Satan I'll trade a doob for my soul
cause' I smoked up all my weed in the last few ones I rolled
but then I saw my chance to assume my rightful
place as the lord of darkness, and hell started freezing cause' dude, I'm ice cold..."
Usually this guy raps far worse and more insult-heavy and flow-focused but the intellect here and intricacy of rhyme scheme was phenomenal
No I shouldn't seek permission from you. I could be a friend of his totally not on the site who reads this debate and helps him word for word if I wanted. You are saying that because I'm a member on the site I'm actually less valid to help him than not. This is not true.
If you're not for the topic, please state that you are against it in the description and also make a promise to not run a K of supporting gun ban instead of gun control. If you do this, I will accept.
I will vote on this as Drafterman's may well be taken down if the admin gets serious about vote moderation. I will be voting for Virtuoso and just need to word the justification properly.
I am posting this to confirm I will be voting as someone asked me on PM to vote here and I said I'd do so and want to be held to be a man of my word.
People underestimate and call me tons of things but one thing I am not is the mentally ill moron that Zeichen said I was.
It's your bad strategy and lack of effort that has landed you in this situation and I am not willing to let down this debate. If I lose so bet it but I am quite sure I'm going to win after my Round 3 step by step summary of how I successfully opposed the resolution and you didn't successfully uphold it.
I am willing to redo it, yes, and have saved both rounds to google docs as I'm aware this site doesn't cache or even save debate post-voting.
accidentally gave S&G instead of arguments. RFD remains same, let me revote if you can or don't.
Truth is abstract,
But the person who said it was said pure math
God is real but it's not the J-C one.
Thank you for your lies babygirl
Yes I am https://www.debateisland.com/profile/someone234 I thought that was obvious.
If you had a penny more and were mistaken you would be having sound logic and wrong input.
Go take another nap and worry about your own issues.
I think you probably mean he is an epistemological nihilist, a solipsist is someone who thinks the only truth is they exist.
Aff Cons > Cx Aff > Neg Con > Cx Neg > First Aff Reb > Only Neg Reb > Second Aff Reb
It does represent reality if you're not lying.
That is also not a purely mathematical statement because dollars are not mathematical but physical and/or economical.
Example of that Thoth means.
If 1 = 2-1
then 1+1=2
This is based on the further truism that 1=1 and 2=2 as well as the comprehension of what =, - and + represent.
That all you got? Am I supposed to think there'll be a consequence?
Don't you dare drop your guard again against me. Fear me to the core of your being or lose every time.
I fear and respect all my opponents and that is why I'm so much better than all of them. When you are coming up with a rebuttal to me or an argument for the resolution, I already knew you'd come up with it and how to perfectly counter it.
The ToS were written after I got banned anyway and are not even confirmed as Virtuoso wrote them.
If you think I have violated terms of service go ahead and report me to the admin. Then read what you have written here and how you've spoken to me and ask yourself who is violating the rule of 'don't be a dick' and then kindly shut the f*** up and get lost.
You are a dick not because you lie but that is part of it yes, 'dicks' often do lie as part of their verbal harassment.
You reserve judgement because there will be zero consequence for what I have admitted here. You will look over-emotional and easy to trigger and that's about it.
"You're calling me a dick and I'm not!" is what you just did right there just before saying I did it.
If I lack effort and strategy and you lost to me then either I got lucky or you are wrong. Considering my track record so far on this site, it's apparent I have strategy even if it isn't taking me much effort to have such excellent strategy.
"Never said you cheated here"
You did.
"are willing to act unethically and cheat to win."
You separated it from the 'unethical' and added it on to the list of accusations.
"Devil's advocate is when you argue for something you disagree with. Devil's advocate is not, however, acting in an unethical manner when debating."
Such as me questioning your reasoning behind SCOTUS being entitled to override what the other 2 branches agreed on? Yeah that was Devil's Advocate prodding at your side, not unethical I'm glad we can agree.
There is no cheating, playing devil's advocate is not cheating.
You accuse me of projection but every time you call me a dick, it tends to be that the post before and after you calling me a dick make it quite blatant which of the two of us is more so a 'dick'.
You can put laughing faces, it won't make the loss or your lies any more in your favour. I am superior to you as a debater and you can't get over it.
Do you know what debating is? Do you think everything I state or ask is my real view? It is a war, a battle and I will do what I need to in order to bring as much doubt onto your side and confidence in my side.
You are putting quotation marks but if you do ctrl or cmd + f and type 'what authority' it doesn't come up with any results in the entire debate.
Cry more, you lost by annihilation due to my wits.
If you throw rocks back be warned I will break you in ways no other can or will.
Good luck. I agree but you'll lose.
I will repeat what I said before.
RationalMadman Contender
Added: 1 hour ago
If something is written in a reliable and well-worded manner it is pure inane arrogance to reword it yourself.
Here I quote myself because I can't write it better see?
Originality should never be rated over excellence. That's something even this very website and how it copied from debate.org proved.
You try too hard to be too creative and end up put in the dirt by a guy who is so elegantly in between creative and logical.
I search for several minutes reading at genius speed to come up with the best sources to use.
Considering how this site breaks the formatting completely upon pasting it is quite a grind to make it look as beautiful as I do. I also cut out parts that aren't relevant in what's written most evident in the last quote. Read the sections 1 and 2 of what I pasted on the actual site.
If something is written in a reliable and well-worded manner it is pure inane arrogance to reword it yourself.
I will outgrind, outthink, out-know, out-be the debater you are always and forever.
In DI there is a haphazard solution where we make the Cx a round of rebuttal-only for the opponent. Only edeb8 has proper Cx functionality that I know of.
Not the opponent, only the audience can ask, the opposing debater is not allowed to interact in the Cx of the Cx'd debater. It's one at a time and zero words from the mouth of the other debater at the end of each's constructive. LD also would have 3 for each and would enable an EXTRA ROUND for Affirmative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHqImCv0VzE
"I'm sick of the useless pile
of juvenile
rappers, who defile
the game and make people like you misconstrue the style
and just because I use a ruthless style
that's often crude and vile
don't mistake me for the crap that promotes gangs and truth denial
I leave those rappers eatin' through tubes, it's why all
those bitches put in grills to cover their toothless smile
I got a huge supply full
of weapons to contuse a guy's skull
I use the bible
to wipe my ass as I SCUBA dive all
the way to hell, and tell Satan I'll trade a doob for my soul
cause' I smoked up all my weed in the last few ones I rolled
but then I saw my chance to assume my rightful
place as the lord of darkness, and hell started freezing cause' dude, I'm ice cold..."
Usually this guy raps far worse and more insult-heavy and flow-focused but the intellect here and intricacy of rhyme scheme was phenomenal
Pro not Print*
Print loses conduct but rapped very well for me this is pro win for now
You can't ever do LD properly without a live audience.... Just saying.
Huge apologies to pokerlistings I didn't link your URL at bottom of the quote I will do immediately in round 3.
https://www.pokerlistings.com/variance-and-poker-pt-2-the-secret-to-controlling-online-downswings
Thanks for your opinion.
I have been, am and always will be a rebel to the core of my being.
You will not tell me to ask you permission of something I have not only done already but which I enjoyed doing.
No I shouldn't seek permission from you. I could be a friend of his totally not on the site who reads this debate and helps him word for word if I wanted. You are saying that because I'm a member on the site I'm actually less valid to help him than not. This is not true.
I would take it but I'm not going to open myself up to the 'why control guns when we can ban them' angle as I support gun bans personally.
It is physically impossible on this site to choose whether you're green/red. instigator of the debate is always appearing what DDO has as 'pro'
If you're not for the topic, please state that you are against it in the description and also make a promise to not run a K of supporting gun ban instead of gun control. If you do this, I will accept.
Maybe I misread 'rodent literature' but the Janus faced wanker is still direct abuse.
I will vote on this as Drafterman's may well be taken down if the admin gets serious about vote moderation. I will be voting for Virtuoso and just need to word the justification properly.
I am posting this to confirm I will be voting as someone asked me on PM to vote here and I said I'd do so and want to be held to be a man of my word.
But I'm not going to agree to deleting this debate.
People underestimate and call me tons of things but one thing I am not is the mentally ill moron that Zeichen said I was.
It's your bad strategy and lack of effort that has landed you in this situation and I am not willing to let down this debate. If I lose so bet it but I am quite sure I'm going to win after my Round 3 step by step summary of how I successfully opposed the resolution and you didn't successfully uphold it.
I am willing to redo it, yes, and have saved both rounds to google docs as I'm aware this site doesn't cache or even save debate post-voting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w20sqdJSH7Q