Total votes: 861
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Pro used sources, Con used 0. Pro argued, Con conceded in R4.
Con concedes and asks people to deny the opponent of the win and then physically Forfeits the last Round.
Sources, Arguments and Conduct, all explained.
Concession by Pro in last Round and only Con used sources.
g
Pro conceded but this debate is illegal to have occurred, due to COPPA and such related laws for other nations.
I concede.
I believe strongly in the notion of Alec and this belief has come from this concession.
I take note that Wrick-it got sick with his limit; he puked out a forfeit EXPRESSION!
Today, I had an orgasm.
222222222222222222222222
Lol...uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Apparently this is called FF, so I slam dunk a vote?
Type1 did a good rap.
Pro fails to ever explain (and literally concedes, using this as the fundamental core of the Pro case) how socially constructed, 'groupthink' morals can revolve around an objective source. Even the need to survive (but many morals are about sacrificing survival) is not objective.
Con plays pure defence and uses a reliable online dictionary, Merriam-Webster, to make it crystal clear from Round 1 (and onward) that morality is based on statements, opinions or literary concepts portrayed from (and only from) our own opinions and thoughts on the matter. Pro literally concedes this and says that they're based on our urge to survive as a species against the others (so why is it morally okay to kill others to defend your subjectively preferred life-forms?) Con excellently plays pure defence the entire debate, leaving Pro incapable of upholding BoP.
⠀
Con used sources to back up a somewhat troll angle of 'cops need guns' and rested on this being the primary way to attack banning guns for civilians. Pro didn't dismiss this or call it debating in bad faith, instead Pro says cops don't need lethal force. Con brought up a few scenarios where tasers won't be enough and also analysed the effect of guns on rape and homicide being lower. Pro never challenges these findings or trends.
Pro forfeited 2 Rounds and was all-around lazy. Therefore conduct goes to Con as well. Pro never used a source.
Near-FF, Con never puts forth an argument other than questioning Pro while Pro establishes grounds to not ban it based on it being no different fundamentally to other dangerous sports.
Pro used sources to back up his points.
Pro's rap felt forced.
FF, pure.........
In the following debate, bsh1 allowed a debate with four rounds where only 2 are forfeited to result in non-removal of Pink freud's vote:
"Pro ff 2 rounds which is poor conduct"
https://www.debateart.com/debates/767/vote_links/1426
https://www.debateart.com/debates/767/comment_links/8578
This debate is identical. so my RFD is that Pro forfeited 2 Rounds, which is poor conduct.
"Pro ff 2 rounds which is poor conduct"
- pinkfreud08
I feel the same way about this debate.
Pro knows he's gay, Pro said he's gay. Con says we need to dox Pro to know if he's gay or not but who is society to say that? Nowhere in Con's argument is it made clear why if Pro is doxxing himself by outing as a gay IRL, then why it's an issue.
Doxxing is only wrong if others do it, this is something Pro didn't have to type, it's a given and even if it's wrong it would be wrong means to prove the resolution true, which Con strongly showed fear of happening as the resolution is true.
Conduct to Pro because Con called this debate 'bullshit' and denied Pro's right to confirm himself as gay whether or not we dox him and judge this for ourselves.
Both sides FF post-R1. Con baselessly asserts his own definitions but never defies the reasoning Pro gives of the following kind:
"the more authority there is the more class there is, and the more class there is the more the interests of the people at large and the people in power are divided. "
Pro wins, gg :) Nice one type1! :)
Nice meme Type1! :)
Pro waived last Round.
You...gmcnkdldkf
.
...................................................................
Type1 losing to his higher elo alt.
Countering votebomb of death23.
Brendo was insanely intelligent this debate, it shocked me thoroughly. He used BoP maneuvring to its maximum capacity from Round 1 alone, it is very strange to do so early but Omar didn't pick up on it. Omar tried to justify how dangerous the speech of the guy inciting violence against certain religions and ethnicities is but if speech is so powerful why didn't Will just talk against the guy? Brendo sandwiched Omar between having to either concede that it was assault, in order to talk about how wrong it was for Anning to 'fight back' or alternatively to bring the opponent, while justifying the right to smash an egg on someone's head, to end up admitting that if one is free to do something as overt as that surely freedom of speech is more so paramount.
From Round 1, Omar had NO WAY out other than perhaps to suggest that 'justified' doesn't equal 'correct' but Omar doesn't go for that route. I don't see the word 'justified' defined the entire debate. Brendo played this FUCKING PERFECT, it shocked me!
Truth///////////////
*Sparrows chirping*
All good, Type1 is able to use alts while banned apparently the site is broken so who cares of he's banned he can use happily under Sparrow
Con gets credit for legit putting blood sweat and tears into sourcing and stringing together a case for conspiracy theories being plausible. Every single one, from vaccines to 9/11, were backed up with sources and they were used to bring points and angles of thinking and add weight to them.
Pro wins arguments because Con kept trying to prove it's fathomable, despite being unlikely. All Pro does is say 'well how is this likely? You're just saying it's possible against all odds' and Con basically just adds more sources and conspiracy theories to show that they can work. Con seemed to think this debate was that they are generally unfathomable when it is in fact that they are generally unlikely. Pro plays total defence all debate but Con was attacking the wrong thing, not even bringing up probability once other than saying 99% are plausible other than flat earth... Well Con is wrong as flat earth is severely plausible but that's for another debate and not why I'm voting Pro here.
Pro's strongest defensive manoeuvre was to ask: how can normal civilians be more knowledgeable or clever to solve conspiracies while the powers that be are too stupid or powerless to expose each other. Con replies:
"Rebuttal: you cut out the last part
your taking it out of context
you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure some of this stuff out.
you do not need to be smart. to think hay Obama saying this is bad. you just need to not be brainwashed."
Yeah um... This not how probability works or 'unlikely' gets negated, sorry.
I respect the Round 3 concession by Pro.
Pro realised the Left Wing is correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3nT0piQDgA
Conduct to Pro because Pro said he's white and also.because Pro is Type1 on an alt.
Con FF fully full, Pro FF after R1.
FF slam dunk
I'm not good at making funny comments :(
But @Pro, I dislike the allusion to Schrodinger's cat :D
shut up..............
Oromagi is a cowards abusing an opponent being banned on three different debates. Just wanted him to know that. Conduct to Con for Pro being such a coward.
FF vote grab but, conduct to Con because in Pro's R2 he not only makes it worse that he used a racial slut in Round 1 after saying 'shit' but adds direct sadistic insult to his opponent that wasn't even ad hominem but pure intentional disrespect:
"You're a stupid fucking ass wipe."
Conduct to Con because while Pro was more polite than his usual self, the forfeiting of Round 1 (that is the most significant Round where it does become slightly bad Conduct as you give your opponent less to work with, intentionally almost), the entire rape scenario and wording of his Round 2 'joke' was truly vile and not what formal debating should have in it.
Pro explains that not only does morality have no objective source possible but that even the rational-seeming subjective elements of morality like the law or the ‘truly right’ and ‘truly wrong’ that Con was trying to say exist beyond what you think is right or wrong, do not even exist. Con struggled because Con cannot win if Pro doesn’t severely misstep. Con tries to tell Pro ‘but the one cutting in front of you in the queue thinks it’s true’ to prove that an actually wrong thing can subjectively be right. Pro says that this is because it really is right in their subjective moral code and is entitled to be so in an objective sense of ‘entitled to be’. Pro explains that truly the rightness of the act is up to every person to ascertain for themselves based on emotions and rationalising around those emotional preferences.
Con loses.
If you take the debate description as significant enough to shift angles of debate's BoP, then you also must accept this:
"Con arguing for a spherical earth. Pro arguing for flat earth.
BoP on Con."
You must READ the part that says 'Pro arguing for flat earth' and realise that you are DEFEATING YOUR OWN BoP with your 'earth isn't real' Kritik. You are Proposition for 'The Earth is Flat' where Con merely accepted having to first prove its Round before you prove its Flat. This Kritik was the most suicidal troll-tactic that I have ever seen used ever in debating in a while. Pro didn't just accidentally backfire it, Pro takes it much further by exploring flat earthers imagining a flat-earth as making flat-Earth as real and what this means is that Con can (and does) turn it completely back on Pro by saying that if people imagine the Earth is real, not only is Pro's Kritik annihilated but that Pro concedes that since most imagine the Earth as Round, then the Earth is more so Round than Flat.
In fact what Pro didn't realise and what Con didn't prey upon, is that 'flat' could be just as semantically decimated and Con could even have pushed Pro further into a corner by saying that 'flat' is impossible as even the 'flat Earth' is not really flat and has all three dimensions of a non-flat reality pushing Pro into an OCD-semantics corner where Pro must completely and utterly drop all troll angles or concede that they lose. Con didn't do this, but Con instead wins by patching this angle via sticking very strongly to the notion that this is about empirical data and physical evidence, not imagined reality but keeps up the imaginary-angle urging Pro to completely and utterly concede the 'Earth is not real' point or lose and Pro plays right into Con's hands by doing both and neither all at once...
I know what Pro was trying to do here, I actually successfully sandwiched MagicAintReal in a similar fashion in a debate he thought was impossible to lose (and which he didn't lose because voters didn't realise that I sandwiched him into a situation where he conceded that either there was no East and West of Earth or that timezones make him wrong anyway as the social-construct of it renders his physical proof irrelevant and if that is true, then the physical lack of a East and West on Earth is cycled back to being impossible). This may be where Pro got this strategy from, as I have my own theories about who he was before making that account and motives behind the naming of himself as a 'Hydra' but even if Pro is honestly a new user, he did it wrong in this debate and I'll explain why:
The way to sandwich an opponent properly is to ensure that they must undeniably fight each of the 2 angles by supporting the other one directly in a strong and positive manner that disproves their case. This is a very, very rare opportunity to have in a debate and usually is actually only going to show up against a higher IQ opponent who isn't as high in debate-strategic-knowledge as you are but higher in both than most who tried to annihilate you from a strange, unseen angle that they hadn't thought through. Instead what happened here was that Pro enable Con to three-prong resandwich him and this was Pro's major fault; he enabled himself to be sandwiched by sandwiching in a debate where sandwiching was the wrong strategy.
Pro ends up three-prong sandwiched by the following:
Con’s outer prong: The Earth is real, physically, and it is Round/Spherical due to physical observations both based on reasonable occam’s razor and deduction.
Pro’s would-be-outer-sandwich-bread: The Earth isn’t real, everything is simulated and imaginary, thus it isn’t physically flat.
Con’s inner prong: If the Earth is imaginary, it is real in an imaginary way and is Round and also flat. Therefore Pro concedes that the Earth isn’t flat as just as plausible as it being flat.
Pro’s would-be-outer-sandwich-bread: Con has failed to meet their BoP because they conceded that the Earth is flat if imagined to be flat and flat-earthers imagine it to be so.
Con’s outer prong: Pro just defeated their original Kritik (the other slice of bread of Pro’s sandwich) by admitting that if the Earth is imagined to be real, it isn’t unreal. On the other hand, Pro has failed to attack my original outer-prong because physicality and scientific deduction would be ‘real’ in the simulation and is the only way we can reason or deduce things and based on this, I have shown many ways that the Earth is Round and so my original angle and case are enabled by Pro’s self-defeating sandwich that fails to take down my outer-prong with it and instead slaughters the other via my middle-prong.
It was impossible to win this debate if Con didn't truly shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak.
Pro never can prove that Con didn't know everything that Pro said about Socialism that was true and has to prove that what Con disagrees to Pro with is actually true for Pro's stance and not Con's stance on Socialism.
Con literally proved that he knew what Socialism is because he even shows a level of further interpretation of Pro's own stance (being the anarcho-communist that Pro is) and challenges Pro to explain how the redistribution is done if not by government. Pro lost because Con displayed comprehension of what Socialism is and that's all Con had to do in order to win.
Pro used sources to defend his take on Socialism, so Pro wins sources as Con never used a single source.