RationalMadman's avatar

RationalMadman

A member since

10
11
11

Total votes: 861

Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Con broke a rule and conceded. Then tried to unconcede.

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Winner

The viper threatened me with venom.

Created:
Winner

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Winner

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

if Barney can vote that way, so can I. Pro basically had 0 case against an elaborate one.

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

over 40% forfeited

Created:
Winner

forfeits .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

better proof

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Winner

ff .

Created:
Winner

.............

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

His mother told me

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Tied votes need no justification apparently.

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Tied votes need no justification apparently.

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Tied votes need no justification apparently.

Created:
Winner

FF .

Created:
Winner

Tied votes need no justification apparently

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Mutual FF

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Only Korea used sources. Korea then concedes. I am obligated to vote as this then. I do not give conduct to the conceder to avoid it being tied.

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Wylted uses argumentation and sources to make clear he is on a mission, to find out what Abraham Lincoln's true identity and type of being was and then to blow his brains out after having passed it onto someone worthy, in 200 years' time.

He gives us a source to prove there are time-release capsule for him to read and that it's viable. He gives us a source to prove that there was a man, however we are left to assume he tells us the truth that the man knew Wylted's father and told him the secret.

Con only tells us a lie that Wylted will live longer than 200 years, this terrible lie is proven wrong by the clone Wylted has representing himself. While it is reasonable to assume that Wylted is darth sidious and that he may well make clones and transfer his life force, it's also reasonable to assume that he will blow his brains out at the age of 200 because he is true to his mission.

I see no sufficient rebuttal from Con. Con even forfeits. Conduct to Pro.

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Winner

Pro literally quoted the Bible saying that God created all things. All things includes darkness.

I have no idea what Con was saying, Con even admitted God created light and that therefore God didnt create the darkness but the resolution says 'biblically', not scientifically or otherwise.

Pro was correct, the debate was then over.

I would support removing this debate for being a truism.

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Tied FF

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Ff of sorts

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Bullshit..

Created:
Winner

Pro's case is utterly flawed and as things progress even its strongest points flail.

Con explains that the user Wylted plagiarised an AI in one of the key examples that Pro provided us for Wylted being as his peak. On top of that, Pro says that laziness and being worse mean someone is at their peak and choosing not to be but never ever defends or explains this in a way I can comprehend.

Con says the following:
1. He is Wylted and he knows first-hand that Wylted has been losing memory and raw brain reflexes involved with debating.
2. He is Wylted and first-hand knows that Wylted is bipolar and only at his peak during manic phases. Wylted is wrong to call the (hyper)manic phases hypomanic since hypomanic is the opposite, it's a total lack of mania to the point of depression. Con asserts that Wylted is currently not in a manic phase (wrongly dubbing it hypomanic), he makes this error again and again and makes more S&G errors in Round 2 so often that I'd have docked that point if this was that voting system. It was genuinely hard to follow.
3. He plagiarised one of Pro's key highlights that Wylted is at his peak and what I myself noticed is the debate is over 1.5 years ago. On top of that, Con asserts that even if that was him as his peak, that was him legally copying and pasting the works of another in but correctly sourcing it and exploring it.

Pro tries to handle this in Round 2.

All he does is quote Wylted... Then he says wylted isn't at peak performance but somehow is at peak skill and that even if one isn't executing in a peak way, they kind of are anyway due to potential.

I don't follow this at all, that would mean that a person always was peak if we follow Pro's logic. Okay, so how does Con handle this?

Well there's this kind of 'diminishing IQ' thing but I don't really get it because Con fails to tie IQ itself to be directly proportional to debating ability (it's plausible that at lower IQ one is actually better at debating due to experience, training etc.

What I like is he notices that Con basically dropped the entire case minus saying that peak skill isn't peak performance.

I think the diminishing memory and brain reflex points were significant and it even shows in how hesitant he is to post rounds, he forfeits a lot etc, this part of Wylted was ignored by Pro entirely and for me that can't be someone at their peak at all.

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Gaymu ovar!

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

plagiarism and ff

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF Wylted's voter

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

Plagiarism and FF

Created:
Winner

FF Con

Created:
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

FF .

Created: