RM is the guy who went into a debate on moral obligation with a first round that was an appeal to emotion in which he explicitly stated "No, seriously, I know I am appealing to your emotion." If what RM says in a debate is pure rhetoric, it's a fair bet that he knows it's rhetoric and there's a strategy behind it.
I thinking you're being a little too quick to dismiss him. From my perspective, it looks like he does care. He has been citing some relevant passages from the Bible. But laying that aside, just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of what the Bible says doesn't mean he doesn't care what the Bible says (and this applies to things other than the Bible as well). It's easy to dismiss people who disagree with you as not caring about the facts, but that doesn't reflect reality. One thing I've noticed more reading this site without being active on it is that people with differing opinions usually have entirely different sets of facts that they're familiar with (the politics forum is an excellent example of this). One person can bring up facts X, Y, and Z, and then say that people who don't agree with him don't care about the facts. But odds are, that person has never heard of facts A, B, and C that people who disagree with him have heard of. Of course, that doesn't mean that all of those facts are actually factual or that both views are equally valid. But what it does mean is that you shouldn't be too quick to conclude that people who disagree with you don't care about the facts.
Actually, what Fruit_Inspector has been saying in the comments isn't remotely fringe. It's pretty mainstream evangelicalism. And for what it's worth, which probably isn't very much, he does seem to know what he's talking about.
It was. I read a book on Stalingrad. It was extremely depressing. Both the Soviets and the Germans were incredibly brutal and completely heedless of human life. The descriptions of the bitter cold and the frostbite turned my stomach. I'm very glad that there hasn't been a third world war.
I didn't say this before because I didn't want to influence the arguments, but the definitions of murder and God here have a weird result. Murder is defined as killing, and God is defined as perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness. Since God has killed, and God is perfect in goodness, murder is good according to the definitions in the description.
Please remember that I am arguing as a devil's advocate. I don't support my own proposal. I am arguing for that proposal solely for the purpose of the debate.
Yeah, they need to watch out for deranged privacy-obsessed knights who think exterminating humanity is the best solution for racism. Who knows what I might do next!
You probably will. I just couldn't think of anything more to say. Once I'd demonstrated that it was the only possible solution, further arguments just seemed extraneous.
Behold my solution to Mall's requirement that the proposal has to be the best method yet. Now tell me: am I certifiable, or should I just be put on an FBI watchlist?
I've actually come up with a pretty easy way to win this debate, but I don't think I'll actually have the time to do it. Maybe if there was more time to submit each argument I could.
To be clear, nothing I say as a debate judge necessarily reflects my personal views. I don't actually think we should turn babies into food, no matter how nutritious they may be.
That worked, but you ran a risk by ignoring crossed's arguments about the safety risks of eating babies. Had he presented arguments that it was unsafe in all cases, rather than just some, it would have undercut your argument because eating babies would no longer contribute anything to society. After thinking through it, the debate was closer than I thought it would be. You still won, but I would have taken the time to refute his more relevant points if I were you.
"Who cares about spelling or grammar in a debate anyway?"
As a voter, I usually have a low bar for spelling and grammar. I'll only award that point if an argument is riddled with errors or if one is vastly better than the other. I think the point should exist, though. There are some arguments that are difficult to understand because of downright terrible grammar, spelling, or formatting. Debaters should at least put in enough effort to make their arguments understandable rather than a pain to read.
You're welcome. You can tag us by putting our names in the Receivers box. That way, we'll get a notification when you say something to us. Anyway, I'm glad you're here.
RM is the guy who went into a debate on moral obligation with a first round that was an appeal to emotion in which he explicitly stated "No, seriously, I know I am appealing to your emotion." If what RM says in a debate is pure rhetoric, it's a fair bet that he knows it's rhetoric and there's a strategy behind it.
You're right, that is where we disagree. I think he actually has cited some scripture that backs up his claims.
I thinking you're being a little too quick to dismiss him. From my perspective, it looks like he does care. He has been citing some relevant passages from the Bible. But laying that aside, just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of what the Bible says doesn't mean he doesn't care what the Bible says (and this applies to things other than the Bible as well). It's easy to dismiss people who disagree with you as not caring about the facts, but that doesn't reflect reality. One thing I've noticed more reading this site without being active on it is that people with differing opinions usually have entirely different sets of facts that they're familiar with (the politics forum is an excellent example of this). One person can bring up facts X, Y, and Z, and then say that people who don't agree with him don't care about the facts. But odds are, that person has never heard of facts A, B, and C that people who disagree with him have heard of. Of course, that doesn't mean that all of those facts are actually factual or that both views are equally valid. But what it does mean is that you shouldn't be too quick to conclude that people who disagree with you don't care about the facts.
Actually, what Fruit_Inspector has been saying in the comments isn't remotely fringe. It's pretty mainstream evangelicalism. And for what it's worth, which probably isn't very much, he does seem to know what he's talking about.
Ha! I always knew you were one of us - er, them!
I hadn't. That's heartbreaking.
It was. I read a book on Stalingrad. It was extremely depressing. Both the Soviets and the Germans were incredibly brutal and completely heedless of human life. The descriptions of the bitter cold and the frostbite turned my stomach. I'm very glad that there hasn't been a third world war.
Cool. There's never a bad time to learn more about history.
Ok. I don't think I've heard of him before.
Was this inspired by stormtroopers or the British Grand fleet at the start of the 20th century?
I didn't say this before because I didn't want to influence the arguments, but the definitions of murder and God here have a weird result. Murder is defined as killing, and God is defined as perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness. Since God has killed, and God is perfect in goodness, murder is good according to the definitions in the description.
Please remember that I am arguing as a devil's advocate. I don't support my own proposal. I am arguing for that proposal solely for the purpose of the debate.
It's really happening. Whiteflame just confirmed it. Oromagi has lost his first debate.
~Insert desperate racking of brain on how to possibly satirize this here~
Yeah, they need to watch out for deranged privacy-obsessed knights who think exterminating humanity is the best solution for racism. Who knows what I might do next!
Yep, your constructive was better. Yours was more evidence based, whereas I took the lazier process of elimination approach.
Thanks. I have a bit of experience with satire.
You probably will. I just couldn't think of anything more to say. Once I'd demonstrated that it was the only possible solution, further arguments just seemed extraneous.
Behold my solution to Mall's requirement that the proposal has to be the best method yet. Now tell me: am I certifiable, or should I just be put on an FBI watchlist?
I'd prefer more time for arguments, but I want to use my idea, so I don't care as much.
Your argument might be the same as the one I was thinking of.
I think I've figured out a way around that clause.
If you give me at least five days per argument, I can do this debate.
I've actually come up with a pretty easy way to win this debate, but I don't think I'll actually have the time to do it. Maybe if there was more time to submit each argument I could.
Welcome!
Read about seldiora's 100th debate here.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5038-dart-bard-4th-edition-11-1-2020?page=1
You're right. At least half of his R2 is taken verbatim from that link.
Oops, you're right. I'd forgotten the exact definition of an FF.
Sure, I can do that.
It's the hardness that makes it great. If it were easy, everyone would do it.
I just realized that this battle is going to go past the election.
To be clear, nothing I say as a debate judge necessarily reflects my personal views. I don't actually think we should turn babies into food, no matter how nutritious they may be.
That worked, but you ran a risk by ignoring crossed's arguments about the safety risks of eating babies. Had he presented arguments that it was unsafe in all cases, rather than just some, it would have undercut your argument because eating babies would no longer contribute anything to society. After thinking through it, the debate was closer than I thought it would be. You still won, but I would have taken the time to refute his more relevant points if I were you.
That's a good strategy. One of these days I should read The Art of War.
I didn't. It's too coherent for me to imagine him saying it.
Just curious. The idea of you roleplaying Donald Trump in a rap battle seems rather incredible to me.
Have you ever done a rap battle before?
Intelligence was Con in this debate, not Theweakeredge.
That's a long debate. I don't think I'll have the time to get through that. Sorry.
I don't know you either, but it's always good to have more quality debaters around. Welcome back!
That could be a legitimate Kritik for this debate.
"Who cares about spelling or grammar in a debate anyway?"
As a voter, I usually have a low bar for spelling and grammar. I'll only award that point if an argument is riddled with errors or if one is vastly better than the other. I think the point should exist, though. There are some arguments that are difficult to understand because of downright terrible grammar, spelling, or formatting. Debaters should at least put in enough effort to make their arguments understandable rather than a pain to read.
It was an original topic, at the very least. It was an interesting debate to read. I don't know a lot about poker, so I did get lost at times.
You gained 1 elo point from this debate.
You're welcome.
You might know already, but check the fourth name on this list.
https://www.debate.org/people/leaders/
"You will rue the day you debated against BLM once I challenge you to that."
"Yeah, I doubt that."
Time for me to get some popcorn.
You're welcome. I probably would have voted in your favor if you had contested Con's interpretation of the BoP. You came close to winning.
Welcome to the site.
You're welcome. You can tag us by putting our names in the Receivers box. That way, we'll get a notification when you say something to us. Anyway, I'm glad you're here.
Welcome!