"...order by God to keep life below 120 years old after the flood."
Not all Christians believe in that statement as you have described it. I do not. It is very possible to live well past 120 years of life. If you were referring to me, I do not think this as "anti-Christian."
I honestly thought "Vermin Supreme" was a brand name you had made up to be sponsored by. I spent two hours watching Vermin Love Supreme on YouTube yesterday to be caught up. .....I wish had known about this guy sooner. I was too young to have known of him when he became popular. I hope he is successful in making our nation's teeth shine from sea to shiny sea ;). I am also down for a free pony
Your opening argument contains only a single sentence. Furthermore, it is just a statement and not fully a means of defending your view. You need more info
I think you worship AustinL0926. After reading this comment, you’ll probably post yet again out of arrogance and/or devotion to Austin. You probably can’t contain yourself, so I’ll just be waiting for your less than mature response
(Hmmm… unless he doesn’t respond… I hope it’s not passive-aggressive either…)
"I assumed you would present your argument, the opponent would present theirs, and from there, you both pick apart each others argument till only one is remaining."
Is that standard debate flow and structure? I am curious because this is my first ever debate, and if there is guidance you decide to share, I would be thankful
What are some good website links or online content for researching "escape velocity"?
"...order by God to keep life below 120 years old after the flood."
Not all Christians believe in that statement as you have described it. I do not. It is very possible to live well past 120 years of life. If you were referring to me, I do not think this as "anti-Christian."
This debate has been very interesting so far. I enjoyed reading it, and thank you for posting legitimate content
I honestly thought "Vermin Supreme" was a brand name you had made up to be sponsored by. I spent two hours watching Vermin Love Supreme on YouTube yesterday to be caught up. .....I wish had known about this guy sooner. I was too young to have known of him when he became popular. I hope he is successful in making our nation's teeth shine from sea to shiny sea ;). I am also down for a free pony
Love that bit of Round 2 that was Super Mario inspired
Is that old dude in the Vermin Supreme video supposed to be Wylted?
"I will use that. Thanks"
It works so much better against you though. "da Koopa King Bowser"/President Wylted
You a goomba
Getting stomped on by Super Mario
Watch out, he's comin' with his fire flower power
It's game over for you, da Koopa King Bowser
This is a trap ;)
Your opening argument contains only a single sentence. Furthermore, it is just a statement and not fully a means of defending your view. You need more info
What a mess at the dinner table
The majority of my debate topics will most likely be shower thoughts
How come you accepted?
Mutual forfeit has been agreed upon
I was thinking about conceding, but these comments keep things interesting. My argument will most likely be up by the end of the week.
I understand, Austin. Thank you for you help--greatly appreciated
By "waiving" do I simply forfeit the first round?
In hindsight, I think it would have been best if I assumed the role of Con so my opponent would start first. Lol
Called it
I think you worship AustinL0926. After reading this comment, you’ll probably post yet again out of arrogance and/or devotion to Austin. You probably can’t contain yourself, so I’ll just be waiting for your less than mature response
(Hmmm… unless he doesn’t respond… I hope it’s not passive-aggressive either…)
Does anybody know what should happen if Con does not choose a topic?
It’s safe to say I’ll be using the majority of the two week period to create a debate response
Hey, what is the topic you have chosen for our debate?
That is not bad. Though it is ultimately up to Con to choose their subject for the debate
How is AustinL0926 “just too good”?
What is your point?
“I don’t need credibility.”
I’m bored now.Sir Lancelot claims to be above the need to argue for his points. Ironically posted on a debate website
It does lessen the credibility of your statements concerning debates, seeing as you have no experience debating according to your account
"Having Skipper debate Austin is too big of a mismatch.
The latter is going to make quick work of this discussion."
This coming from a user that has no debate credentials on their account
I am confused by what you mean. My opponent is arguing against pro-life
"This is a pretty interesting debate, would you be willing to debate the same topic with me later?"
AustinL0926 is all mine for now
What is the argument for the contender suppose to be? Is Con to argue that Pro does not "<3" Trump?
Make "Time for argument" longer, and I will be inclined to join
That was insightful. Thank you
"I assumed you would present your argument, the opponent would present theirs, and from there, you both pick apart each others argument till only one is remaining."
Is that standard debate flow and structure? I am curious because this is my first ever debate, and if there is guidance you decide to share, I would be thankful
Why is a conclusion needed in the first round?
Why would premises for another point be needed in the first round?
"However, you never addressed the second part, "and prove that the murder of a human is wrong""
This second part will be addressed in arguments yet to come
What is the difference between a "Bible Believer" and a "Christian"?
"We don't know your view here."
I do not know my competitors view either. We start on equal ground