And they weren't actually allies. They toned down their anti-other rhetoric and created a non-aggression pact for the sake of a joint operation against Poland. But the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the fascists, and the Nazis wanted to destroy the Bolsheviks.
Nah, he attacked the USSR for ideological reasons, but also largely bc he feared economic blackmail by Joseph Stalin. One major reason they lost ww1 was because Germany wasn't resource independent. The joint annexation of Poland was to intentionally create a land border with the Soviet union so that Germany could trade directly with them. However, had Stalin placed sanctions on Germany, which is a very realistic possibility given German expansionism, Germany would've had to invade anyways.
Your round 3 was your strongest, although your analogies appealed more to intuition than anything else. I think you could've curbed his main offensive by clarifying that "knowing consequences for certain is indistinguishable from intending those consequences." So the whole "trial hasn't happened yet" is irrelevant because god has already intended the outcome of that trial by virtue of knowing the outcome he is going to produce beforehand.
The only reason I haven't taken this is because the concept of emotional seems to broad. I don't think it was really in Hitler's control, But if we get to talking about like the Leningrad debacle, I feel like it may come down to splitting hairs between stupid, hasty, ideologically motivated, etc., and emotional.
I understand. Honestly, i figured most believers wouldn't want to touch this debate out of personal bias. That's why I was somewhat surprised Ragnar voted.
Maybe they would see us as weak, disparate, competing nations without the ability to unify against the invasion threat with a world wide reaction force.
First, you're just imposing assumed motive onto the speaker. Second, your logic works both ways, you can't fail if you don't try, but you also can't succeed.
But I get what you're saying.
Bc just because this house believes something doesn't mean it's true
Vote bump
Vote bump
And they weren't actually allies. They toned down their anti-other rhetoric and created a non-aggression pact for the sake of a joint operation against Poland. But the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the fascists, and the Nazis wanted to destroy the Bolsheviks.
Nah, he attacked the USSR for ideological reasons, but also largely bc he feared economic blackmail by Joseph Stalin. One major reason they lost ww1 was because Germany wasn't resource independent. The joint annexation of Poland was to intentionally create a land border with the Soviet union so that Germany could trade directly with them. However, had Stalin placed sanctions on Germany, which is a very realistic possibility given German expansionism, Germany would've had to invade anyways.
Vote bump
Thank you for voting, but I think Undefeatable and I would both like some analysis of the arguments.
It happens man
Vote bump
I've never met a person that actually raised pitbulls that thinks they should be illegal. My favorite dogs have all been pitbull terriers.
Lol "technically conceded"? You're too much sometimes
I think one only gets like 30 minutes to delete a vote
"Pigs can fly, and you must concede this in your first round or automatically forfeit the entire debate."
Lol
If I remember correctly, his went up too.
I'm pretty sure. When undefeatable and I tied in the ethics debate, I was ranked lower but my elo went up.
But this way, you both gain elo
Seems like the resolution should be "Roman Catholicism is not true" or something like that
Thank you for voting.
Thank you for voting.
They won't influence the voters any more than other votes would.
Voters shouldn't factor in the comments anyways
Your round 3 was your strongest, although your analogies appealed more to intuition than anything else. I think you could've curbed his main offensive by clarifying that "knowing consequences for certain is indistinguishable from intending those consequences." So the whole "trial hasn't happened yet" is irrelevant because god has already intended the outcome of that trial by virtue of knowing the outcome he is going to produce beforehand.
This debate, as is, will come down to outframing the opponent.
The only reason I haven't taken this is because the concept of emotional seems to broad. I don't think it was really in Hitler's control, But if we get to talking about like the Leningrad debacle, I feel like it may come down to splitting hairs between stupid, hasty, ideologically motivated, etc., and emotional.
You accidentally misspelled "reigned"
Are you referring to the description? I didnt initiate this debate
I understand. Honestly, i figured most believers wouldn't want to touch this debate out of personal bias. That's why I was somewhat surprised Ragnar voted.
Thank you for voting.
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Oh wow, I didn't know it was so bad.
I thought the only violence was the woman who got shot by state officials.
Which violent protests?
Yeah no problem.
I get what you're saying, but Utilitarianism is a claim about morality, not epistemology.
Have you considered the possibility that you may just be wrong about the existence of systemic racism in the US?
Vote bump
The way it seems to me, if madman is confident that he can beat you with minimum effort, he will put in the minimum effort.
Divide and conquer right?
Maybe they would see us as weak, disparate, competing nations without the ability to unify against the invasion threat with a world wide reaction force.
Lol, "disprove" evolution
You accidentally spelled easily with 2 L's
Either your try or you don't. If you try, there is a potential for success and failure. If you never try, your success rate is exactly 0%
First, you're just imposing assumed motive onto the speaker. Second, your logic works both ways, you can't fail if you don't try, but you also can't succeed.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky