I want you check late votes as in 1 hour or less before the voting period closes. I will be flagging them and I want you to make sure they are sufficient. Someone really late voted in earlier debate and since it was after the voting period a moderator couldn't address it when they saw it.
I'll pass on a debate.
You won because I didn't argue against other flaws in your border wall argument. I should have. My mistake and you won because of it.
The actual scoring would be subjective but them working under the rules is not subjective because King_8 has clearly laid it out and if they don't understand that then you shouldn't be moderating anything because there is a chance that the MEEP wouldn't be understand by everyone so it is subjective.
Basically moderate based on the rules being followed not the actual vote in the boundaries of the rules put in place.
In this scenario a user must have a 1-10 rating for each fight. You don't moderate the rating you moderate if they followed it. Weird way of saying it but don't really know another way of saying it.
Some of this aren't my views. Just appealing to your way in order for you to understand what I am trying to say.
Since you made it clear you are not going to engage. I'll leave with this:
I really must have a triggered you so much for you to call me "delusional". I can guess where it came from but I can conclude that I have at least annoyed one more person on this site. I Really do make a habit of it.
Lets agree to never speak to each other again. I failed to see anything thoughtful occuring. I am going to say the same to RM, Dr.Franklin and others since like I have made it clear earlier I have annoyed more people and personally I am not really gaining even when annoying people apart from my own annoyance so nothing positive.
>> "please point out this magical place where I conceded?"
Your failure to show your side is result of not making a good argument or intentionally doing so in order to stifle conversation. It is an implied concession. Instead of actually explaining your side you instead don't even bother.
>>Not continuing a discussion and conceding are worlds apart.
Your contention was brought into question by me. With no rebuttal you simply don't engage. What I am supposed to imply? You have a really good argument but you don't want to show it? I'll take the more reasonable stance. You don't have an argument which is why you didn't give one.
>>You and Death seem to believe those apparently cowardly users who dare to begin engaging in debates should be insulted for it.
We were talking about what makes a person a coward or brave. You instead further increased what we were talking about to insults. I don't want to discuss that because it removes from what we were talking about. Is Dr.Franklin a coward for having an unrated debate, having restrictions to voting and debating?
>>You have a comprehension problem with analogies, which made me drop out of the discussion.
I added more nuance which you missed out. A boxer can still be more brave by trying to go for the finish whereas a boxer who doesn't go for the finish goes for a decision is seen more cowardly.
>>Nothing is stopping you or Death from opening your own debates on this topic you're criticizing.
Do you think Dr.Franklin would accept the debate I create bearing in mind he doesn't want to debate me here?
>>but by your own standards you're more cowardly than the instigator of this debate
My basis for being a coward in terms of debating requires the person to actually create a debate. You don't ask questions instead assumed my intentions. Why not simply ask what would be cowardly in terms of debate and what would be brave in terms of debating but instead you decided to assume my intentions and made an argument out of it.
My aim was not to be persuasive more so try to voice the problems with what you said in 4 words.
>>There's many users (whom I shall not name), who hide in the forums and comment sections, refusing to ever engage in actual debates. Were this a physical sport such as boxing, he would be stepping into the ring and risking getting his head beat in; that he is not confident enough in his abilities to wager money on the fight, in no way implies he's a coward, in fact him stepping into the ring at all proves a commendable degree of bravery.
You have applied a different context with a different standard. Being in a boxing ring is brave. I am saying in this context being in a debate is brave. There is more nuance than just that. It is more brave for a person to test himself against the best which are commonly found outside of amateur then to fight unranked with people who have not turned professional. It is more brave to debate rated while also facing debaters like you, Ramshutu or blamonkey who pretty much exclusively take part in ranked debates and would be DA's version of boxing professionals.
See the difference? Simply making it simple makes you what you said lack nuance.
>>"at least he's debating."
To be more brave he would have to make it rated while also allow people who he doesn't want debating or voting on this to be included.
>>The economy contention was ultimately a red-herring to the resolution
How was it a red-herring? Lack of detail in the information or are you saying the very core of that argument is a red herring?
>>I'd suggest you guys have a rematch and change it to a general debate on whether or not the wall should be built or not, rather than focusing the resolution on wholly effectiveness.
Okay. I am sure Wylted has seen this so he can decide. If he does decide to create it have it be a 1 week for each argument and 30k characters that I won't fill but I might need.
>>I would recommend for the future that the first thing you point out is that using the success of border walls in other countries and at one solitary point on the southern border to suggest that a national wall would be beneficial is erroneous.
Okay. Compare other border walls tell the opponent why the southern border wall wouldn't work.
>>Omar is now mad that you voted in my favor and vote bombed my socialism debate, by voting for the obvious loser. This site is ridiculous and needs fixing
Me asking makes me mad? I can't imagine you not wanting to tear yourself apart if your salt is worse than my questioning. I don't want to talk to you but you can keep message me if you want. I'll respond when you actually have something worth responding too.
>>You know you have not followed the guide on voting.
I just skimmed it and me specifically targeting the fundamentals is not against. I don't want to waste my time arguing with you with this so I'll tag bsh1 after this.
>>Why do you want proof you intentionally used bias to rationalize your vote? It is like me asking you for proof I have a dick. I know I have a dick, I don't need evidence.
So my "bias" is the same as you having a dick? This is clearly false. Bias can be measured in various different ways which can lead to various different conclusions. A dick is a dick. You have yet to prove my "bias" and your failure goes to show you are making this up. If you did you wouldn't be comparing this to your dick instead stating what I want or maybe you can't actually prove it.
I skimmed through the voting guide and it mentions nothing about me deciding the vote on fundamentals. It does however speak about biases. You haven't shown how I was biased.
>>You ignored my statistics that showed universal healthcare costs more deaths, you did not judge my arguments based on his rebuttals but your own. This is intentional cheating on behalf of your friend and there is no way in hell your IQ is so low that you believe the reasoning you gave in your vote
False dichotomy mixed in with false information. I was voting based on the core arguments. If both of your fundamentals are bad then what do I have to work with?
"What is not okay is the source is used. It had Hong Kong first due to many factors involving property rights, government integrity and judicial effectiveness. The problem of course is that economic freedom is not based on more of those things. It is based on less. Since the economy is more freer due to more capitalism less law and government influence would lead to economic outcomes. Given the source is not really accurate on why capitalism prospers it is a bad source. To be more specific corruption does not make the economy worse instead it would make it better because private businesses can lobby and change laws to improve their profits thus leading to a better economy. For Wylted to improve he would require to provide a source that does understand something fundamental like what would lead to better forms of capitalism instead of an assumption like corruption doesn't improve the economy or even economic freedom. Less laws do mean more freedom not the opposite."
I am meant to critiquing the arguments. Am I the voter or not?
>>This is obviously an incorrect vote please do not decide a winner until you have weighed the arguments and don't vote based on how well you like each contestant.
Quote would do well in helping me understand where you think I did the thing you are stating I did.
Report me and see what the moderators think.
He had rules in the description of 2 and another no rules. Only 1 was allowed to pretty much be not moderated. The other 2 had rules. These are also rated votes so it does matter more about the votes.
Coming from an awful debater. This is an easy win. I'll challenge you. Don't p*ssy out and I'll put you in your place. Either way you are still losing.
I am going to keep messaging you until you reply.
I want you check late votes as in 1 hour or less before the voting period closes. I will be flagging them and I want you to make sure they are sufficient. Someone really late voted in earlier debate and since it was after the voting period a moderator couldn't address it when they saw it.
I'll pass on a debate.
You won because I didn't argue against other flaws in your border wall argument. I should have. My mistake and you won because of it.
How you defining skill?
Don't see the point in arguing so I'll just ask bsh1. If he says no then I'll wait until the next time this happens and I see it.
Hey!
My ask is perfectly reasonable and I would like an answer.
Just moderate the rules put in place.
The actual scoring would be subjective but them working under the rules is not subjective because King_8 has clearly laid it out and if they don't understand that then you shouldn't be moderating anything because there is a chance that the MEEP wouldn't be understand by everyone so it is subjective.
Basically moderate based on the rules being followed not the actual vote in the boundaries of the rules put in place.
In this scenario a user must have a 1-10 rating for each fight. You don't moderate the rating you moderate if they followed it. Weird way of saying it but don't really know another way of saying it.
Some of this aren't my views. Just appealing to your way in order for you to understand what I am trying to say.
How about the choice of the instigator to make it moderated and have rules?
Since you made it clear you are not going to engage. I'll leave with this:
I really must have a triggered you so much for you to call me "delusional". I can guess where it came from but I can conclude that I have at least annoyed one more person on this site. I Really do make a habit of it.
Lets agree to never speak to each other again. I failed to see anything thoughtful occuring. I am going to say the same to RM, Dr.Franklin and others since like I have made it clear earlier I have annoyed more people and personally I am not really gaining even when annoying people apart from my own annoyance so nothing positive.
See you never.
Have it open so if I don't accept someone else can. Don't really know too much about the electoral college to really give a go at it.
>> "please point out this magical place where I conceded?"
Your failure to show your side is result of not making a good argument or intentionally doing so in order to stifle conversation. It is an implied concession. Instead of actually explaining your side you instead don't even bother.
>>I am okay debating whether your vote on Pinkfreud's debate was a good vote
Don't want to.
What else do you want to debate if you don't want to debate the border wall again with you being the instigator?
>>Not continuing a discussion and conceding are worlds apart.
Your contention was brought into question by me. With no rebuttal you simply don't engage. What I am supposed to imply? You have a really good argument but you don't want to show it? I'll take the more reasonable stance. You don't have an argument which is why you didn't give one.
>>You and Death seem to believe those apparently cowardly users who dare to begin engaging in debates should be insulted for it.
We were talking about what makes a person a coward or brave. You instead further increased what we were talking about to insults. I don't want to discuss that because it removes from what we were talking about. Is Dr.Franklin a coward for having an unrated debate, having restrictions to voting and debating?
>>You have a comprehension problem with analogies, which made me drop out of the discussion.
I added more nuance which you missed out. A boxer can still be more brave by trying to go for the finish whereas a boxer who doesn't go for the finish goes for a decision is seen more cowardly.
>>Nothing is stopping you or Death from opening your own debates on this topic you're criticizing.
Do you think Dr.Franklin would accept the debate I create bearing in mind he doesn't want to debate me here?
>>but by your own standards you're more cowardly than the instigator of this debate
My basis for being a coward in terms of debating requires the person to actually create a debate. You don't ask questions instead assumed my intentions. Why not simply ask what would be cowardly in terms of debate and what would be brave in terms of debating but instead you decided to assume my intentions and made an argument out of it.
You initial contention was this:
>> How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence, but at least he's debating.
In a more recent comment you said this:
>> Your end statement gets to the heart of the problem of insulting members for engaging in debates.
Your final comment was this:
>> Your problem understanding subtext is not something I care to help you with.
Instead of defending your comments against Death23 points you instead talk about how insulting it is then you pretty much concede at the end.
So instead of actually having an argument for Dr.Franklin being brave you instead resort to something that was not the point of the conversation?
>>Nice rhetoric.
My aim was not to be persuasive more so try to voice the problems with what you said in 4 words.
>>There's many users (whom I shall not name), who hide in the forums and comment sections, refusing to ever engage in actual debates. Were this a physical sport such as boxing, he would be stepping into the ring and risking getting his head beat in; that he is not confident enough in his abilities to wager money on the fight, in no way implies he's a coward, in fact him stepping into the ring at all proves a commendable degree of bravery.
You have applied a different context with a different standard. Being in a boxing ring is brave. I am saying in this context being in a debate is brave. There is more nuance than just that. It is more brave for a person to test himself against the best which are commonly found outside of amateur then to fight unranked with people who have not turned professional. It is more brave to debate rated while also facing debaters like you, Ramshutu or blamonkey who pretty much exclusively take part in ranked debates and would be DA's version of boxing professionals.
See the difference? Simply making it simple makes you what you said lack nuance.
>>"at least he's debating."
To be more brave he would have to make it rated while also allow people who he doesn't want debating or voting on this to be included.
>>How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence
This is a distinction without a difference.
You pointed out a distinction but didn't realized a person who is cowardly heavily implies or inherently has low confidence.
How is this a Fornite roast and why can't you defend your positions?
I am actually waiting for you to "debunk" my ideas on Christianity not condemning slavery. I guess you can't do it.
Can't defend your positions you default to no or some random insult that doesn't support your side.
You can start by clearly laying out definitions so I know what we are arguing.
>>I tried to create that debate, but you got scared to do it,
I didn't get scared. I created the debate before you decided what you wanted to do then you asked me to change it.
>>10k limit if the topic is good
Okay. Give me 1 week for arguments. So basically increase time of arguments to 1 week.
Can't accept losing. Have people you can't argue against as per the rules while also making it unrated so that your win/loss isn't impacted.
>>The economy contention was ultimately a red-herring to the resolution
How was it a red-herring? Lack of detail in the information or are you saying the very core of that argument is a red herring?
>>I'd suggest you guys have a rematch and change it to a general debate on whether or not the wall should be built or not, rather than focusing the resolution on wholly effectiveness.
Okay. I am sure Wylted has seen this so he can decide. If he does decide to create it have it be a 1 week for each argument and 30k characters that I won't fill but I might need.
>>I would recommend for the future that the first thing you point out is that using the success of border walls in other countries and at one solitary point on the southern border to suggest that a national wall would be beneficial is erroneous.
Okay. Compare other border walls tell the opponent why the southern border wall wouldn't work.
To Virtuoso and Ramshutu,
Can you tell bsh1 to check my vote?
To bsh1,
Can you vote?
I flagged my own vote and will ask bsh1 to vote on it. Is that okay or are you going to keep messaging me?
>>Just because something isn't bad for the economy doesn't make it a good thing.
Didn't I state how immigrants would be helpful to the economy as in be people for the jobs that are open currently?
>>Omar is now mad that you voted in my favor and vote bombed my socialism debate, by voting for the obvious loser. This site is ridiculous and needs fixing
Me asking makes me mad? I can't imagine you not wanting to tear yourself apart if your salt is worse than my questioning. I don't want to talk to you but you can keep message me if you want. I'll respond when you actually have something worth responding too.
Am I meeting your voting criteria here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1789
Wylted keeps complaining and not adding anything constructive so I much rather see what you say instead of Wylted parroting from what you typed.
>>You know you have not followed the guide on voting.
I just skimmed it and me specifically targeting the fundamentals is not against. I don't want to waste my time arguing with you with this so I'll tag bsh1 after this.
>>Why do you want proof you intentionally used bias to rationalize your vote? It is like me asking you for proof I have a dick. I know I have a dick, I don't need evidence.
So my "bias" is the same as you having a dick? This is clearly false. Bias can be measured in various different ways which can lead to various different conclusions. A dick is a dick. You have yet to prove my "bias" and your failure goes to show you are making this up. If you did you wouldn't be comparing this to your dick instead stating what I want or maybe you can't actually prove it.
>>It's defensive and offers no real impact.
What do you mean by this?
>>Did you noticed after our debate I had no hard feelings and voted correctly in one of your debates. Why are you voting incorrectly in mine?
Was that the full forfeit debate?
Come back to me when you vote for me in a debate that wasn't based on a full forfeit.
I skimmed through the voting guide and it mentions nothing about me deciding the vote on fundamentals. It does however speak about biases. You haven't shown how I was biased.
>>This sentence is nonsensical. Fundamentals (whatever that means) is not something for you to judge
Why not?
Did you address this paragraph that starts with this:
"Thirdly the bad for economy point."
I can't seem to find a mention of it in your docs.
>>You cheated to give your friend the win.
Proof?
>>You ignored my statistics that showed universal healthcare costs more deaths, you did not judge my arguments based on his rebuttals but your own. This is intentional cheating on behalf of your friend and there is no way in hell your IQ is so low that you believe the reasoning you gave in your vote
False dichotomy mixed in with false information. I was voting based on the core arguments. If both of your fundamentals are bad then what do I have to work with?
"What is not okay is the source is used. It had Hong Kong first due to many factors involving property rights, government integrity and judicial effectiveness. The problem of course is that economic freedom is not based on more of those things. It is based on less. Since the economy is more freer due to more capitalism less law and government influence would lead to economic outcomes. Given the source is not really accurate on why capitalism prospers it is a bad source. To be more specific corruption does not make the economy worse instead it would make it better because private businesses can lobby and change laws to improve their profits thus leading to a better economy. For Wylted to improve he would require to provide a source that does understand something fundamental like what would lead to better forms of capitalism instead of an assumption like corruption doesn't improve the economy or even economic freedom. Less laws do mean more freedom not the opposite."
I am meant to critiquing the arguments. Am I the voter or not?
>>This is obviously an incorrect vote please do not decide a winner until you have weighed the arguments and don't vote based on how well you like each contestant.
Quote would do well in helping me understand where you think I did the thing you are stating I did.
Report me and see what the moderators think.
Your gay or bisexual?
Do you give head or receive it?
Do you get f*cked in the ass or do you do the f*cking?
That is trash. bsh1 is pretty much saying even if you want a serious rap battle you can't.
So a rap battle the instigator stated has rules for is still a troll debate?
Rated = moderated
Unrated = not moderated
Right?
He had rules in the description of 2 and another no rules. Only 1 was allowed to pretty much be not moderated. The other 2 had rules. These are also rated votes so it does matter more about the votes.
When looking at your other votes on those debates. None of them actually meet the criteria you set out. My advice report them all.
Sorry to hear that. I would create the debate again but I got other stuff to do.
What happened?
Ask bsh1, Virtuoso or Ramshutu how to vote.
Simply put those names I just mentioned into the "Recievers" and ask them "How do I vote?"
If you want to put 3 at a time do this "bsh1, Virutoso, Ramshutu"
I am going from oldest rap battles I can find.
2 Rounds wanted 3. Oh well guess I would have to debunk your arguments in 1 Round. Easy enough.
You are accepting the debate I made.
I ain't accepting your terms.
Coming from an awful debater. This is an easy win. I'll challenge you. Don't p*ssy out and I'll put you in your place. Either way you are still losing.