Pretty much conflated the BLM movement being a vandalism group. Representatives don't advocate for that and cherry picking a select few BLM supporters as a gross generalization is the bad thing to do because they are not the majority in the group. Didn't you say cherry picking was a liberal thing?
Quote his argument to me then tell me if you can how it is a good one. I would also like a link so that I can verify you are not cherry-picking his response.
Ben Shapiro if you actually understand what he says. More often than not is wrong. To say what you said clearly shows you are incapable of actually understanding what his argument is. This bad judgment has carried on to other things like debating.
Yet you can mention it. Wonder why and failed to even try to understand your own positions. Really makes me think how little you have actually understood your own positions instead of just parroting from people you watch.
Clearly don't know what you are talking about and it shows.
Am I wrong about the existence about gravity? Okay so by the statement you just made you are wrong.
It also pretty much states someone can believe in flat Earth and say after their false information in my opinion for you to not have a problem with it.
This is all on top of you not understanding your positions correctly. When I get to that stage you either give non-sequitur comments or give up because you are too much of a coward to delve into why you actually hold the stances and if you actually agree with what you say.
This is the problem with you. When I ask you to think outside or actually think about the position you hold. You give up or move back to non-sequitur comments. If you actually answered my questions it would help you understand your side better but guess you don't care about that. I take it as that your stance is faulty and actually understanding your positions would show how bad it is but maybe I am wrong.
When someone does something better. They have the right way of doing things. It might just be in that very narrow concept or might be the best way of doing things. Your example of gun control doesn't prove your point.
Thinking both of you are right doesn't matter. It matters who made the best argument by being logically consistent. If one does not be logically consistent they are wrong.
What a joke. Making a non-sequitur comment doesn't address what I say. I'll apply it to the context of the debate because I know it is difficult for you to understand anything.
This debate is about whether or not voter suppression exists.
If Virtuoso proves it exists he is correct.
Easy win. Don't think I need to explain how to debunk his only good argument because even if it still goes unchallenged the argument for your side is much better and you did a really good job at laying it out. Don't expect your opponent to understand he is wrong. Take it from me he has a history of it.
This is an exception, I require arguments to rebut. I can't simply make my own arguments because then I would be potentially straw-manning my opponent's position.
>>By mentioning rape, your basically conceding all abortions where the women doesn't get raped.
You don't even understand what is happening in the debate if you made that response.
The creator of the debate used an analogy as his/her argument. The burden is on the other side to provide an analogy where they would consider them to be for that analogy but against in the position they are defending which would mean it is contradictory.
Thankfully the contender brought sources because they didn't get into evidence behind abortions or their stances on abortion. You have again you don't know what you are talking about.
I think you can make better arguments and since it I think against the rules to give you advice. I will refrain from telling you how easily you can rebut his claims.
Do you agree to a do over as in I ask Virtuoso to remove this debate fix the problem and we can start or you can agree with the fix I gave in the comments?
Your choice and if you don't want to comment here please do address what you chose in your Round so I know what I am supposed to do.
Basically said BLM commit vandalism disregarding the majority of peaceful protests.
Pretty much conflated the BLM movement being a vandalism group. Representatives don't advocate for that and cherry picking a select few BLM supporters as a gross generalization is the bad thing to do because they are not the majority in the group. Didn't you say cherry picking was a liberal thing?
Quote his argument to me then tell me if you can how it is a good one. I would also like a link so that I can verify you are not cherry-picking his response.
Ben Shapiro if you actually understand what he says. More often than not is wrong. To say what you said clearly shows you are incapable of actually understanding what his argument is. This bad judgment has carried on to other things like debating.
Sheesh.
This is an easy win for the contender.
>>You are blatantly lying in multiple cases to justify your vote. I will not make any accusations here, but this vote is incredibly suspicious.
Blatantly lying is an accusation so you don't even follow your own words.
Report me then lets see if the moderators agree with you.
Yet you can mention it. Wonder why and failed to even try to understand your own positions. Really makes me think how little you have actually understood your own positions instead of just parroting from people you watch.
Clearly don't know what you are talking about and it shows.
Am I wrong about the existence about gravity? Okay so by the statement you just made you are wrong.
It also pretty much states someone can believe in flat Earth and say after their false information in my opinion for you to not have a problem with it.
This is all on top of you not understanding your positions correctly. When I get to that stage you either give non-sequitur comments or give up because you are too much of a coward to delve into why you actually hold the stances and if you actually agree with what you say.
This is the problem with you. When I ask you to think outside or actually think about the position you hold. You give up or move back to non-sequitur comments. If you actually answered my questions it would help you understand your side better but guess you don't care about that. I take it as that your stance is faulty and actually understanding your positions would show how bad it is but maybe I am wrong.
Just add "seeing" in between
Is ________ something
Missed it out.
So do you have an example that you agree with then add it in the question?
Here is the question.
Is something like A different to saying something about B and tell me the difference?
Now tell me. Is seeing something like gun defense different to saying something about voter suppression and tell me the difference?
Example of a fact.
What is a difference between an opinion and a fact?
What do you consider to be right or wrong?
Example would be helpful.
Is murder wrong?
When someone does something better. They have the right way of doing things. It might just be in that very narrow concept or might be the best way of doing things. Your example of gun control doesn't prove your point.
Correct is another way of saying you are right.
Thinking both of you are right doesn't matter. It matters who made the best argument by being logically consistent. If one does not be logically consistent they are wrong.
What a joke. Making a non-sequitur comment doesn't address what I say. I'll apply it to the context of the debate because I know it is difficult for you to understand anything.
This debate is about whether or not voter suppression exists.
If Virtuoso proves it exists he is correct.
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in objective morality?
If you do. You believe in right or wrong.
If not tell am I wrong about the sun being the moon?
Easy win. Don't think I need to explain how to debunk his only good argument because even if it still goes unchallenged the argument for your side is much better and you did a really good job at laying it out. Don't expect your opponent to understand he is wrong. Take it from me he has a history of it.
This is an exception, I require arguments to rebut. I can't simply make my own arguments because then I would be potentially straw-manning my opponent's position.
>>By mentioning rape, your basically conceding all abortions where the women doesn't get raped.
You don't even understand what is happening in the debate if you made that response.
The creator of the debate used an analogy as his/her argument. The burden is on the other side to provide an analogy where they would consider them to be for that analogy but against in the position they are defending which would mean it is contradictory.
Thankfully the contender brought sources because they didn't get into evidence behind abortions or their stances on abortion. You have again you don't know what you are talking about.
You better tell the Contender/Con that.
Are you a moral relativist?
It would be unfair.
I think you can make better arguments and since it I think against the rules to give you advice. I will refrain from telling you how easily you can rebut his claims.
Still carrying on.
Our_Boat_Is_Right is using gay in a derogatory way. Basically saying the contenders defeat is down to his homosexuality.
Guess you are making this up as you go along.
>>Your name is James. You live in Atlanta. I've seen you at school. Your pretty sexy.
I am not James so I don't see how you got this.
Define sexy and tell me how you know me personally.
???
How many times do the moderators need to realise he has shown to sign of change while being unwilling when confronted?
>>That’s the advantage of temp bans plenty of time to cool off and decide whether you’ll play by the rules.
What if they don't and have shown no step to play by the rules?
Do you want to debate me?
Mercy has got to come with a line. If the person doesn't bother to change or decides to do something awful then mercy can be thrown out.
Damn right.
So why isn't it a permanent ban?
No I am not citing more recent info.
What would be your position in this debate?
I need to know so that I understand what I am supposed to do.
What do you mean?
If you go by rules yes.
I think he has been removed from the site so even if I wanted to I can't accept.
Evidence would help your case and I am sure you have the space for it.
Do you agree to a do over as in I ask Virtuoso to remove this debate fix the problem and we can start or you can agree with the fix I gave in the comments?
Your choice and if you don't want to comment here please do address what you chose in your Round so I know what I am supposed to do.
Just to make sure:
The description should say It is Pro's burden to prove the existence of God.
Are you okay with that change?
Made a mistake can you remove the debate so that I can fix it?
If he isn't given arguments in the comments. He would be more focused on the debate at hand.
Focus on giving an argument. It is a waste to argue in the comments of a debate when you are supposed to be debating in that very debate.
Do you want to debate this?
I'll make the debate and all you have to do is rebut my claims.
But the already-placed vote was taken down and I improved on it so it became a modified version of RM's vote.