I care about winning. If my opponent which is higher than me on this site can't finish their argument. In this context my argument is better because I gave one. No argument is worse than an argument.
I do care about finishing this debate because I have the intention to say what rule you broke to merit a loss.
I am an individual. Why does what most people do mean anything to me unless of course you are saying I should follow what normies want?
If I did why am I debating a topic that I can lose to given the high amount of Religious people on this site and the people who dislike me?
Wouldn't it be better to pick off people who just started using the site if I wanted wins?
If I beat you since you are higher them I am assuming a competent debater. It would mean I beat a good debater on the site, reduced their win ratio while also increasing mine. That part is because I care about wins while also caring about facing people who are at the very least accustomed to debating on this site.
>>You can change the rules, it's done all the time, you don't have to say the rules can be changed explicitly for you to be able to change then
My rules were not the problem. Your rule breaking was the problem. It was fair and clearly laid out. I did not obstruct your arguments nor did I do anything to impact your giving an argument for Round 1 yet you weren't able to.
>>I never said you had to, but it would be nice and it would mean that this wasn't a totally wasted debate
It would be nice but I don't want too. Given this is rated and I would like a higher ratio.
>>He would've done the same thing if it was rated, plus that has happened in plenty of other examples
You don't know that since we can't play out the exact same scenario just removed the unrated part.
I can't change the rules because it is set in stone when you accepted the debate.
A contract is set in stone until you can change. Imagine if I am not able to change the contract because I have no control over it after the period of you accepting it.
>>Are you still up for a rematch though? If you make it this weekend then I can finish my argument today or tomorrow, you had great points and I think this could been awesome if I wasn't busy
Why not finish this now so we can focus on the new debate?
>>How is that wasting our time? You'll eventually get the W
Every other week I have to come back to make sure I don't forfeit. If you simply accepted the forfeit it would be over a lot quicker.
You would be wasting both of our time. You are still losing. Just will have to wait a while longer.
I don't see the point. When you are done with this. You can accept a new debate or do something else entirely. Now by delaying this you will be reminded every week of your forfeit then the eventual loss when you could've dealt with that right now.
>>They see me as a rich, violent profiteer off of their suffering.
That kind of comes with the territory. If you are rich people can see you doing something wrong to get to where you are even if you didn't actually do anything apart from being born into the family. The best thing to is not really challenge them instead take a submissive stance (apologize and/or don't try to provoke). It is best way to reduce the suffering that can entail. If they are still bothering you for a while tell the necessary authority. The least you can say is that you didn't increase tensions and tried to de-escalate it.
>>The goal would be to stop the spread of such evil ideologies.
Difficult since people have different perspectives and you would have to target them with the way to talk in order to engage them. If you don't speak their language you can change them. If they have a foundation that is God is ultimate reality they are not really going to listen to secular positions as well.
>>Despite this, I do not see much merit in bitterness over it,
Good.
>>The reason, I think, for the sadness, is that I see radical, evil ideologies born out of personal suffering. Had their lives been more comfortable, would such ideologies develop?
No I think so. Guess they have been put into bad situations and would have to try harder to do good in it. I guess political change would help but it does take time and in some cases some people are too far gone. Even at that point it is still best to move on so that you can help their children.
Of course I have my own way of helping people with a specific ideology but I think what I said doesn't really have an ideological spin to it.
Bitterness can be justified if you are personally impacted by it. If you are not then I don't think it is justified. Even though you are justified it might not be the best thing to use as a driving force because it can make you think irrationally. irrational arguments are bad if you want to be rational.
I guess you can have sadness for him but it wouldn't really mean anything if you want to change his mind and if you are not close in some sort of way. If you are and you tell him your grievances it might help but don't expect it to be the reason the person stops being who he is.
Why would he stop having those claims because of a debate you make?
A debate sites main goal is not to change people's mind. It is to house opposing opinions voted on by its users.
If you actually want to change his mind. Simply ask him why he believes it and counter him. Be civil and try to be as charitable as you can. In order to increase the chance of your actually changing their mind.
People spout a lot nonsense. Just matters if they are willing to change their mind. Basically disprove their claims and if they don't listen move on. No point staying in staying with a person who can't comprehend what you are saying or even care.
Don't even grant him theism is truth. Make him demonstrate it. I doubt you would ever need to concede ground to a theist and if you do don't expect the same concession from them.
Don't think so. Don't think the instigator would need it either.
Your arguments would speak for themselves. If you are consistent in giving what you can then hope that your can is good enough. Guess hope can be luck but no amount of hope would make your argument more convincing.
Basically saying. Argument good. No need luck. Argument bad. You need miracle.
Okay.
I'll add Old Testament as well.
Lay out your preferred Bible version.
I'll change the description to say whatever is accepted would be used.
So?
What specifically?
I'll wait until this is finished.
That is if you do it which might not have happen given the direction this is going.
You can easily accept the new debate and wait for this one to finish. So I'll wait. Still your loss.
Best way of showing the flaw in the Flat Earth theory even though you are not really using it specifically here.
Good one man.
Are you going to delay your loss in this debate?
0 is less than 1.
I posted an argument. You didn't.
Therefore my argument is more than yours.
Do it if you want I ain't continuing the debate given the rules apart from repeating what you did even though you accepted it.
I care about winning. If my opponent which is higher than me on this site can't finish their argument. In this context my argument is better because I gave one. No argument is worse than an argument.
I do care about finishing this debate because I have the intention to say what rule you broke to merit a loss.
I am an individual. Why does what most people do mean anything to me unless of course you are saying I should follow what normies want?
If I did why am I debating a topic that I can lose to given the high amount of Religious people on this site and the people who dislike me?
Wouldn't it be better to pick off people who just started using the site if I wanted wins?
If I beat you since you are higher them I am assuming a competent debater. It would mean I beat a good debater on the site, reduced their win ratio while also increasing mine. That part is because I care about wins while also caring about facing people who are at the very least accustomed to debating on this site.
>>You can change the rules, it's done all the time, you don't have to say the rules can be changed explicitly for you to be able to change then
My rules were not the problem. Your rule breaking was the problem. It was fair and clearly laid out. I did not obstruct your arguments nor did I do anything to impact your giving an argument for Round 1 yet you weren't able to.
>>I never said you had to, but it would be nice and it would mean that this wasn't a totally wasted debate
It would be nice but I don't want too. Given this is rated and I would like a higher ratio.
>>He would've done the same thing if it was rated, plus that has happened in plenty of other examples
You don't know that since we can't play out the exact same scenario just removed the unrated part.
I gave 3 reasons before this comment. You have yet to give a new reply that I think I should rebut. So I wait for you to do so.
That goes against the rules I laid. I didn't add "this can be changed during the debate if both parties agree".
The person with the upper-hand doesn't have to change the rules because he didn't do anything wrong like me.
It was also unrated so less was on the line.
I can't change the rules because it is set in stone when you accepted the debate.
A contract is set in stone until you can change. Imagine if I am not able to change the contract because I have no control over it after the period of you accepting it.
That is what is happening.
I can't change the description.
>>Yeah that's cool
So?
>>Or you could just tell these voters to only take the conduct point, most voters do that anyway regardless of the debate descriptions
"Violation of any of these rules merits a loss."
If you win the other points you don't actually lose. Goes against the rules.
>>Are you still up for a rematch though? If you make it this weekend then I can finish my argument today or tomorrow, you had great points and I think this could been awesome if I wasn't busy
Why not finish this now so we can focus on the new debate?
>>How is that wasting our time? You'll eventually get the W
Every other week I have to come back to make sure I don't forfeit. If you simply accepted the forfeit it would be over a lot quicker.
You would be wasting both of our time. You are still losing. Just will have to wait a while longer.
I don't see the point. When you are done with this. You can accept a new debate or do something else entirely. Now by delaying this you will be reminded every week of your forfeit then the eventual loss when you could've dealt with that right now.
Drag it along then.
I win given the rules you didn't follow which you accepted.
Can you post your not argument?
That is a no.
If I allow you to do this I am going against the rules I laid out that you used.
I don't expect you to make changes from agreed upon rules either.
"1. No forfeits"
"9. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss."
I don't really create or accept debates that much. So whatever I did here would be wasted. I don't want that.
Basically no.
Like I said earlier:
I like winning so my ratio looks better.
That is the only reason why I don't want to delete this.
Can you say what you said in a different way?
I like winning so my ratio looks better.
That is the only reason why I don't want to delete this.
:(
Rematch after this ends?
What happened?
Great job with the no kritiks. Can't challenge assumptions have to work under what you wanted out of the debate.
I have bad memory. Can you help me remember by telling me how you "exposed" me?
I am not self-righteous. Do you have anything that makes me self-righteous?
You better not forfeit!
orogami is a great debater so if orogami is who I think he is, he is not losing.
Best of luck!
*Can't believe you took this debate from me*
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM6EHcPFKCQ*
Still at this?
Guess you are too far gone.
>>I understand their position's roots, but I fully think it has its heart in some form of racism.
Can be but then you can focus on the youth.
Why would I be on your side and which argument?
Like always an appeal to voters. If the voters don't agree with your position you lost.
>>They see me as a rich, violent profiteer off of their suffering.
That kind of comes with the territory. If you are rich people can see you doing something wrong to get to where you are even if you didn't actually do anything apart from being born into the family. The best thing to is not really challenge them instead take a submissive stance (apologize and/or don't try to provoke). It is best way to reduce the suffering that can entail. If they are still bothering you for a while tell the necessary authority. The least you can say is that you didn't increase tensions and tried to de-escalate it.
>>The goal would be to stop the spread of such evil ideologies.
Difficult since people have different perspectives and you would have to target them with the way to talk in order to engage them. If you don't speak their language you can change them. If they have a foundation that is God is ultimate reality they are not really going to listen to secular positions as well.
>>Despite this, I do not see much merit in bitterness over it,
Good.
>>The reason, I think, for the sadness, is that I see radical, evil ideologies born out of personal suffering. Had their lives been more comfortable, would such ideologies develop?
No I think so. Guess they have been put into bad situations and would have to try harder to do good in it. I guess political change would help but it does take time and in some cases some people are too far gone. Even at that point it is still best to move on so that you can help their children.
Of course I have my own way of helping people with a specific ideology but I think what I said doesn't really have an ideological spin to it.
Bitterness can be justified if you are personally impacted by it. If you are not then I don't think it is justified. Even though you are justified it might not be the best thing to use as a driving force because it can make you think irrationally. irrational arguments are bad if you want to be rational.
I guess you can have sadness for him but it wouldn't really mean anything if you want to change his mind and if you are not close in some sort of way. If you are and you tell him your grievances it might help but don't expect it to be the reason the person stops being who he is.
Depends on the metric.
Wins as a champion Aldo.
Best wins I think would go to Max.
Why would he stop having those claims because of a debate you make?
A debate sites main goal is not to change people's mind. It is to house opposing opinions voted on by its users.
If you actually want to change his mind. Simply ask him why he believes it and counter him. Be civil and try to be as charitable as you can. In order to increase the chance of your actually changing their mind.
People spout a lot nonsense. Just matters if they are willing to change their mind. Basically disprove their claims and if they don't listen move on. No point staying in staying with a person who can't comprehend what you are saying or even care.
Don't even grant him theism is truth. Make him demonstrate it. I doubt you would ever need to concede ground to a theist and if you do don't expect the same concession from them.
Why did you accept this?
Tag your comrades so they know how long is left.
Are you from DDO?
>>"magically happens"
It is not going to be that more so reasons that you don't think is better than attributing Personhood at conception.
Don't think so. Don't think the instigator would need it either.
Your arguments would speak for themselves. If you are consistent in giving what you can then hope that your can is good enough. Guess hope can be luck but no amount of hope would make your argument more convincing.
Basically saying. Argument good. No need luck. Argument bad. You need miracle.