Theweakeredge

No, that other debate is *evidence* that you are at fault. While I have never done this before, and therefore ought to be given the benefit of the doubt - this is the *second* time you've done this. It is clear that you are at fault here.

"Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation."

The voter in question deliberately made an appeal to who they thought would win without assigning a winner, and that appeal to who they thought was win was not at all thorough in evaluating the debate, thereby poisoning the well for anyone who would read the voting section in the future for or against this debate. To me the action is clear - one should delete the vote on the grounds that it is deliberately trying to poison the well, pointing to who they think ought to win while voting tie is simply a case in superficial rule-following, not to the interests of the rules themselves.

This is just... raw, unadulterated rhetoric, no proof, no substantiation - just some opinion peace and good ole' fashioned rhetoric. I'll have a blast taking this one apart- not actually -it kinda upsets me that you want me to take you seriously while you present an opinion peace as your substantiation here.

RMM

No - he did not read - you did not read either apparently - because I gave plenty of argument for his being wrong - and the fact that he has set a precedent of doing this before means that I WAS MUCH more justified than he was. You are just wrong here. He misinterpreted a clear coloring and labeling in the debate itself, because of a single mistake on my part - FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. which you never took - so if anything - I actually blame you for that.

Maybe it's spite, but I still fail to see you trying on the full BoP of your claims

Then ask what my position is. Just ask

RMM

-No, no it is not a valid point - its a strawman.

TheUnderdog: Makes wide generalizations which are also strawmen

Also TheUnderdog: Doesn't stop when people debunk him

I do not think men and women are the same in every regard - I think the roles which they are held too are largely arbitrary, and have no room in a society where we have the ability to go beyond our base abilities- I believe that men and women ought to be treated the same - and that insofar as value goes - they are the same. Of course there are differences, but I am arguing that that difference is psychological and neurological, and only superficially anatomical. Please reframe from making strawmen on topics which you are not educated on.

Incorrect - you had plenty of time to interact with my standard, I expanded the standard whenever you criticism - the fact of the matter is that my standard is a logical priori, not a manual - just because your standard is a manual doesn't mean every standard is

Once the debate is over, I'll point em' all out. Until then, its your opponent's responsibility to do so.

As I said, your cherry picking has improved, as you just now demonstrated. If you truly don't know what the word means in regards to debate, I would advise that you brush up on your fallacies. You deliberately choose "the most desirably" quotes or sources for your points while completely ignoring info to the contrary, not to mention that half of your sources don't even back you up... which isn't cherry-picking its more like... lying.

I don't intend to lose this debate Selidora

I think this is a terrible idea. For multiple reasons - this isn't a live debate - and the comparisons to it aren't cogent.

Consider my attention captured.

Hey I don't kinkshame - not personally something I enjoy, but hey - to each their own

You pivot awfully quickly, never defending your position if someone insists on it for long enough. Interesting.

What the hell? Are you seriously that conceited, no, he was acknowledging that trying to argue in favor of the flat earth is dumb, you wouldn't win unless you were a top tier debater, and no offence, but I haven't seen that from you.

Comments 7 and 8, its right there :\

RMM doesn't often stick to what people think he'll do, lol, he goes wherever he feels. Not a big fan of the guy, but sometimes he's kinda funny.

wow - first of all - to assume MisterChris and I are "friends" is reeeeaaaaallly stretching it. I could ask for Fauxlaw and Fruit_Inspector too if it would fit your fancy? But yes - it is pretty usual to use this section to ask for people to vote. Though I actually called out MC for your side of the debate, I thought he'd be more inclined to see your side - but also - I called Undefeatable because he KNOWS that you're being at least a tad dishonest, given how you talked with him about the positions.

The debate was a tad unorthodox, but I'd appreciate some votes, lmao

My apologises this debate wasn't for you - it was for someone else - and I was changing the resolution to meet their specificities, however, I would argue that you are at fault here. The positions in the debate itself CLEARLY dictate me as con - I do not consent to canceling the debate - this is the second time you have made this mistake and are clearly at repeated fault for doing so.

I tried to vote as fairly as possible, do remember that I'm not entirely knowledgable here - but I do think that you had some... bad arguments in there, you really only won because your opponent dropped points - that's not a victory of skill, that's a victory of luck - always always make sure that your evidence is more substantive, if RMM decided to use some better sources you could have lost this.

I see your cherry picking has only improved, lmao

Calling my opponent "sexist" is underdoing it - I think the several insults and insinuations made of and to me are more than enough to cancel out any perceived "breach of conduct".

That is IF I accept they are being dishonest, I've yet to see you actually prove that dishonesty. At least in regards to the shape of the earth... like I had an entire thread proving the shape of the earth INDEPENDENT of Nasa and such, and you didn't even try to rebut the points.

You did not do anything to "me" - you did something to intellectual honesty. For example - you merely asserting that someone is right is not INTELLECTUALLY HONEST - and just because Benjamin said something does not mean I think HE IS INTELLECTUALLY HONEST - I never said you dodged anything - simply put - YOU HAVE CLAIMED that Nasa can't be trusted, that the earth is flat, yet at every opportunity to prove it you DODGE the chance to prove it.

Sure.

Here you arguing that the flat earth is PLAUSIBLE - not that it exists - but that its a POSSIBILITY. Then, you added on a stringet "Especially if NASA cant be trusted" yet you didnt at all word it to include that within your BoP. It seems to me like you can't actually PROVE that the earth is flat or that NASA can't be trusted

Is plausible? And you want to get uppity about biased debates? Are you seriously that unselfaware?

I could care less about your lockdown views - I'm referencing our talk in my forum "Should we defund the police" - that is why I call you condecended.

Couldn't be that you continued to condescendingly talk at me while refusing to make an argument - and then got even moreso whenever I called you out. Now, if you want to talk at me, fine - but don't expect me to be "respectful" to you afterward.

Animosity? Whaaaat? Why would I have that towards you?

Somehow I doubt that.

We call that sarcasim.

Spite.

Also no reason - no similarities whatsoever, just a HUNCH.

Did you read the description?

I was actually considering doing this debate as a kritique, but I have a debate with Athias and RationalMadman. I'm wary of both debaters, so I'm gonna have to spend my time there, lol

Not necessarily - Benjamin forfeited a round - so you'd be equal.

You could just make a new debate

I think this was meant for you buddy ;)

Er.. No, I wouldn't say so. Here's what I would do - take a look at all of your quotes - paraphrase them - your doing good as far as not responding in segments, but you drop far too many points. I'd say try to acknowledge EVERY point brought up by your opponent, combine points as you've been doing. Even if you don't think the point is important, respond to it, you never know when your opponent might try to pivot off a peripheral point. You don't need more room - you need to reprioritize how you debate

If you can sell your narrative, then you've won - you can do that with only one source - or none at all. Lot's of debaters use a break down and re-present style, arguing that the interpretation that their opponent got out of sources aren't what is the truth of the matter. You touched Coal's narrative, but you ultimately let it stand - that's why people will vote for him.

I'm currently doing this and a debate with Athias, plus IRL stuff, so I'll try - but understand that might, probably, wont' happen

I'd prefer the argument time to be two weeks - aside from that I'd be up for this

I'll give it a look over

Indeed - the "and ought to be treated" part was to give me a very large BoP - I'm pretty sure that's the bit your referring too as well

I'll certainly put an argument forward, good luck to you too

You were trying to make a point? Because without citations I give you no credibility, just someone whos making a claim

Um... well no - you just aren't excepting Jesus's own claim - now my fault you don't agree with your god.

Um... no - the APA realized that their was and is a historic precedent for gender referring to the psychological and social aspect; hell, that's a thing that's been apart of 1960s definitions of gender. Again - just because a thing came first doesn't mean its "better" you are deliberately ignoring other sources of the OXD which disagree while FAILING to actually present any evidence that what you say is true.

Also... what? are you being serious? Do you actually think that because something or someone changes their mind that means that their new position is wrong? You haven't been actually reading my posts - because I've brought up some points I didn't bring up before, you are just hand waving my positions away without actually reading them apparently - but anyway - no - picking the modern criteria of a thing over the past one does not make it "cherry picked" - that is ridiculous.

That was my intention yes