We're not just calling it the metric system because we move one decimal point, though that is a big advantage of the metric system, the measurements are still different. One meter is not the same length as one foot, neither a centimeter nor a decimeter is the same length as an inch, and a kilogram is not the same as a pound. The units that the metric system contains have a logical basis on unchanging and precise things, though at the time, the French didn't know how much of an approximation "sphere" is for the earth's shape. But it still stands that the earth's circumference is 40,075km (a tiny mistake was made in the calculations of the meter, but it's better than people's feet...).
And, if you think that me saying "I'm an American myself, but I'm not a fool" is really just me saying that I'm better than the average American, then you must think that the average American is a fool. In which case, you either think that you are like the average American and are a fool, or are not a fool and therefore are above the average American, putting you in the exact same position as me. Your argument is not very sound.
The whole point behind the metric system is that it's simple, so no over complications, it's logical, so it has a logical origin and basis, and it's easy, because of how simple the system is. You're using this as an argument against the metric system, but you're only using the exact reasons FOR the metric system. Why would you want to unnecessarily over complicate a system of measurement? It is precisely the fact THAT it is so simple that is a reason to use it!
And, yeah sending your links is not going to change the fact that whether or not changing to the metric system would collapse the economy is irrelevant, because we're not talking about how hard it is for each nationality to convert to the metric system, we're just talking about which one is better by nature. Get that in your head.
If you never misquoted me, why not you bring up where the quote was, genius?
And, you're acting as if the fact that all you do is mainly just move a decimal point is a cause for "that's it?" But you literally just argued for precisely one of the best reasons TO use the metric system, because it is that simple. It's not a matter of "that's it?" It's a matter of, "that's it!" As in, "that's all I have to do, and that was really easy!"
And no, I don't have a personal bias of the metric system, I am American and grew up using the Imperial System, so I made the decision to favor the metric system out of my own logic and reason, because of how logical and easy it is to work with and use and calculate, making things move a lot quicker.
Also, you didn't cite any sources either, you just showed up quotes, but you didn't actually send the links to where they came from, which to my understanding is usually required to get source points.
And, while it is true that I might have been a little on the technical side in the quote of me you quoted, anyone who can understand all of my sentences well will understand that I actually do know what I'm talking about. And, I wasn't telling people not to use the sesquipedalian loquaciousness fallacy, though you shouldn't use it anyway, I was talking about the exact opposite: people using irrelevant and simple-minded phrases and sayings to make their point appear to be more logically sound. If I ask someone why they like the Imperial System better than the metric system, and they respond, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!," then I know that they are just using patriotic phrases and sayings to give a little more gravity to their logic, when it's really just nothing. But that's far from a complicated statement, because it's just repeating three letters.
And of course, just because I didn't cite any sources or quote anything doesn't mean my logic is not sound. If you read my very first argument, you would see that I explained both the metric and Imperial System, and so you can see for yourself why the metric system is more logical.
"Imperial is better because metric is purely based on this, just to multiply 10^x to call yourself smart?"
First off, I never boasted about being smart. Again, you can >directly quote< me if you would like to prove me wrong on that. And, the whole point of the metric system is that calculations are really simple. You're describing that the metric system is really just 10^x...which is precisely the beauty of the metric system, because ideally it should not be so complicated, and it's not!
I'm believing Best.Korea more and more when he said that you're a troll, because this is the exact kind of thing that might happen between someone and a troll, it's just harder to spot on a website like this, where the whole point is to debate people. Either way, if you didn't give me a chance to respond in the debate, I'll at least respond here, because you're not getting away with that move.
You have completely missed the point, and misquoted me. First of all, I never said that the Imperial System is trash, I just said it was less logical and harder to use than the metric system. Second, if I can't drill this into your skull any harder, it does not matter how hard the convert from Imperial to metric is in America, because that wasn't even what the topic of this debate is talking about. The topic of this debate is which system of units is better, not which country would have a harder time converting their systems. America could have been calibrated on any system, not just the Imperial System, and it would make it hard to convert to metric. You're focusing on irrelevant factors, and making useless arguments because of that.
This is obviously bad conduct on ChristianIsEdging's end. He waited until I was incapable of responding in order to make any kind of reasonable argument, rendering my response to such non-existent.
I suppose there aren't almost any people who genuinely disagree with me on this, and if they didn't, they'd know they probably wouldn't have enough logic to back up their claim, so this might be a while...
I specifically stated in my argument that the only objective things you can say about food are their health value, and toxicity. Therefore, poisonous food objectively does not belong on a food that is intended to be consumed.
If you want to put bananas on top of your spaghetti Carbonara, there is no objective reason to say that you are objectively not allowed to do that. Unless it causes physical harm to the body, such as poison.
Whether they come from authority or not, the proof for a round earth is real. These explanations are real. You just don't want to get shot down because your arguments are probably terrible.
I created a debate about whether or not there is evidence for a creator to the universe that I knew I'd lose. It's just about the logic, and I can present you with the logic behind why we know the earth is round, not just because of eye witness.
If you are a real flat earther, you should join the debate. It'd be better than debating someone who just joined the debate for the sake of joining the debate and actually agree with me.
You are sounding more and more like a real flat earther...
And, space photos are the evidence I save for last, just because I know it's merely eye witness. There are plenty of other things flat earthers simply cannot explain, that the round earth model has no problem explaining.
The reason flat earthers will often cite conspiracy is because that have no other option, as otherwise, there is a whole plethora of other things they need to explain that don't make any sense, like how there are people who are alive today who have seen the earth with their own two eyes themselves. And, I doubt people are frequently getting fired for performing flat earth experiments, but also, the evidences for round earth are very simple. There are some examples that are so easy that they don't even need an experiment to conduct for them, like in cases where there is a natural phenomenon, like night and day or seasons, that flat earthers, no matter how hard they try, have no logical explanation for using their flat earth idea. The fact that it is impossible for the flat earthers to viably explain these phenomena already shows that it is not a viable model, as it is incapable of explaining things we objectively experience, like seasons, and the day/night cycle. But there are also simple things you can observe like the movement of the stars at different points of the world. Though this experiment would require you to make some kind of exposure picture/time lapse at different places in the world. But the point is, these are all very simple things that flat earthers simply cannot explain, meanwhile the round earth model has no problem explaining everything simultaneously, and rather simply.
"is too vague, subjective, and already set for PRO to win because you can say you can put anything you want if you personally like it."
Yes, that's the point. I'm arguing for the fact that people have a tendency to take things that are purely subjective, and treat them like they're objective, and then are somehow shocked that other people don't like the same things that they like. They view their tastes as superior, and so, if you don't have their tastes, they will label you as having bad taste, or being flat out wrong. I am here to say that that is a ridiculous thing to say, because it is purely subjective, and also uncontrollable. There are no elements of reason to it, and even the tiny bits of reason that do exist don't make it any more justifiable to ridicule somebody for their tastes.
I see your priorities are more towards tactics, and winning, rather than the actual logic and reason behind the debate. I'd prefer to have an actual discussion than to just win because my opponent wasn't above waiting for me to forfeit so he would automatically win because of their arguments, but I don't back down.
The person who joined my previous "Transgenderism is Not Valid" debate just said "nope, you're wrong pal" and then a series of forfeits. Not even the debate was valid. So, I'm remaking this debate so that I can actually have a discussion about this. If the same guy joins again, I will just make another debate until somebody else joins.
Apologies, your argument did not appear for me, so I didn't think I had anything more to add, so I just put, "placeholder." Please respond as such so I can continue with my real argument, unless there is some kind of way to edit it.
I forgot to put this in my debate argument, but in addressing your response to me pointing out the flaws in your example:
In a scenario in which the host reveals the goat door and THEN you choose your door, the difference between that and the Monty Hall problem is that you never had the opportunity to choose before the host revealed the goat behind one of them. When he reveals the goat behind one of them before you choose, he has now eliminated one of the doors you could have chosen.
In the actual Monty Hall problem, all three doors are available for you to choose, because the host didn't reveal the goat door until after you chose.
That's the difference between the Monty Hall problem, and the scenario you invented, in which there are now only two initial choices, instead of three initial choices like in the actual Monty Hall problem.
So that's how long a troll argument can go on for. Honestly I thought it'd go on forever.
It's Monday now. You're running out of time. But just so you know, I'm not falling for the "Wait until they can't respond" trick.
You never actually responded to anything, you just dismissed it, and thought that solved it.
How is that useless information? Explain to me why the information I provided has no use in our argument.
We're not just calling it the metric system because we move one decimal point, though that is a big advantage of the metric system, the measurements are still different. One meter is not the same length as one foot, neither a centimeter nor a decimeter is the same length as an inch, and a kilogram is not the same as a pound. The units that the metric system contains have a logical basis on unchanging and precise things, though at the time, the French didn't know how much of an approximation "sphere" is for the earth's shape. But it still stands that the earth's circumference is 40,075km (a tiny mistake was made in the calculations of the meter, but it's better than people's feet...).
And, if you think that me saying "I'm an American myself, but I'm not a fool" is really just me saying that I'm better than the average American, then you must think that the average American is a fool. In which case, you either think that you are like the average American and are a fool, or are not a fool and therefore are above the average American, putting you in the exact same position as me. Your argument is not very sound.
The whole point behind the metric system is that it's simple, so no over complications, it's logical, so it has a logical origin and basis, and it's easy, because of how simple the system is. You're using this as an argument against the metric system, but you're only using the exact reasons FOR the metric system. Why would you want to unnecessarily over complicate a system of measurement? It is precisely the fact THAT it is so simple that is a reason to use it!
And, yeah sending your links is not going to change the fact that whether or not changing to the metric system would collapse the economy is irrelevant, because we're not talking about how hard it is for each nationality to convert to the metric system, we're just talking about which one is better by nature. Get that in your head.
If you never misquoted me, why not you bring up where the quote was, genius?
And, you're acting as if the fact that all you do is mainly just move a decimal point is a cause for "that's it?" But you literally just argued for precisely one of the best reasons TO use the metric system, because it is that simple. It's not a matter of "that's it?" It's a matter of, "that's it!" As in, "that's all I have to do, and that was really easy!"
And no, I don't have a personal bias of the metric system, I am American and grew up using the Imperial System, so I made the decision to favor the metric system out of my own logic and reason, because of how logical and easy it is to work with and use and calculate, making things move a lot quicker.
Also, you didn't cite any sources either, you just showed up quotes, but you didn't actually send the links to where they came from, which to my understanding is usually required to get source points.
And, while it is true that I might have been a little on the technical side in the quote of me you quoted, anyone who can understand all of my sentences well will understand that I actually do know what I'm talking about. And, I wasn't telling people not to use the sesquipedalian loquaciousness fallacy, though you shouldn't use it anyway, I was talking about the exact opposite: people using irrelevant and simple-minded phrases and sayings to make their point appear to be more logically sound. If I ask someone why they like the Imperial System better than the metric system, and they respond, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!," then I know that they are just using patriotic phrases and sayings to give a little more gravity to their logic, when it's really just nothing. But that's far from a complicated statement, because it's just repeating three letters.
And of course, just because I didn't cite any sources or quote anything doesn't mean my logic is not sound. If you read my very first argument, you would see that I explained both the metric and Imperial System, and so you can see for yourself why the metric system is more logical.
"Imperial is better because metric is purely based on this, just to multiply 10^x to call yourself smart?"
First off, I never boasted about being smart. Again, you can >directly quote< me if you would like to prove me wrong on that. And, the whole point of the metric system is that calculations are really simple. You're describing that the metric system is really just 10^x...which is precisely the beauty of the metric system, because ideally it should not be so complicated, and it's not!
I'm believing Best.Korea more and more when he said that you're a troll, because this is the exact kind of thing that might happen between someone and a troll, it's just harder to spot on a website like this, where the whole point is to debate people. Either way, if you didn't give me a chance to respond in the debate, I'll at least respond here, because you're not getting away with that move.
You have completely missed the point, and misquoted me. First of all, I never said that the Imperial System is trash, I just said it was less logical and harder to use than the metric system. Second, if I can't drill this into your skull any harder, it does not matter how hard the convert from Imperial to metric is in America, because that wasn't even what the topic of this debate is talking about. The topic of this debate is which system of units is better, not which country would have a harder time converting their systems. America could have been calibrated on any system, not just the Imperial System, and it would make it hard to convert to metric. You're focusing on irrelevant factors, and making useless arguments because of that.
This is obviously bad conduct on ChristianIsEdging's end. He waited until I was incapable of responding in order to make any kind of reasonable argument, rendering my response to such non-existent.
I suppose there aren't almost any people who genuinely disagree with me on this, and if they didn't, they'd know they probably wouldn't have enough logic to back up their claim, so this might be a while...
GG.
Why does it still objectively not belong? If it is objective, that means there is a reason, so you should be able to provide a logical one.
I specifically stated in my argument that the only objective things you can say about food are their health value, and toxicity. Therefore, poisonous food objectively does not belong on a food that is intended to be consumed.
If you want to put bananas on top of your spaghetti Carbonara, there is no objective reason to say that you are objectively not allowed to do that. Unless it causes physical harm to the body, such as poison.
I'll just assume it was you.
I wonder if Best.Korea reported Savant's vote xD
I get the impression somebody reported Savant's vote, so you responded by saying why the vote is valid.
Okay? What just happened here?
I've been on this website for a month.
Oh I forgot about making it winner selection.
Honestly, I don't feel you are worth my time anyway. You just give me a troll vibe.
Done. But just so you know, a debate where the character limit is 17,000 makes three rounds a little small, but it should be definitely be enough.
Whether they come from authority or not, the proof for a round earth is real. These explanations are real. You just don't want to get shot down because your arguments are probably terrible.
I created a debate about whether or not there is evidence for a creator to the universe that I knew I'd lose. It's just about the logic, and I can present you with the logic behind why we know the earth is round, not just because of eye witness.
If you are a real flat earther, you should join the debate. It'd be better than debating someone who just joined the debate for the sake of joining the debate and actually agree with me.
You are sounding more and more like a real flat earther...
And, space photos are the evidence I save for last, just because I know it's merely eye witness. There are plenty of other things flat earthers simply cannot explain, that the round earth model has no problem explaining.
The reason flat earthers will often cite conspiracy is because that have no other option, as otherwise, there is a whole plethora of other things they need to explain that don't make any sense, like how there are people who are alive today who have seen the earth with their own two eyes themselves. And, I doubt people are frequently getting fired for performing flat earth experiments, but also, the evidences for round earth are very simple. There are some examples that are so easy that they don't even need an experiment to conduct for them, like in cases where there is a natural phenomenon, like night and day or seasons, that flat earthers, no matter how hard they try, have no logical explanation for using their flat earth idea. The fact that it is impossible for the flat earthers to viably explain these phenomena already shows that it is not a viable model, as it is incapable of explaining things we objectively experience, like seasons, and the day/night cycle. But there are also simple things you can observe like the movement of the stars at different points of the world. Though this experiment would require you to make some kind of exposure picture/time lapse at different places in the world. But the point is, these are all very simple things that flat earthers simply cannot explain, meanwhile the round earth model has no problem explaining everything simultaneously, and rather simply.
Wow you really do like rated stuff do you
I can't seem to edit that part of the debate now. Next time, I think I'll make my debate rated just to find out what the heck that even is.
"is too vague, subjective, and already set for PRO to win because you can say you can put anything you want if you personally like it."
Yes, that's the point. I'm arguing for the fact that people have a tendency to take things that are purely subjective, and treat them like they're objective, and then are somehow shocked that other people don't like the same things that they like. They view their tastes as superior, and so, if you don't have their tastes, they will label you as having bad taste, or being flat out wrong. I am here to say that that is a ridiculous thing to say, because it is purely subjective, and also uncontrollable. There are no elements of reason to it, and even the tiny bits of reason that do exist don't make it any more justifiable to ridicule somebody for their tastes.
I may need to start a new debate who's title says "the earth is not flat" rather than "the earth is a sphere," I see what you did there...
You are so strange.
I see your priorities are more towards tactics, and winning, rather than the actual logic and reason behind the debate. I'd prefer to have an actual discussion than to just win because my opponent wasn't above waiting for me to forfeit so he would automatically win because of their arguments, but I don't back down.
Welp I've been spelling cite wrong this whole time.
Did you really think that just by using sources, any argument you make is irreverent and you'll just automatically win? It doesn't work like that.
This is gonna be quite possibly the quickest debate I've ever participated in.
So a hypocrite.
Considering what you just said, the fact that you're CON is strange. Have fun arguing for a side you are against I guess.
What do you mean unrated?
I'll define those two words in my first debate argument.
The person who joined my previous "Transgenderism is Not Valid" debate just said "nope, you're wrong pal" and then a series of forfeits. Not even the debate was valid. So, I'm remaking this debate so that I can actually have a discussion about this. If the same guy joins again, I will just make another debate until somebody else joins.
GG.
Apologies, your argument did not appear for me, so I didn't think I had anything more to add, so I just put, "placeholder." Please respond as such so I can continue with my real argument, unless there is some kind of way to edit it.
GG.
Just post an argument 💀
Generally I think no matter what happens, most of the time, whoever is debating as pro choice is going to win.
This guy is so annoying.
Well yeah, but I thought the point was that if you agree with the premise of the debate, then don't join it.
It is so hard to explain this to you 💀
I forgot to put this in my debate argument, but in addressing your response to me pointing out the flaws in your example:
In a scenario in which the host reveals the goat door and THEN you choose your door, the difference between that and the Monty Hall problem is that you never had the opportunity to choose before the host revealed the goat behind one of them. When he reveals the goat behind one of them before you choose, he has now eliminated one of the doors you could have chosen.
In the actual Monty Hall problem, all three doors are available for you to choose, because the host didn't reveal the goat door until after you chose.
That's the difference between the Monty Hall problem, and the scenario you invented, in which there are now only two initial choices, instead of three initial choices like in the actual Monty Hall problem.
Oh, I didn't even realize you were my opponent. You seemed to agree with the fact that switching makes more sense. Why did you join this debate?
Well don't reveal it all in the comments...