"Great. Now you could respond to 700 arguments one by one to explain why they are retarded. After you are done, I will send you 2300 more arguments on discord so you can prove your point."
So once you are disproven you will move the goalposts
I read the entire thread . You chose to act retarded. You could defend the same opinion in a non retarded way. You can point to other instances where you were a retard with other subjects as well, and there have also been pushed to ban you for that as well, the pedophilia arguments provide a convenient excuse but it's repeated and consistent behavior. You aren't learning anything or accomplishing anything by debating with the same ability as a 12 year old could, so why not just choose to not be retarded instead? If I was given the option of being a retard or not being one, I would choose to not be one.
It's actually a question you should ask before every decision. Ask yourself "is this retarded?". If the answer is yes than just pivot to the non retarded alternative.
You'll feel better, your life will be better. You have nothing to lose by not being a retard.
I mean it was only 4 pages and you are allowed to respond. You weren't even banned you just started a new account. You don't have to argue you can just link to your best argument post.
The ones disproven by counter arguments shift the burden to you in that regard. That thread you are essentially repeating the same handful of arguments repeatedly while ignoring counter arguments.
You also seem to pepper in logical fallacies nearly every argument. Why don't you pick out your best one.
I have defended everyone's right to debate any subject no matter how taboo. You aren't treating these controversial subjects with respect. You aren't making a serious effort to defend them you are just saying the first thing that comes to mind based on nonor very little research. If you treat the subject with respect I can talk to these mods and make sure you are safe. It's not what you are doing, you're just trying to rage bait.
It's why when we had our debate about child marriage you literally refused to address my points and just gish galloped . So you made it clear in that debate as well you weren't interested in actually defending that POV
"You wouldnt want anyone else deciding about you without your consent, so saying that children should suffer that treatment is inconsistent."
Presupposition used when saying suffer. The presupposition goes unsupported as is the nature of presuppositions
"You wouldn't want to"
An appeal to emotion. It doesn't matter what I want in terms of myself this is about the ethics of shoving your penis into a 2 year olds ass if you feel like they consented.
"Yes. If children cant consent, then they either are property with other people making decisions for them, which is slavery,"
False dilemma
"either other people cant make decisions for them, and then no decisions can even be logically made and every option is wrong, which cannot work."
Other than obvious rebuttals like coma patients can't consent but we wouldn't consider them property it just fails to really get into what is consent, why it would be wrong to not allow consent or even what's wrong with considering. Children property.
Why not make actual arguments instead of random bare assertions with zero support?
You could literally repurpose ADOL's arguments for this but you chose to make bad arguments instead. You need to believe in your arguments for it to work.
I have debates similar topics just fine. You aren't debating it though which is the issue. I argued that child porn should be legal and I never even got a warning about it or a mod make a comment
"So you get defeated by copy paste? Sure, I have 3000 arguments and 600.000 characters written on the topic. Yeah, I am invincible, I get it. There is no way for other people to get the last word when I have so many words ☹ 🥺😭"
It's not about that. It's not hard to defeat that sort of thing especially when your previous arguments make that logic null and void when no rebuttal is offered.
I want to learn about the strength of my own arguments or their flaws and it's not possible when your opponent is just copying and pasting stuff that your arguments already defeat. It's better to engage with your opponents arguments instead of spamming arguments that acceptance of a few of their premises already disprove.
Yes it's easy to beat a retard at a debate. It's also not fun and it often takes more effort than beating good or bad arguments. There is 4 debate types . I imagine a box
-----------------------------
Effort and winning are the combinations
1. Easy to win high effort
2. Easy to win low effort
3. Hard to win low effort
4. Hard to win high effort
Easy to win hard effort is the most retarded type of opponent to be. That means you assentially like mall . Nobody enjoys engaging with you and it's essentially like interacting with a literal retards or child.
The other 3 debate types are fine. Debater 2 is for farming, debater 1 is for wasting your time and the other 2 is to challenge yourself and have something to learn from.
As much as I see Catholics and orthodox Christians try to debate this, I have never heard of a protestant arguing for Sola Scriptura.
They only have a gut feeling or blind faith in Sola Scriptura , it's not a philosophical position anyone ever seriously defends.
If you watched a Benny Hinn performance and thought "yeah this is a deeply philosophical person who can reasonably defend Sola Scriptura" than you have fooled yourself.
Nobody defends that position though they believe in it, so it's pointless to do.
If you want to debate protests to than you'll need to find their actual criticisms of your religion
It would be a shared burden. But even if you had the burden of proof, proving something 100% is an absurd burden to meet. I would think you would just have to show the impacts are more likely to be harmful on balance than not.
I think con has a case even short term anyway. Just debate what is more fun for you to debate
If it's too speculative than how do you plan for the future? Do you just behave in ways that are immediately beneficial ignoring long term consequences?
I am not 100% sure I got this one right so if you guys could place a vote it would be nice. Short debate not many contentions to analyze but there is some fuzziness with the resolution and both sides seem to be arguing something that is not quite the resolution. I tried to stay true to what it felt like they were debating in favor of but it was close either way
This didn't happen automatically but after Pearl harbor there was some Japanese people who were American citizens and one of the Japanese pilots crash landed on a Hawaii island and the Japanese citizens of that island helped the pilot essentially take over the island.
A few other incidents. Happened where it was proven many Japanese had dual loyalty so necessary precautions were taken
Americans didn't actually intern Japanese Americans. It's a myth we like to promote here because the left thinks it proves America is racist and the right uses it as an example of how evil liberals are because Roosevelt did it.
What really happened is Japanese citizens were forced to move away from areas where sensitive military operations were happening and governors from states not around those sensitive areas didn't like the Japanese coming in. So what happened was the federal government put up shelters for the Japanese and there were curfews if you wanted to stay there but you could essentially come and go as you please and if you left you didn't have to come back just not go near airports or military bases etc.
We have a few myths that both sides use so nobody wants to admit it's bullshit .
Effective at shutting down churches, censoring media and dragging out a war so he loses hundreds of thousands of extra lives to defend Russian speaking regions who prefer to be a part of Russia and let's be honest. Russian and Ukraine are both shitholes and there is no discernable difference living in either one. If you went to sleep in Ukraine and woke up in Russia you literally wouldn't notice
I think Tigerlord got the vote right. I am going to refrain voting on this because votes are probably more time consuming than creating arguments and my time is limited. I am willing to reconsider and place a vote, and can't know 100% where my vote would go but given its a 3 round debate and con missed a round and I generally will not accept new arguments in the final round, I most likely would vote for pro
It's considered bad for to give one side ammo in a debate.
If you would prefer I can forfeit and you can take this debate.
"what's certain is that Israeli war crimes have been more frequent, more obvious and more brutal. Feel free to join, can't wait to debate!"
What's obvious is their propaganda has been more frequent allowing literal brain dead tik Tok zoomers to be easily persuaded.
I like how the term genocide was being used by Hamas prior to any defensive retaliatory actions, almost like they started the bullshit script too soon
I wonder what happened on October 7th that would make Israel want to attack Hamas. I guess it will always be a mystery
Congrats on your win. Well earned
"Great. Now you could respond to 700 arguments one by one to explain why they are retarded. After you are done, I will send you 2300 more arguments on discord so you can prove your point."
So once you are disproven you will move the goalposts
I read the entire thread . You chose to act retarded. You could defend the same opinion in a non retarded way. You can point to other instances where you were a retard with other subjects as well, and there have also been pushed to ban you for that as well, the pedophilia arguments provide a convenient excuse but it's repeated and consistent behavior. You aren't learning anything or accomplishing anything by debating with the same ability as a 12 year old could, so why not just choose to not be retarded instead? If I was given the option of being a retard or not being one, I would choose to not be one.
It's actually a question you should ask before every decision. Ask yourself "is this retarded?". If the answer is yes than just pivot to the non retarded alternative.
You'll feel better, your life will be better. You have nothing to lose by not being a retard.
I don't like oromagi and he makes intelligent arguments. BSH1 is a piece of shit and his arguments were good
"I get it. I could be driving away users from the site by debating such a sensitive topic. Its not really about the way I debate,"
It is
"Is this circular logic? Sure, censor everything you see as incorrect. "
Strawman, there are people who actually debate that subject without being retards.
Vader banned the thread, I will ask him. My guess is that it's banned because you can't handle debating the topic correctly.
I mean it was only 4 pages and you are allowed to respond. You weren't even banned you just started a new account. You don't have to argue you can just link to your best argument post.
The ones disproven by counter arguments shift the burden to you in that regard. That thread you are essentially repeating the same handful of arguments repeatedly while ignoring counter arguments.
You also seem to pepper in logical fallacies nearly every argument. Why don't you pick out your best one.
The only one I could see actually banning based on subject alone is oromagi and he isn't active.
I have already talked to the rest about my philosophy and I feel like most of them have a very similar one or have come around.
Who told you it wasn't allowed and what were their exact words?
I don't think the subject or defending that issue is as much of a problem as your lack of respect.
And no terrible arguments shouldn't be allowed. You should have freedom to defend every position here.
Besides I am not even sure what your arguing. It's not illegal for children to consent. No child is arrested for being molested.
"they are a terrible party because the liberals don't like them, like they like the traditional conservatives who kiss their ass and make no progress"
I have defended everyone's right to debate any subject no matter how taboo. You aren't treating these controversial subjects with respect. You aren't making a serious effort to defend them you are just saying the first thing that comes to mind based on nonor very little research. If you treat the subject with respect I can talk to these mods and make sure you are safe. It's not what you are doing, you're just trying to rage bait.
It's why when we had our debate about child marriage you literally refused to address my points and just gish galloped . So you made it clear in that debate as well you weren't interested in actually defending that POV
Next argument if it's even considered one
"You wouldnt want anyone else deciding about you without your consent, so saying that children should suffer that treatment is inconsistent."
Presupposition used when saying suffer. The presupposition goes unsupported as is the nature of presuppositions
"You wouldn't want to"
An appeal to emotion. It doesn't matter what I want in terms of myself this is about the ethics of shoving your penis into a 2 year olds ass if you feel like they consented.
Let's look for a third argument or something resembling one somewhere which I doubt can be found
Second argument
"Yes. If children cant consent, then they either are property with other people making decisions for them, which is slavery,"
False dilemma
"either other people cant make decisions for them, and then no decisions can even be logically made and every option is wrong, which cannot work."
Other than obvious rebuttals like coma patients can't consent but we wouldn't consider them property it just fails to really get into what is consent, why it would be wrong to not allow consent or even what's wrong with considering. Children property.
The first argument I looked at said "bring it on".
I will now look at the thread for your next argument to see if it was also retarded
He has a new account called the sun God. He just asked the mods to close that account for him
You are welcome to reread your arguments and see for yourself
Why not make actual arguments instead of random bare assertions with zero support?
You could literally repurpose ADOL's arguments for this but you chose to make bad arguments instead. You need to believe in your arguments for it to work.
I have debates similar topics just fine. You aren't debating it though which is the issue. I argued that child porn should be legal and I never even got a warning about it or a mod make a comment
Reading the thread for the first time. Here is your first argument
"
Why would anyone think that children cant consent?
Common, fight me on this."
Are you talking about a thread I was not in at all? I am the biggest defender of free speech here.
"So you get defeated by copy paste? Sure, I have 3000 arguments and 600.000 characters written on the topic. Yeah, I am invincible, I get it. There is no way for other people to get the last word when I have so many words ☹ 🥺😭"
It's not about that. It's not hard to defeat that sort of thing especially when your previous arguments make that logic null and void when no rebuttal is offered.
I want to learn about the strength of my own arguments or their flaws and it's not possible when your opponent is just copying and pasting stuff that your arguments already defeat. It's better to engage with your opponents arguments instead of spamming arguments that acceptance of a few of their premises already disprove.
Yes it's easy to beat a retard at a debate. It's also not fun and it often takes more effort than beating good or bad arguments. There is 4 debate types . I imagine a box
-----------------------------
Effort and winning are the combinations
1. Easy to win high effort
2. Easy to win low effort
3. Hard to win low effort
4. Hard to win high effort
Easy to win hard effort is the most retarded type of opponent to be. That means you assentially like mall . Nobody enjoys engaging with you and it's essentially like interacting with a literal retards or child.
The other 3 debate types are fine. Debater 2 is for farming, debater 1 is for wasting your time and the other 2 is to challenge yourself and have something to learn from.
First of all. Never set max characters that high. 2nd of all I am not even sure what that says and interpreting it will be tough
As much as I see Catholics and orthodox Christians try to debate this, I have never heard of a protestant arguing for Sola Scriptura.
They only have a gut feeling or blind faith in Sola Scriptura , it's not a philosophical position anyone ever seriously defends.
If you watched a Benny Hinn performance and thought "yeah this is a deeply philosophical person who can reasonably defend Sola Scriptura" than you have fooled yourself.
Nobody defends that position though they believe in it, so it's pointless to do.
If you want to debate protests to than you'll need to find their actual criticisms of your religion
What is with people criticizing these resolutions. Can't we just let them fight out the interpretation in the debate?
It would be a shared burden. But even if you had the burden of proof, proving something 100% is an absurd burden to meet. I would think you would just have to show the impacts are more likely to be harmful on balance than not.
I think con has a case even short term anyway. Just debate what is more fun for you to debate
If it's too speculative than how do you plan for the future? Do you just behave in ways that are immediately beneficial ignoring long term consequences?
Why a few months instead of debating whether the long term effects are good or not?
People care about the impact it has long term not the effect following 2 weeks after
Yes taking him Saturday morning. McDonald's has like a Minecraft happy meal also so may just make it a thing. Good luck.
I also didn't mention it but it feels like a shared BOP.
I am not 100% sure I got this one right so if you guys could place a vote it would be nice. Short debate not many contentions to analyze but there is some fuzziness with the resolution and both sides seem to be arguing something that is not quite the resolution. I tried to stay true to what it felt like they were debating in favor of but it was close either way
This didn't happen automatically but after Pearl harbor there was some Japanese people who were American citizens and one of the Japanese pilots crash landed on a Hawaii island and the Japanese citizens of that island helped the pilot essentially take over the island.
A few other incidents. Happened where it was proven many Japanese had dual loyalty so necessary precautions were taken
Americans didn't actually intern Japanese Americans. It's a myth we like to promote here because the left thinks it proves America is racist and the right uses it as an example of how evil liberals are because Roosevelt did it.
What really happened is Japanese citizens were forced to move away from areas where sensitive military operations were happening and governors from states not around those sensitive areas didn't like the Japanese coming in. So what happened was the federal government put up shelters for the Japanese and there were curfews if you wanted to stay there but you could essentially come and go as you please and if you left you didn't have to come back just not go near airports or military bases etc.
We have a few myths that both sides use so nobody wants to admit it's bullshit .
used my credits to push this to the top o hopefully it gets the recognition it deserves
definitely want to vote on this at some point
They don't want kyev. They want the dumb ass region.
Effective at shutting down churches, censoring media and dragging out a war so he loses hundreds of thousands of extra lives to defend Russian speaking regions who prefer to be a part of Russia and let's be honest. Russian and Ukraine are both shitholes and there is no discernable difference living in either one. If you went to sleep in Ukraine and woke up in Russia you literally wouldn't notice
It's fair . I don't have time for this shit but I think his predecessor was better so maybe I could be persuaded.
Why are you limiting the positions you will take?
How is defending Nazis harmful?
I could understand if the Holocaust happened but it didnt
Which merriem Webster dictionary?
it's delicious but yeah they are right, shits bad for you
I think Tigerlord got the vote right. I am going to refrain voting on this because votes are probably more time consuming than creating arguments and my time is limited. I am willing to reconsider and place a vote, and can't know 100% where my vote would go but given its a 3 round debate and con missed a round and I generally will not accept new arguments in the final round, I most likely would vote for pro
He is literally deporting rapists right now so I am looking forward to cons argument for having more rapists and child molestors roaming the street
I would accept this debate but your argument against water being ineffective at putting out fires will likely be impossible to win against