Bsh1 is better than RM though. RM basically just debate spams accepting like 6 debates at once having raltar and ramshutu automatically vote in his favor on each one and just other types of unethical shenanigans.
Bsh1 likes to tightly control his debates with unnecessary and lengthy rules. I saw him debate envisage once and because he felt envisage was winning he asked for the debate not to continue. He begged to end the debate because he thought he might lose. He added about 5 new rules to his list after that to make sure he never faces a non canned argument you see basically every other day.
You aren't too dumb to know where you twisted the analysis and inserted your own judgement to cheat in order to co trol the results of the debate. Your like the thief who is caught who asks "if I stole how did I do it?" You intentionally used retarded logic to interpret the debate in a way that was preferravle to the side you wanted to win prior to even reading the debate
I already explained to you how tabula rasa voting works. You ignorantly plugged your ears and claimed you did it, despite overtly using your own mind to interpret things on this debate and repeatedly
Those two are causing almost every debate to end the opposite of how it should merely because there are not enough interested voters to counter act them here. This debate wasn't even close and it just shows how unfit those two are to judge debates
No use arguing with them. They have a clead bias against you and are either too lacking in morality to set it aside or lack the i intellectual capacity to be capable of it
Another open threat I'm sure you'll get away with despite me being threatened with a ban for supposedly lying in a debate if I don'the offer an apology and retraction.
Rm is tempted to say he would hunt me down and murder me or some other insane shit, but doesn't want to violate the COC. Dude is a piece of work.
RM, get a job stop spending so much time on here . Are you mooching off of people you supposedly love? I'd that why you have so much free time to post arguments the level of what a low IQ 12 year old would post, if they had enough time to sloppily research those subjects?
Is everyone just focused on the perceived lie in the final round and ignoring that bsh1 declared himself Victor before I had a chance to post. You guys need to learn how to see the whole picture instead of zeroing in on one thing. He'll bsh1 even dropped the arguments about war and violence being more common in polygamist societies and the mentions of basically treating women like commodities to be traded for sheep. His arguments center around if somebody claims to have a religious belief supporting their abusive practice than their abusive practice should be tolerated fuck how it affects society as a whole or the young naive 12 year Olds taken advantage of in these societies
Rm, I have just as much power as bsh1, I'm not screaming "unfair". I probably have more power. I wear a fedora, and this is my playground. For now, but I can always create a new one. I have plenty of disposable income. I feel like a failure for not having the amount a 6 figure income would bring me, but a I have enough to create and market a new playground.
bsh1 has not acted unfair, but I just wanted to show he isn't exactly the saint people think he is by pointing out the subtle threat. He is a shitty confidant anyway. He has insight he holds back from me, on me. I think he would be happier if I stopped opening up to him, but he'll have to suffer until I get that possibly life altering insight he is holding back. Also how are you going to block me Bsh1 when I am in your mafia game?
I like the subtle threat, you'll reveal the full contents of the PM, a new rule you never mentioned previously. bsh1 knows the PM reveals personal information about myself because I treat him like a confidant, something I do with no other user here. I don't care though, they'll have access to all of that information soon enough.
The germs argument was irrelevant to the resolution because the study was done on inside drinks which get ice differently, and my opponent conceded my facts were true.
We had equal BOP here. So you think he proved most people should order drinks with no ice in the drive through?
"3.) Would you rather drink cold toilet water, or warm mineral water - that’s the core that lost you arguments (and to a great degree sources too). To any Normal human being, the choice would be the warm mineral water. That source from pro is not something I expected, and was basically the knock out source and knock out argument. You had to put a dent in it, by citing some other studies, or putting the risk in context: (Ie: well use it *can* be as full of bacteria in some respect as toilet water - but not the same bacteria, and it’s not like everyone is dying from fast food Ice."
He only proved dining room ice had bacteria. So none of that was necessary, so the argument you reference here should not have been weighted at all.
"You would have drawn grammar if you had run the debate through a grammar/spellchecker."
Don't be an idiot. Spelling of words is arbitrary and the same word can be spelled different based on geographic location, or accent and personal style etc. The English language is also constantly evolving so words change. You need to score fairly instead of focusing on a few minor and almost unnoticeable mistakes by one side while ignoring all the mistakes of the other side in some transparent way to manipulate the final results of the debate.
" quantify the extra wait in context. If you had found the average line length, and the average wait, and the average increase in pour time:"
These are impacts that should be counted and I said it was a few seconds extra wait for every car who did it. Not everything needs extra quantification. SO it should have been weighed atleast a little bit, while pro wasn't even focused on the resolution and should have no impacts. You scored the debate wrong. He needed to prove most people should order no ice. He failed
Expertise is not used to win arguments but to show I am not full of shit about having certain knowledge on the subject matter. Not that source points should be awarded on philosophical debates. All points other than arguments should be awarded only in like 1% of circumstances.
Can you expand on your definition of alive? Like are rocks alive? Are the Mario and Luigi from that game alive? I need to know this information to know if the debate is for me.
I just saw that, I thought you awarded it. I doubt it, I think if I switched sides but arguments remained the same than you would have placed a correct vote as opposed to what you did, but I can't prove it. You seem to also forget what this debate is about. He has to prove most customers should request no ice, I have to prove most should order with ice. I gave increased obesity and increased time and price as a reason most should get ice, he gave that "people should have it their way" and "the ice in the dining room is contaminated" as reasons most drive through customers should not get ice. So it was a poor interpretation of the resolution on your part, which there is no excuse for because I properly frame the debate in the final round.
You know, I may not like you rational madman, but I do put fair and accurate votes on your debates. Please stop being a piece of shit. That is not how you are supposed to judge spelling and grammar, and arguments aren't even weighed properly. Also sources is just retarded. If pro doesn't believe me he can just ask me for verification, and he has just as much reason to believe my expertise, as he does to other random sources he uses. I can tell you that nobody lies about working in such an evil industry, it's like admitting to being on the marketing team of a cigarrette company. Nobody does it, who isn't actually on the marketing team because of how evil the job is.
The fair tax which you can find more info on at fairtax.org involves a stipend that would refund the money you would normally spend on all basic necessities. Most poor people would still pay zero percent, and rich people would not be able to dodge taxes as well. Plus it adds revenue from things you can't normally tax such as under the table money or drug money as well as people vacationing in America.
I'm going to try and wake up early enough to do this. Tough though with only getting a few hours of sleep a night. It's always 2 hous a day of sleeping or 16. The extra hours awake are usually dedicated to more passive study and menial labor. Critical thinking is harder with less fuel in the tank.
A consumption tax is fair and technically a flat tax. If you don't think it would generate enough revenue than we can just cut expenses. Unless you think the government has zero percent wasteful spending and spends perfect
My argument is almost a kritik, or is one if the resolution assumes an omnipotent God as omnipotence is defined by morons who know not the true origon of the word
Did you thumbs up your own post? Also please PM me your arguments.
that was fucking fast. Do you prepare your arguments before the debate even starts, wierdo?
Bsh1 is better than RM though. RM basically just debate spams accepting like 6 debates at once having raltar and ramshutu automatically vote in his favor on each one and just other types of unethical shenanigans.
Bsh1 likes to tightly control his debates with unnecessary and lengthy rules. I saw him debate envisage once and because he felt envisage was winning he asked for the debate not to continue. He begged to end the debate because he thought he might lose. He added about 5 new rules to his list after that to make sure he never faces a non canned argument you see basically every other day.
Times have not changed that much since 2002. The same principles apply to getting your crush to wear a strap on and plow you.
You aren't too dumb to know where you twisted the analysis and inserted your own judgement to cheat in order to co trol the results of the debate. Your like the thief who is caught who asks "if I stole how did I do it?" You intentionally used retarded logic to interpret the debate in a way that was preferravle to the side you wanted to win prior to even reading the debate
I already explained to you how tabula rasa voting works. You ignorantly plugged your ears and claimed you did it, despite overtly using your own mind to interpret things on this debate and repeatedly
Those two are causing almost every debate to end the opposite of how it should merely because there are not enough interested voters to counter act them here. This debate wasn't even close and it just shows how unfit those two are to judge debates
No use arguing with them. They have a clead bias against you and are either too lacking in morality to set it aside or lack the i intellectual capacity to be capable of it
It never fails that ramshutu and raltar will fuck up their vote. This is sad
Dont even bother listening ralter. Drop the pretense of pretending to analyze debates in an unbiased matter. These debates arent moderated
Do you really wwant me to vote on this? Because I will.
I am almost done withthis 6 pack and am taking a few shots. Will vote on this when I am plastered enough to give a shit about this gay ass debate
I wont be biases. I hate all this shitty music so I guess I will vote for whose songs I thought were least shitty
I'm counting threatening emails sent to your opponent as conduct violation. So one side of this debate is starting 1 point down already.
Direct quote from the end of round 1
"Thank you! Please vote Pro!"
You did it in round 1
test
Doesn't even deny threatening to kill me and will get a free pass
Another open threat I'm sure you'll get away with despite me being threatened with a ban for supposedly lying in a debate if I don'the offer an apology and retraction.
His rules say that type of conduct is an automatic loss. Different rules than the other debates
Rm is tempted to say he would hunt me down and murder me or some other insane shit, but doesn't want to violate the COC. Dude is a piece of work.
RM, get a job stop spending so much time on here . Are you mooching off of people you supposedly love? I'd that why you have so much free time to post arguments the level of what a low IQ 12 year old would post, if they had enough time to sloppily research those subjects?
Is everyone just focused on the perceived lie in the final round and ignoring that bsh1 declared himself Victor before I had a chance to post. You guys need to learn how to see the whole picture instead of zeroing in on one thing. He'll bsh1 even dropped the arguments about war and violence being more common in polygamist societies and the mentions of basically treating women like commodities to be traded for sheep. His arguments center around if somebody claims to have a religious belief supporting their abusive practice than their abusive practice should be tolerated fuck how it affects society as a whole or the young naive 12 year Olds taken advantage of in these societies
Rm, I have just as much power as bsh1, I'm not screaming "unfair". I probably have more power. I wear a fedora, and this is my playground. For now, but I can always create a new one. I have plenty of disposable income. I feel like a failure for not having the amount a 6 figure income would bring me, but a I have enough to create and market a new playground.
bsh1 has not acted unfair, but I just wanted to show he isn't exactly the saint people think he is by pointing out the subtle threat. He is a shitty confidant anyway. He has insight he holds back from me, on me. I think he would be happier if I stopped opening up to him, but he'll have to suffer until I get that possibly life altering insight he is holding back. Also how are you going to block me Bsh1 when I am in your mafia game?
I like the subtle threat, you'll reveal the full contents of the PM, a new rule you never mentioned previously. bsh1 knows the PM reveals personal information about myself because I treat him like a confidant, something I do with no other user here. I don't care though, they'll have access to all of that information soon enough.
Don't dare question my honor
You pretty much confirm that by saying God is too much of a weakling to lie
The voting on this site is horrendous. I'm going to create a voting guide for you guys
I wish the site was better mantained, my time is too limited to pull up the relevant information you seek anyway.
I believe it has been discussed and approved that you can disclose mod PMs
virtuous, I didn't have to try, I won based on semantics
I know you like religious debates. Please give your honest opinion
Please vote on this debate. Very quick read
The germs argument was irrelevant to the resolution because the study was done on inside drinks which get ice differently, and my opponent conceded my facts were true.
https://www.debate.org/debates/Classic-Robert-Gauntlet-Tournament-The-current-tax-system-should-be-replaced-by-the-fair-tax./1/
Here is more information.
Not with the stipend, hold on though. I did a debate on it, I will link you to it
We had equal BOP here. So you think he proved most people should order drinks with no ice in the drive through?
"3.) Would you rather drink cold toilet water, or warm mineral water - that’s the core that lost you arguments (and to a great degree sources too). To any Normal human being, the choice would be the warm mineral water. That source from pro is not something I expected, and was basically the knock out source and knock out argument. You had to put a dent in it, by citing some other studies, or putting the risk in context: (Ie: well use it *can* be as full of bacteria in some respect as toilet water - but not the same bacteria, and it’s not like everyone is dying from fast food Ice."
He only proved dining room ice had bacteria. So none of that was necessary, so the argument you reference here should not have been weighted at all.
"You would have drawn grammar if you had run the debate through a grammar/spellchecker."
Don't be an idiot. Spelling of words is arbitrary and the same word can be spelled different based on geographic location, or accent and personal style etc. The English language is also constantly evolving so words change. You need to score fairly instead of focusing on a few minor and almost unnoticeable mistakes by one side while ignoring all the mistakes of the other side in some transparent way to manipulate the final results of the debate.
" quantify the extra wait in context. If you had found the average line length, and the average wait, and the average increase in pour time:"
These are impacts that should be counted and I said it was a few seconds extra wait for every car who did it. Not everything needs extra quantification. SO it should have been weighed atleast a little bit, while pro wasn't even focused on the resolution and should have no impacts. You scored the debate wrong. He needed to prove most people should order no ice. He failed
Damn you and your inability to be trapped with semantics
My philosophy on how to properly vote is just different than yours. It's fine, RM's narcissistic comments aside, is correct
Are Mario and Luigi alive?
Expertise is not used to win arguments but to show I am not full of shit about having certain knowledge on the subject matter. Not that source points should be awarded on philosophical debates. All points other than arguments should be awarded only in like 1% of circumstances.
Can you expand on your definition of alive? Like are rocks alive? Are the Mario and Luigi from that game alive? I need to know this information to know if the debate is for me.
I just saw that, I thought you awarded it. I doubt it, I think if I switched sides but arguments remained the same than you would have placed a correct vote as opposed to what you did, but I can't prove it. You seem to also forget what this debate is about. He has to prove most customers should request no ice, I have to prove most should order with ice. I gave increased obesity and increased time and price as a reason most should get ice, he gave that "people should have it their way" and "the ice in the dining room is contaminated" as reasons most drive through customers should not get ice. So it was a poor interpretation of the resolution on your part, which there is no excuse for because I properly frame the debate in the final round.
You know, I may not like you rational madman, but I do put fair and accurate votes on your debates. Please stop being a piece of shit. That is not how you are supposed to judge spelling and grammar, and arguments aren't even weighed properly. Also sources is just retarded. If pro doesn't believe me he can just ask me for verification, and he has just as much reason to believe my expertise, as he does to other random sources he uses. I can tell you that nobody lies about working in such an evil industry, it's like admitting to being on the marketing team of a cigarrette company. Nobody does it, who isn't actually on the marketing team because of how evil the job is.
The fair tax which you can find more info on at fairtax.org involves a stipend that would refund the money you would normally spend on all basic necessities. Most poor people would still pay zero percent, and rich people would not be able to dodge taxes as well. Plus it adds revenue from things you can't normally tax such as under the table money or drug money as well as people vacationing in America.
I'm going to try and wake up early enough to do this. Tough though with only getting a few hours of sleep a night. It's always 2 hous a day of sleeping or 16. The extra hours awake are usually dedicated to more passive study and menial labor. Critical thinking is harder with less fuel in the tank.
Having warts on your genitals is also a conditional state. So I guess it isn't an STD, and I see no reason we have to reproduce.
Perhaps we should all be celibate, because sec increases your chance of STDs. Particularly the STD known as pregnancy.
A consumption tax is fair and technically a flat tax. If you don't think it would generate enough revenue than we can just cut expenses. Unless you think the government has zero percent wasteful spending and spends perfect
My argument is almost a kritik, or is one if the resolution assumes an omnipotent God as omnipotence is defined by morons who know not the true origon of the word