This didn't make my priorities. I have made a case for it. If you wish we may make another one and continue the debate so your work doesn't go to waste. In any case, this one is yours.
We choose to build a post office in the challenger deep. We choose to do that and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
In general I had contemplated the mass produced consumer water bottle, generally the disposable sort off the shelves at Walmart and Costco because that's where I get them. I had also contemplated the glass ones, but most of them are plastic.
Want to know what happens when you do the work to make a case and the other person forfeits? You get disappointed. That happens all the time here. You know how flaky people are here. Your assumption of cowardice is baseless. You just got your panties in a bunch. Look at your vote. It's chock full of "OMG the judge wah wah"; Just like every idiot around you assume so much but you know so little. "The victim's appeal for justice was slapped in the face. I'm left wondering why the judge chose to rape her a second time" Come on... the victim in this case asked that there be no jail time. Of sentencing, the victim stated: "I don't want him to feel like his life is over and I don't want him to rot away in jail; he doesn't need to be behind bars."
You refused to accept my stated reasons for the debate format and assumed cowardice. Given that, why should anybody accept your stated reasons for refusing to debate rather than simply to assume cowardice?
"As instigator, you should always have the first word, and your opponent has the last word"
There's no justification for that. I don't believe you at all. You're just bitching because you got triggered by the position I've taken here and you're rationalizing your hostility with stupid allegations. I am willing to debate you and give you the last word. You'd better come up with a better excuse for refusing than format because that one doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps you can say just too busy or have better things to do. Sure, they'll believe that.
"a personal appeal to Pro: why waive any round? You want a two-round debate, just specify a two-round debate. I view designed waivers in a debate by an initiator as cowardice. You want to have the final word in a debate, never initiate a debate, because reasonable protocol has the initiator offer the first word. Only cowardice wants to initiate, and then see what the opponent's arguments are before rendering one's own argument. Just because waivers are not formally prohibited is no reason to initiate a debate with that feature. In other words, get a backbone."
Largely I'd rather not put the work in unless the other person is going to. As you can see here, had I put the work in, all I would have gotten was a forfeit and no actual debate. That's what would have happened, and that's no fun. That's not cowardice, that's me not having any confidence that my opponent will fulfill his end of the bargain. You can debate me on the debate resolution if you wish, unless you're too cowardly perhaps?
This didn't make my priorities. I have made a case for it. If you wish we may make another one and continue the debate so your work doesn't go to waste. In any case, this one is yours.
Kudos.
So, [insert something that wasn't said (e.g. a straw man, etc.)]. I know your ways.
We choose to build a post office in the challenger deep. We choose to do that and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
Perhaps we should build a post office at the bottom of the Mariana Trench because of all the incidental benefits.
Going to the moon was a waste of money.
It appears I have a taker here so I don't think I can oblige. Though, I do still have 2 other debates in open challenge.
I have edited the debate to one week for time to post arguments. That should be sufficient to address your concern.
In general I had contemplated the mass produced consumer water bottle, generally the disposable sort off the shelves at Walmart and Costco because that's where I get them. I had also contemplated the glass ones, but most of them are plastic.
I will consider your request.
Just a bunch of baseless assertions. Keep living in lala land.
Want to know what happens when you do the work to make a case and the other person forfeits? You get disappointed. That happens all the time here. You know how flaky people are here. Your assumption of cowardice is baseless. You just got your panties in a bunch. Look at your vote. It's chock full of "OMG the judge wah wah"; Just like every idiot around you assume so much but you know so little. "The victim's appeal for justice was slapped in the face. I'm left wondering why the judge chose to rape her a second time" Come on... the victim in this case asked that there be no jail time. Of sentencing, the victim stated: "I don't want him to feel like his life is over and I don't want him to rot away in jail; he doesn't need to be behind bars."
You refused to accept my stated reasons for the debate format and assumed cowardice. Given that, why should anybody accept your stated reasons for refusing to debate rather than simply to assume cowardice?
"As instigator, you should always have the first word, and your opponent has the last word"
There's no justification for that. I don't believe you at all. You're just bitching because you got triggered by the position I've taken here and you're rationalizing your hostility with stupid allegations. I am willing to debate you and give you the last word. You'd better come up with a better excuse for refusing than format because that one doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps you can say just too busy or have better things to do. Sure, they'll believe that.
"a personal appeal to Pro: why waive any round? You want a two-round debate, just specify a two-round debate. I view designed waivers in a debate by an initiator as cowardice. You want to have the final word in a debate, never initiate a debate, because reasonable protocol has the initiator offer the first word. Only cowardice wants to initiate, and then see what the opponent's arguments are before rendering one's own argument. Just because waivers are not formally prohibited is no reason to initiate a debate with that feature. In other words, get a backbone."
Largely I'd rather not put the work in unless the other person is going to. As you can see here, had I put the work in, all I would have gotten was a forfeit and no actual debate. That's what would have happened, and that's no fun. That's not cowardice, that's me not having any confidence that my opponent will fulfill his end of the bargain. You can debate me on the debate resolution if you wish, unless you're too cowardly perhaps?
Oh well
I shared similar concerns when I first learned of the case, but when I looked in to it more I changed my mind about it based on various things.