How could you think that you’re anything but a sad loser with your so called “troll debates” tbh, I don’t even believe you’re trolling, it seems like you genuinely don’t get it. So, let’s call it here
It’s seriously amusing how you think you can play by your own rules while debating topics like whether a 4 year old should be allowed to transition or if schools should be abolished. Of course, no one is going to take you seriously with views like that
You’re bringing weak arguments, and yet you expect people to engage with them seriously? It’s no wonder you feel the need to cling to debating rules when your actual points are so out there. At this point, you’re just a massive weirdo trying to defend positions that are not only extreme but also completely detached from reality. Maybe instead of worrying about how others debate, you should focus on making arguments that don’t make you sound like a joke.
It’s funny that you think pointing out your weak arguments in comments means I can’t stick to the debate format. If anything, the fact that you’re so pressed about it says more about your own insecurities. You seem more concerned about “basic debating rules” than about actually having a solid argument.
Let’s be real, your best attempt was claiming some children want to be in marriages and are happy completely sidestepping any understanding of long term harm and maturity.
But sure, go ahead and keep pretending that debating rules matter more than actual points. It’s not my fault if your argument wasn’t strong enough to get a serious response in the first place.
It seems you’re missing the point of my previous messages. I’m not here to start anything or beg for votes and approval, but this is a serious topic to me. I wanted to clarify why I didn’t address all your points.
Because clearing up weak arguments means I’m just “doing anything for a vote” I knew I had this after the first round, especially when your best point was “some children want to be in marriage and are happy” That really ignored everything I said about long term harm and maturity.
Maybe if you actually addressed my main points about protecting kids from choices they don’t understand, we wouldn’t need this follow up.
I just want to clarify some things regarding my debate with Best.Korea
First of all, I am grateful that he at least attempted to argue the points he tried to make, even though they were mostly petty reasons and not exactly relevant in combination with child marriage. For example, he said, "some children want to be in marriage and are happy," which grossly simplifies the complexities of maturity and long term implications that I discussed.
I didn't engage with each and every point it seemed unnecessary to discuss shallow arguments. For example, He often used the word "choice" without considering the social forces that mold what children decide upon. And like I said, "Happiness given by a forced marriage can easily lead to a facade of imprisonment" which just shows how true agency is lost in such matters.
For this debate, I framed the issue in terms of the structural harms imposed by child marriage and how we really need to protect vulnerable children from choices they don't understand.
Given that Korea seemed so much to rely on anecdotal evidence in this debate and waved systemic issues away, it was hard to take the debate seriously.
The ultimate goal was to understate the grim effects of child marriage, with a balanced argument hence, I consider myself successful in my motive.
Now if this clears one's position about why one avoided argumentation at certain places while covering others.
shouldnt you debate by yourself instead of using sites like chatgpt and other ai sites? sure, you can learn from them, but copy pasting like that shows you're not really engaging personally . also, using an anime profile with an "manipulator" (cant believe i actually just said that) character and then using chatgpt for basic stuff like this seems kinda wild.
what if we all had guns? seriously, are you trolling? i thought this site was serious about debating. police officers are trained for these situations. sure, there are costs, but we need them to uphold the law.
if we actually get rid of cops, who's gonna handle crimes like murder? it'd be chaotic without anyone to enforce laws and protect people. yes alright, cops aren't perfect but we rely on them to keep society safe and ensure justice. without a structured system for law enforcement you'd have more danger?
How could you think that you’re anything but a sad loser with your so called “troll debates” tbh, I don’t even believe you’re trolling, it seems like you genuinely don’t get it. So, let’s call it here
It’s seriously amusing how you think you can play by your own rules while debating topics like whether a 4 year old should be allowed to transition or if schools should be abolished. Of course, no one is going to take you seriously with views like that
You’re bringing weak arguments, and yet you expect people to engage with them seriously? It’s no wonder you feel the need to cling to debating rules when your actual points are so out there. At this point, you’re just a massive weirdo trying to defend positions that are not only extreme but also completely detached from reality. Maybe instead of worrying about how others debate, you should focus on making arguments that don’t make you sound like a joke.
It’s funny that you think pointing out your weak arguments in comments means I can’t stick to the debate format. If anything, the fact that you’re so pressed about it says more about your own insecurities. You seem more concerned about “basic debating rules” than about actually having a solid argument.
Let’s be real, your best attempt was claiming some children want to be in marriages and are happy completely sidestepping any understanding of long term harm and maturity.
But sure, go ahead and keep pretending that debating rules matter more than actual points. It’s not my fault if your argument wasn’t strong enough to get a serious response in the first place.
It seems you’re missing the point of my previous messages. I’m not here to start anything or beg for votes and approval, but this is a serious topic to me. I wanted to clarify why I didn’t address all your points.
Because clearing up weak arguments means I’m just “doing anything for a vote” I knew I had this after the first round, especially when your best point was “some children want to be in marriage and are happy” That really ignored everything I said about long term harm and maturity.
Maybe if you actually addressed my main points about protecting kids from choices they don’t understand, we wouldn’t need this follow up.
Hello everyone,
I just want to clarify some things regarding my debate with Best.Korea
First of all, I am grateful that he at least attempted to argue the points he tried to make, even though they were mostly petty reasons and not exactly relevant in combination with child marriage. For example, he said, "some children want to be in marriage and are happy," which grossly simplifies the complexities of maturity and long term implications that I discussed.
I didn't engage with each and every point it seemed unnecessary to discuss shallow arguments. For example, He often used the word "choice" without considering the social forces that mold what children decide upon. And like I said, "Happiness given by a forced marriage can easily lead to a facade of imprisonment" which just shows how true agency is lost in such matters.
For this debate, I framed the issue in terms of the structural harms imposed by child marriage and how we really need to protect vulnerable children from choices they don't understand.
Given that Korea seemed so much to rely on anecdotal evidence in this debate and waved systemic issues away, it was hard to take the debate seriously.
The ultimate goal was to understate the grim effects of child marriage, with a balanced argument hence, I consider myself successful in my motive.
Now if this clears one's position about why one avoided argumentation at certain places while covering others.
Thanks for reading!
this debate seems really offensive and doesnt make any sense?
shouldnt you debate by yourself instead of using sites like chatgpt and other ai sites? sure, you can learn from them, but copy pasting like that shows you're not really engaging personally . also, using an anime profile with an "manipulator" (cant believe i actually just said that) character and then using chatgpt for basic stuff like this seems kinda wild.
what if we all had guns? seriously, are you trolling? i thought this site was serious about debating. police officers are trained for these situations. sure, there are costs, but we need them to uphold the law.
If someone hurt your mom, what would you do? You'd want someone to catch them andd make sure they pay for what they did, right?
if we actually get rid of cops, who's gonna handle crimes like murder? it'd be chaotic without anyone to enforce laws and protect people. yes alright, cops aren't perfect but we rely on them to keep society safe and ensure justice. without a structured system for law enforcement you'd have more danger?