No, I won't delete that one. I just don't think Sir.Lancelot is going to spend more time on it, and I tend to debate the same issues multiple times. I didn't include the rules here because I won't need them to win, they just make things more convenient.
He didn't include characters from the website in his round, so they don't count. Are you really not understanding this? Character minimum should logically count characters the same way as character maximum.
If you DONT COUNT the characters in the url, I still follow the rules in round 1. If you DO COUNT them, I still follow the rules. DebateArt counted my characters and agrees with me. In round 2, I no longer had to follow the rules, because they no longer applied, per the description.
As I said earlier, by round 2 the character rule no longer applied. This was very clear based on the description. In round 1, I met the word count WITHOUT SOURCE LINKS.
In my debate with Mall, you said "both sides used more than 3500 consistently". I used a nearly identical opening and you obviously counted block quotes then.
Did you read the link I gave? Block quotes count. It seems like you're just voting against me because you don't like that I made the rule.
Luckily this site will literally count characters for you and tell you how many you have left. I did not violate the character rule in round 1.
My opponent was ignoring block quotes that WERE INTERPRETABLE. Based on interpretable characters, I followed the rule.
I read the comment you linked to. If the rules in the description are authoritative, then I should win. I don't like that this has become a popularity contest, but there's not much I can do about that now.
You can vote how you want, I'm not denying that. I'm just defending the rule since everyone else is attacking it. I don't see how following established rules violates the spirit of a debate.
Vote, I guess
Yeah ik
Push for votes
Anyone interested in voting?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4293-would-socialism-on-a-large-scale-be-worse-for-society-than-americas-current-form-of-capitalism
Sounds good
Looks like someone got screwed over by the same site rules they were defending
Edit: Wait nvm. RationalMadman is right, this is confusing.
Push for votes
Please vote!
Please vote!
We'll see how glad you are when this debate is over
When I made the rule, I didn't assume people would be intentionally annoying. But at this point I don't care, you're just giving me ELO.
I think that's a far more unlikely occurrence than someone posting two sentences as an argument.
Block text would be evidence and therefore part of your argument
No one's debunked it yet
It's never more convincing, but why should I have to spend time on a debate that the other person clearly isn't putting effort into?
I find it annoying when people post two sentences as an argument. Sir.Lancelot's posts on this debate are a good example of why I made the rule.
"Out of habit"
That's admitting quite a bit
Imagine simping for someone who deletes their comments every time they lose an argument
Fair enough
We're laughing at you, not with you
Because that wasn't obvious already
At least I don't whine about the rules of a debate that I agreed to.
You'd better not. Crying for help never sends a good message.
Next time, quote someone clever
Someone's afraid to tag me
Usually a war would involve someone roasting me back
That's right, nerd
I suggest you run while you still can. I have never lost a flame war.
Sir.Lancelot has deleted his comments in shame. I weep, for there are no more worlds to conquer.
You clearly enjoy hearing yourself talk, so I'm not sure why typing 3500 characters is so hard for you.
Those are great excuses to know in case I ever start losing.
Start your own debate if you want to make the rules
Plz vote!
No, I won't delete that one. I just don't think Sir.Lancelot is going to spend more time on it, and I tend to debate the same issues multiple times. I didn't include the rules here because I won't need them to win, they just make things more convenient.
Hoping this one doesn't start a flame war in the comments section
But this is DebateArt, so rounds that comply with DebateArt's method of counting characters follow the rules.
Honestly, I don't really care at this point. You clearly just want to vote against me.
Sir.Lancelot has not kritiked the rules yet, in fact he seemed to agree with them.
He didn't include characters from the website in his round, so they don't count. Are you really not understanding this? Character minimum should logically count characters the same way as character maximum.
"you broke your rule first in round 2 IF i count the characters within lancelots source in round 1."
Then I didn't break the rules if you count my characters that way. I had links in R2. If we count things that way, he broke the rule first in R3.
But NOBODY counts characters that way. DebateArt certainly doesn't. Neither does any style guide. Why are you making up rules to give him the win?
If you DONT COUNT the characters in the url, I still follow the rules in round 1. If you DO COUNT them, I still follow the rules. DebateArt counted my characters and agrees with me. In round 2, I no longer had to follow the rules, because they no longer applied, per the description.
Why would anyone agree to a debate with a rule they weren't willing to follow?? I don't get it.
"To clarify, the first person to forfeit or break the character rule loses immediately, after that the rules no longer apply"
As I said earlier, by round 2 the character rule no longer applied. This was very clear based on the description. In round 1, I met the word count WITHOUT SOURCE LINKS.
Which round are you disputing? In round 1, I followed the rule. By round 2, the rule no longer applied because my opponent had violated it.
In my debate with Mall, you said "both sides used more than 3500 consistently". I used a nearly identical opening and you obviously counted block quotes then.
But as long as you're determined to vote against me, I don't think any evidence is going to change your mind.
Did you read the link I gave? Block quotes count. It seems like you're just voting against me because you don't like that I made the rule.
Luckily this site will literally count characters for you and tell you how many you have left. I did not violate the character rule in round 1.
My opponent was ignoring block quotes that WERE INTERPRETABLE. Based on interpretable characters, I followed the rule.
I read the comment you linked to. If the rules in the description are authoritative, then I should win. I don't like that this has become a popularity contest, but there's not much I can do about that now.
You can vote how you want, I'm not denying that. I'm just defending the rule since everyone else is attacking it. I don't see how following established rules violates the spirit of a debate.