The Moon Landing was Recorded in a Studio

Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: boosting RM's ego is always the wrong play

I don't know what I'm more tilted by - the blank google doc or the fact Con misspelled Kritik.

lol silly rabbit google proof the moon landing was not a hoax and see what you get, you get the truth

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 awarded to both users
>Reason for Decision: I would give it to RM, but then again it wasnt a well deserved win
>Reason for Mod Action: I've been informed that I made a mistake. All tie votes need justification as to why no points were awarded to either side. Sorry. My mistake.
************************************************************************

Nvm, I was told to remove it. I will do so.

Conceded debates aren't moderated under the extended moderation guidelines insofar as the "balance of votes" do not favor the conceded party. I cited it. The same rules are in the standard voting guidelines.

"Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes."

I understand your concerns and perhaps this can be a new MEEP, but I did as the guidelines suggested.

Fully justifying tied votes is a rule made long ago via the forum thread by bsh1

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 7 awarded to both users

>Reason for Decision: I would give it to RM, but then again it wasnt a well deserved win

>Reason for Mod Action: Moderation Extended Policies Subsection B1 part IV states that unless the balance of points are in favor of the conceded party, the debate is not moderated. Unless something else takes precedence, (i.e. a user is voting who doesn't have voting privileges,) this vote cannot be removed.
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to OoDart
>Reason for Decision: "Oh wow. This debate was so well done. Great facts on both teams, great evidence, nice organizations of text. Well done, both of you. Round of applause please."
>Reason for Mod Action: Under the voting guidelines, only those with 3, non-forfeited, non-troll debates are eligible to vote. At this time, the user is precluded from voting. I apologize for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************

Forgot to tag you, see comment #32

1. Which authorities are you referring to?
2. My point still stands
3. I'm glad you're happy with your life now ;)

It was pleasant to make this a lesser priority in my life while enough of a priority to be enjoyed by me.

1) They are not the authorities im referring to.
2) I meant Nixon, not that Reagan was better.

Also, Bish and Virt are far-left. I don't think they'll care about what you say about Reagan, lol

I'm not going to use appeal to authorities in my argument. That's a fallacy, and I don't do those.

So, how was your two-week long hiatus?

do what you want, I am not going to engage in this debate. It's going to be far too easy to smear campaign me and I already know the authorities will dislike me posting what I want to post about Reagan and the motive to lie. I am not interested in this debate at all, you were correct in your presumptions.

"that some users just do it on assumption that it's okay "

what's the matter with it

sure

also he's lying, RM can never quit

Obviously RM doesn't believe this, It's just a little niece he's got while debating

Incomes BrotherDthomas!

Since we're having friendly conversations, I usually don't ask this and am shocked that some users just do it on assumption that it's okay but can we agree outright that we're permitted to post sources in the comments section or wherever, in order to maximise the 20k chars?

Same thing goes for sarcasm

"I don't know why you're being so sarcastic and winking after making an 'I'm better than you' toned comment but it really isn't subtle or pleasant."

If you take offense to me winking, then I can stop

"Yes and you will probably win too which is why I wanted it unrated, people don't listen to reason, they listen to appeal to authority so long as the authority is regarded as very strong in reason (AKA a science authority)."

Well, it depends on the argument that both of us provide ;)

I don't know why you're being so sarcastic and winking after making an 'I'm better than you' toned comment but it really isn't subtle or pleasant.

"I will not be arguing for a flat earth model in this debate, I will hint at it but barely go into it. I am going to focus on Nixon and the moon landing."

You do you, bud ;)

"Flat Earth is harder to explain and near-impossible to prove in any manner in a debate like this but I do consider myself to be a flat earther.
If your concern is the edge or why you can't see the other side of the world from your side, it's because the outer ring is Antarctica (the centre is the Arctic) and that there's a maximum range of vision. Once you fully and utterly understand those 2 things, you will stop saying that Flat Earth is impossible and start then reasoning in terms of probability, not possibility."

That... is... I don't even want to get into that.

Yes and you will probably win too which is why I wanted it unrated, people don't listen to reason, they listen to appeal to authority so long as the authority is regarded as very strong in reason (AKA a science authority).

"Yes, for real, I have been trying to quit for a long time and frankly it's clear to me that being smart isn't correlated with the winrate, simply being cowardly and smart combined is. I have lost nearly all drive to 'prove myself' but that tiny bit that remains is always there every time I quit so this being my finale is what I want to go out with."

Ok then... let's make this good (at least I will) ;)

I will not be arguing for a flat earth model in this debate, I will hint at it but barely go into it. I am going to focus on Nixon and the moon landing.

Yes, for real, I have been trying to quit for a long time and frankly it's clear to me that being smart isn't correlated with the winrate, simply being cowardly and smart combined is. I have lost nearly all drive to 'prove myself' but that tiny bit that remains is always there every time I quit so this being my finale is what I want to go out with. Flat Earth is harder to explain and near-impossible to prove in any manner in a debate like this but I do consider myself to be a flat earther.

If your concern is the edge or why you can't see the other side of the world from your side, it's because the outer ring is Antarctica (the centre is the Arctic) and that there's a maximum range of vision. Once you fully and utterly understand those 2 things, you will stop saying that Flat Earth is impossible and start then reasoning in terms of probability, not possibility.

Wait, for real?

I won't and this likely will be my last debate on the website ever, I wanted to quit with an intellectual debate as my legacy.

Yeah, I know. I would have made this open challenge, but RM and I agreed to this debate in PMs beforehand.

Yup. I know right? I was surprised the first time he told me this too.

Thanks! Though, if he does bring up flat Earth in his argument, I have many ways of dismantling it.

I’m so disappointed that CON want offered. I’ve been wanting to research these claims

RationalMadman believes in this stuff? For someone who claims to be rational, he sure believes in a bunch of nonsense!

Best way of showing the flaw in the Flat Earth theory even though you are not really using it specifically here.

Good one man.

Here you go, sir