The sentencing of Brock Turner

Just a bunch of baseless assertions. Keep living in lala land.

You'll notice I've not yet had a completed debate, yet, but I know how I'd respond. If someone forfeits after I've prepared arguments, and I do have a debate in voting, now, that has already had that result. I win, and will take pleasure in that, and be grateful for the experience and knowledge gained in research for the arguments I made. MY plan is to always have at least two rounds of argument prepared before I initiate a debate, and I accepted debates and had one round prepared, less rebuttals, before the initiator has posted their first round. Don't worry so much about my bunched panties, cupcake, and I won't mention yours, ok? Yeah, I think the judge was a creep, not worthy of wearing his robes, and glad he was stripped of them, because, bottom line, the defendant was guilty of rape, and the judge treated it like it was a case of stealing candy.

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."

Go ahead, if that floats your boat. Can't stop you, can I? Nor would I. People refuse debates all the time. Does that mean they're all cowards. or, might it mean the subject just does not interest them? That happens to be my position, thanks, but, you think as you will.

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?

Besides, you're going to win the debate by forfeit, so keep your powder in your pocket.

"There's no justification for that.Argumentation"

A little education is in order:
From the Help Center, Debates, Argumentation:

"In this stage participants take turns publishing their arguments, to which they each have up to five opportunities as determined by the pre-selected number of rounds at the time of creation."

That means in your challenge, you established a 3-round debate. The expectation is that you enter 3 rounds of argument/rebuttal/ defense... which does not allow for a waived round. Just following the guidelines, cupcake. Being that is the standard, in your debate challenge, my argument would be a kritik. Sorry, not interested.

"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.

Nice try, but you set up your debate with a waiver before knowing who your opponent would be, so stop trying to say any different, now. As instigator, you should always have the first word, and your opponent has the last word, whether you are Pro or Con.So, do the prep work necessary for that role and debate even if your opponent forfeits. That's just the risk you take. I still maintain that waiving is a coward's way.

"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 apologize for the forfeit. With school starting I just lost track of time.

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.

I strongly disagree with you, but I don't have the time to debate this. Rapists should get life imprisonment with hard labor.