The United States should nuke Germany (see description for full resolution)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I swear I already made this debate but I see no indication it was removed, so I may be mistaken.
full resolution: In the scenario where the following conditions exist, Germany should be nuked into oblivion
1. There exists a man in Germany who has a 1 in a million chance at creating a doomsday device who will destroy the world if successful
2. The identity of the guy is unknown but he is definitely in Germany and a nuke would definitely kill him
3. This does not set up a chain reaction that causes any countries to begin nuking others other than those of us nuking Germany
Rules
1. No kritiks
2. You must be male and have an IQ of 120 or above or you forfeit a conduct point
3. no counterplans, like for example (We should compel everyone to suicide in Germany)
4. Stick with the intent of the debate as I am already accepting a massive burden of proof
5. I am allowed to use youtube videos to make my argument that I make for the purposes of this debate
Thank God it is 4 rounds. I still have a chance
Pro's R2 was missing sound. So effectively a missed round.
Con's didn't have anything new to respond to, and ended up feeling a bit forced. That said, there is merit to letting the police handle the matter... I do feel here that the generated voice couldn't handle this properly, as the material was so ripe for jokes at Germany's history which it would not have been able to carry.
Well, I just released another video, would enjoy hearing your views on it.
If either of you set your voice to that annoying AI woman, I will vote against you automatically... Well, at least on legibility.
Yeah, I noticed that as well. To be honest, I assumed it might have been just me stunning you with my excellent arguments. lol. I would recommend using Clip Champ if you are running a windows 11. It has a built-in AI text-to-speech that would allow you to say whatever you want through text. The AI voice as you can tell from my video is crystal clear and all of it is completely free.
That's annoyin
It's not just you. Damn it
I hope it is just you. let me see
Idk if it's just me, but I can't hear you talking in your second video.
Thanks, man. I appreciate the insight.
That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis
will look into it.
Nice R1.
Glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking of the mistake in the trolly problem (inaction =/= murder; even while option of murder /may/ be better justified than said inaction).
The problem of other countries fearing the same, was also a good point, but it probably should have been expanded upon. It brings my mind to the problem after someone kills baby Hitler, in that their future is gone, so they're just a madman who butchered a baby for some quasi-religious belief that the baby as evil.
If you haven't already, you should read That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis, and if in the mood for something lighthearted which deals with one in a million chances, Guards! Guards! by Sir Terry Pratchett.
Well, I just released my argument video. I hope you enjoy it.
Love the trolly problem, and look forward to cons rebuttals
https://youtu.be/DtRhrfhP5b4?si=5MTTyV2R0FUIl8jE
If doing more math in videos, I suggest Excel (or Google Sheets).
I’d also be curious as to the basic assumptions for that population total.
Arguments for consideration ought to be placed within the arguments tab.
As a voter, I am not convinced of not high IQ by performance in another debate. So the mostly meaningless conduct point will not be assigned for a that.
As a debater, I well understand the tactic of identifying a weakness and pressing it (such as in the other debate mentioned, calling a serial /attempted/ rapist a rapist and other such slights).
As a moderator Inhavent finished that video and have to get back to work.
Not a hard rebuttable, you failed. I know you are like "I could have destroyed you easily" but if that were true you wouldn't have gotten scared and forfeited https://youtu.be/EWjKyqjYrCo
https://youtu.be/EWjKyqjYrCo
"you do know that intelligent people can be bad at debating right? You are asking me not to insult your IQ while failing to realize things like smart people can be terrible at debate"
Thank you for once again admitting that you are actively trying to insult my IQ, which you have told not to do and yet continue to do. The mods will surely appreciate that when they investigate the matter. Just as I appreciate being able to report it.
you do know that intelligent people can be bad at debating right? You are asking me not to insult your IQ while failing to realize things like smart people can be terrible at debate
"You knew you sucked too much to defeat me, not sure why you bothered to accept."
"Sorry for calling you too shitty too defeat me when you quite literally have decided to forfeit because you are too shitty to defeat me"
Your words on top of presuming my IQ. Tell it to the mods at this point. I don't care what you try to say at this point.
the average IQ is 100, so if I say your IQ is below 120 it doesn't mean you are below average, besides I never directly stated it and I merely mentioned it and moved on. It is not irrelevant because it could win me a conduct point
Also, a flaw in your logic, if I KNEW I was going to forfeit, I would never have accepted the debate, and I would have not said anything afterward. It was only AFTER I watched your video response, which was supposed to be about this topic, that I said to myself, "This guy is bringing up an unrelated argument to mock my IQ level again. There's no point in debating with a rule breaker." You even encourage other people to watch my other debates to conclude that I have low intelligence. You do not want to debate; you want to bully, and I am damn sure going to let the mods know that when you make it obvious.
I may have accepted the debate, but I had no way of knowing that you were going to accuse me of having Low intellect. AGAIN. After AGREEING to stop doing so. You were told to Stop MANY times before this and told that making assumptions about other people's IQ is against the COC. I am not going to get banned for reporting you for something you KNOW and were TOLD to not do. Unlike you, I do not violate the rules.
I argued for why I should get a conduct point. I am allowed to argue you have a low IQ if it is relevant to the debate. You saw the debate rules when you accepted
Ban this guy for reporting me for expressing frustration that he literally aceoted this debate k owing he was going to forfeit.
I believe you should see this. And also watch his latest video insulting my intelligence AFTER White Flower told him MANY times to stop,
You can keep on insulting me, but I am just going to report you more.
Sorry for calling you too shitty too defeat me when you quite literally have decided to forfeit because you are too shitty to defeat me
Thank you, that's reported as well.
Thank you, that's reported as well.
You knew you sucked too much to defeat me, not sure why you bothered to accept.
I will not be debating with you at all. I have just watched your first YouTube, "Argument" for this debate, and I have found you to still be violating the rules of this site. You were told MANY times to not insult anyone's IQ on this website and the MODs have told you these many times. You continue to ignore them by making IQ conditions in the rules and immediately stating my IQ level is 120 by demanding the vote of conduct vote based on what you think my is IQ level in your video. I have informed White Flower of your latest violation. I will not debate with someone who breaks the COC on this site. Good day.
let me guess. You are going to forfeit your round because you can't come up with a good argument against me