Are all Arabs terrorists?

Most of my 44 losses there were also from my issues that I had a hard time controlling though I did pull off some wins in those phases and certainly some of the losses came at opponents who I gave my best and lost to

Yes it is

On DDO?
DDO is messed up

No I mean on an actual debate site. I mean public, not live

I'm assuming public means live or in person. It doesn't mean much if you had 300 of them, how many did you win? You can't be reliable. I could say I was Jeff Bezos, but am I? No.

You probably didn't have 300 live debates,considering your too lazy to even write one actual online debate. Or you just got carried by one of your teammates. So mind your own business, and shut up about Wikipedia being reliable.

Public meaning?

I ha e over 300 public debates. I'm sure you could find one.

I keep picking topics I don't give a shit about and can't force myself to take the effort necessary to make a competent argument. I think I'll jist change accoubts soon and start fesh or leave the site. I forfeit this debate.

You forfeit almost all your debates. I haven't seen one of your debates where you have responded with serious arguments.

It is wrong because people who lived in 2005 are dumb"
No, I'm saying Wikipedia has changed in 14 YEARS
----
I lost 14 debates and you would still be incapable of beating me.
Prove it

I lost 14 debates and you would still be incapable of beating me.

There are studies conducted in 1930 that are still considered reliable. Do you have a real argument against it or is this just "It is wrong because people who lived in 2005 are dumb"

If somebody cited me a brief overview of a common thing, I would not dismiss it as hogwash, nor should anybody else. Actually when judging it in a debate, I would not dismiss it either without their opponent giving good reason for me to.
Coming from a guy who lost all 14 of his debates, that's not saying much

Oh yeah, BACK IN 2005.
You should actually check the reliability of every source.

"December 16, 2005 6:29 AM PST"

I'm overdue for a win

Literally the first google result but I did the work for you here https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/

Wikipedia's opinion about it's reliability is wrong. With obscure topics you should obviously use more caution but using it as just a way to spread general knowledge such as "Lincoln was the 16th president is fine" those topics even when wrong information is put in is quickly fixed so actually seeing a mistake in them is rare. We are also just talking about citing them for a good overview of a subject, you wouldn't want to cite them for the nitty gritty things, especially since they do provide original sources for you that you can dive into.

If somebody cited me a brief overview of a common thing, I would not dismiss it as hogwash, nor should anybody else. Actually when judging it in a debate, I would not dismiss it either without their opponent giving good reason for me to.

You shouldn't call people dumb if you lose all 14 of your debates

The debate has already ended.
Please cite these "studies"
What's a dealm
Wikipedia itself says that it's not reliable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

The debate should take place in the debate. It is rude to help one side. You are also being dumb by being so dismissive of Wikipedia. Studies have shown it to be as reliable as the encyclopedia Britannica, however even if it isn't it is just cited for general information that is easy to verify in other places so it is no big dealm

One must follow and assign upon themselves the Arab identity to be considered an Arab.
Modern Arabism is entirely anti-american and terroristic.
Therefore, every Arab is a terrorist.
Supporting data and arguments in the coming rounds.
---
1.wikipedia is not a reliable source
2. Some Arabs don't believe in pan-Arabism
3. Therefore not all Arabs are terroristic

Pretty much exactly what Ramshutu said. Just to add to it, it also makes it easier for people to find mod posts. By having the asterics, it makes it easier for the readers to find our decisions.

The asterisks are to denote this is a formal moderators decision.

So be aware, I would not recommend using them in a debate like that as it can make it seem your a moderator :)

*******************************************************************
Why use asterisks, top and bottom of your response?
*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************
This is classified as a Full Forfeit debate as Con forfeits every round after round 1. While pro does not offer an argument after round 1, he does not forfeit every round. Full Forfeit debates are only moderated if the vote is for the forfeiting side
*******************************************************************

Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Both sides offered the faintest effort possible, both forfeited at least half the time. Neither side has logged on in weeks. Insufficient fucks given all around.

This is a pretty racist debate

Pretty sure it'd be a tie

Who would win if both parties forfeit the same number of rounds?

What a trash debate

That's not necessarily true. It could be a pseudo semantic argument.

I think con's side would be more likely to have a no true Scotsman in it actually. Although neither side need participate in this fallacy to argue.

Finally, someone creating a debate for the arabs

A pro case would be dependent upon the No True Scotsman.

Physically impossible for most of them to be terrorists, much less all of them.