-->
@RationalMadman
I mean if your looking for easy wins over a good natured debate I guess sure lol.
February Debate Tournament
Posts
Total:
179
-->
@Lunatic
Winning is winning
debating for the sake of it is what the forums are for.
-->
@Lunatic
Since ComputerNerd hasn't accepted the challenge yet, I deleted the old one and created a new one with the same details. If you're still unable to see it, then I truly don't know what's going on. I even checked the comments section, and it doesn't allow for any posts. If the problem persists, I'll contact a mod.
-->
@whiteflame
@Athias
Yeah still not working.
Whiteflame you know whats going on?
-->
@Lunatic
Yeah still not working.Whiteflame you know whats going on?
I've sent Whiteflame a message alerting him of what's going on.
-->
@Lunatic
@Athias
Hmm... not sure. My guess is that there's some issue with sharing it before it is accepted. I'd like to see what happens after ComputerNerd accepts it, but I'll see what I can do in the meantime.
-->
@whiteflame
Hmm... not sure. My guess is that there's some issue with sharing it before it is accepted. I'd like to see what happens after ComputerNerd accepts it, but I'll see what I can do in the meantime.
Thanks, whiteflame.
-->
@whiteflame
I thought it would be obvious... It's not 'some problem' it would be a problem if it was visible.
-->
@RationalMadman
I thought it would be obvious... It's not 'some problem' it would be a problem if it was visible.
...I'm not sure I understand this. It's odd that the challenge apparently cannot be viewed, at least not by anyone besides the challenger and the person to whom the challenge was issued. It's a problem that, apparently, Athias is unable to post comments in the comments section and information like the publication date is missing. I don't know what you think is obvious here because I'm unfamiliar with instances of this happening before.
-->
@whiteflame
Nope, it's by design 100%.
-->
@whiteflame
challenge athias to a debate right now, it will happen for you.
-->
@RationalMadman
So... the fact that it would happen again if I issued the challenge somehow makes this by design? Have you seen this happen before? And, if so, have you encountered the same issues with the comments section and publication date?
-->
@whiteflame
yeah any time you challenge someone.
It's by design.
-->
@RationalMadman
Not sure it is, but thanks for confirming that it isn't an isolated experience. If this is by design, then I'll hear is much.
-->
@RationalMadman
yeah any time you challenge someone.It's by design.
Why then was oromagi's challenge to whiteflame visible to the public before whiteflame officially accepted the challenge?
-->
@Athias
He didn't challenge whiteflame to it.
-->
@RationalMadman
He didn't challenge whiteflame to it.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The ball is ComputerNerd's court, now.
-->
@whiteflame
Hmm... not sure. My guess is that there's some issue with sharing it before it is accepted. I'd like to see what happens after ComputerNerd accepts it, but I'll see what I can do in the meantime.
I remember experiencing this problem before. I think it's a quirk that works itself out when accepted.
-->
@Incel-chud
Probably is. I'm still checking in about it, if only to be sure that it's a design feature and not a bug.
-->
@whiteflame
I just know I prefer it to atleast allow comments so both debaters can negotiate terms after a challenge, easier
-->
@Incel-chud
Noted.
-->
@Lunatic
Having posted a challenge to me at almost the very last hour that could qualify (basically), David has now created a dilemma where I need to delay as we disagree on fundamental definitions.
-->
@Lunatic
Currently his challenge has 10k characters per Round
I blotted out Time to avoid people who don't know, to know where I am timezone-wise.
In other words, David has unsuccessfully given me a challenge that I can accept, especially due to the 10k per Round sheer physical limitation but also due to only providing definitions (that I disagree are accurate or in-depth enough as they all favour Pro) for the debate.
-->
@Lunatic
To save time and effort, please ask David to delete all definitions from the description and leave semantics as part of the debate that Con can challenge Pro on. I am open to 10k character per Round since Tejretics has that on his remake vs DL.
I do not agree to his definitions of Free Press, Objectivity or Advocacy, I agree to his definitions of Democracy (though too simplistic) and prioritise.
-->
@RationalMadman
The instigator in these tournaments should not be defining definitions or rules. They need to be debated within the debate itself. If David is doing this at the last minute, you should automate advanced to the next round. The only thing that should be in the description is the resolution.
Post a screenshot of the definitions he used. I want to see which one of you is being unreasonable
10k is more than reasonable, no judge wants to read more than that. You also should opt for less definitions rather than mkre