- 10 ppl:
How did you come up with the 10 ppl since it seems as an arbitrary count lacking documentation.
- writing ability as skill
Beacuse you do realize AI have different levels of "ability" within writing, right? Take example ChatGPT. It's hell at making acronyms (they make 0 sense) when given a topic. However, it makes the most beautiful sonnets about Taco Bell.
You're assuming within writing itself that AI is superior at writing, and could tolpwhich at its current state, isn't at all.
It's a bit of an overstatement to say publishers will prefer AI to contemporary writers, which isn't too well supported nor documented in the current world as AI is still in the improvement stage, still lacking in some parts of writing.
- AI losing job --> humans gain income.
I believe this a note on Con's argument, since they were arguing AI should be used in workplaces. So there's this thing called money. Money is how we're able to pay for things for survival. But without money, we can't survive. A main method of getting money (and for many, the only way of getting money) is called working a job. When you work a job, you get money. When you don't, you get no money. But when AI replaces jobs due to its vast abilities, a lot of people will not have money. So the government needs some way to figure out how the people will get money when a huge number of layoffs are happening due to work to make life easier, as per BK's argument.
- R3
Technically R3 (your last round in this case) is supposed to be the point where you refute all possible opponent's arg and really ensure your ground. When I was saying "avoiding the arg", you're mainly avoiding focusing on rebuttals and more so finding extra sources to solidify your args presented in R1/R2/R3. Honestly, if you bring out sources, it's usually recommended to do so through rebuttals; bringing out new stances in a last round is generally frowned upon by voters.
"Go to iihs.org on the topic of Fatality Facts 2021
Motorcycles and ATVs.
Go to cpsc.gov , the subject is E-Scooter, E-Bike and Hoverboard Injuries and Deaths Are on the Rise; Celebrate National Fire Prevention Week with the Safe Use of Micromobility Products ."
To be honest the concept of a diet battle sounds rather stupid.
It's so variable based on allergies, dietary restrictions, specific diets meant to accomplish fitness goals, and also just whatever is available in the market
Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary
Sex is usually categorized as female or male
Both definitions include "categorized as male or female" this is proof that sex and gender are in fact the same.
ok
so 1+1=2
and 1+1+1 = 3
since both include "1+1", 2=3.
That still doesn’t really solve the problem about the debate question, all of pros and cons will just be survey results thrown at each other with little actual reasoning and interpretation, which isn’t really a “debate”
Even if I think it is >= 50%, I’ll still have to prove that. Given that basically every study is saying it is less than 50%, pro would be at a loss of argument here.
Also my questions in voting are mostly rhetorical. Just notes I take while reading to make a vote
- 10 ppl:
How did you come up with the 10 ppl since it seems as an arbitrary count lacking documentation.
- writing ability as skill
Beacuse you do realize AI have different levels of "ability" within writing, right? Take example ChatGPT. It's hell at making acronyms (they make 0 sense) when given a topic. However, it makes the most beautiful sonnets about Taco Bell.
You're assuming within writing itself that AI is superior at writing, and could tolpwhich at its current state, isn't at all.
It's a bit of an overstatement to say publishers will prefer AI to contemporary writers, which isn't too well supported nor documented in the current world as AI is still in the improvement stage, still lacking in some parts of writing.
- AI losing job --> humans gain income.
I believe this a note on Con's argument, since they were arguing AI should be used in workplaces. So there's this thing called money. Money is how we're able to pay for things for survival. But without money, we can't survive. A main method of getting money (and for many, the only way of getting money) is called working a job. When you work a job, you get money. When you don't, you get no money. But when AI replaces jobs due to its vast abilities, a lot of people will not have money. So the government needs some way to figure out how the people will get money when a huge number of layoffs are happening due to work to make life easier, as per BK's argument.
- R3
Technically R3 (your last round in this case) is supposed to be the point where you refute all possible opponent's arg and really ensure your ground. When I was saying "avoiding the arg", you're mainly avoiding focusing on rebuttals and more so finding extra sources to solidify your args presented in R1/R2/R3. Honestly, if you bring out sources, it's usually recommended to do so through rebuttals; bringing out new stances in a last round is generally frowned upon by voters.
Arg #1: Neither exist, therefore neither cannot be better than the other if both do not exist for comparison.
QED
Con--
"Go to iihs.org on the topic of Fatality Facts 2021
Motorcycles and ATVs.
Go to cpsc.gov , the subject is E-Scooter, E-Bike and Hoverboard Injuries and Deaths Are on the Rise; Celebrate National Fire Prevention Week with the Safe Use of Micromobility Products ."
not exactly "sourcing" i would consider though.
elaborate on what the heck this means besides Matrix
description please, what am i supposed to do
To be honest the concept of a diet battle sounds rather stupid.
It's so variable based on allergies, dietary restrictions, specific diets meant to accomplish fitness goals, and also just whatever is available in the market
damn i'd really love some temecula stuff
What would supporting and opposing CRT mean in this case?
Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary
Sex is usually categorized as female or male
Both definitions include "categorized as male or female" this is proof that sex and gender are in fact the same.
ok
so 1+1=2
and 1+1+1 = 3
since both include "1+1", 2=3.
(just a fallacy i noticed in ur args_)
average debate be like
Probasically ffed lol
Bruh how tie
also pro r u literally just an advertiser
debate advert?!?
lmfao
your yt has 1 video from 3 years ago.
Thanks for pointing that out, Devon.
r3: post nose, bitch
r4: white america
Dear Con, please note args + sources + conduct = 6/7 of your score. Not cool!
2 hours ?!?!?!
istg if this isn't a conduct point lmao
Some ppl don’t like = flaw
Flaw = not perfect
Therefore
Not perfect
I’ve said this a million times and I don’t think you listened one😀
what does that have to do with hip hop again?
"your turn buddy"
--- ihadsexok
Read BOP, and u just argue why white > black, not even describing perfection like your own question
So yes you are misinterpreting your own question
This debate... happened... I guess.
hello voters!!!
If it indeed my turn i'm about to repeat the same arguments because I believe you're misinterpreting BOP, the debate, and the question.
I feel throughout my r2/r3 and future's r4 I'm basically repeating my arguments... are we really reaching a objective conclusion?
"You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance."
um... is this allowed in a debate?
I feel throughout my r2/r3 and future's r4 I'm basically repeating my arguments... are we really reaching a objective conclusion?
Yeah I was thinking about talking along the origins...
You're the instigator.
I can't really tell if this is troll or fr
That still doesn’t really solve the problem about the debate question, all of pros and cons will just be survey results thrown at each other with little actual reasoning and interpretation, which isn’t really a “debate”
It’s not exactly something that can be arguable… just some surveys can spit facts and tip the entire table
Even if I think it is >= 50%, I’ll still have to prove that. Given that basically every study is saying it is less than 50%, pro would be at a loss of argument here.
assuming a shared BOP, pro could win easily by citing some report that says divorce rate is <50%??
2 ff?
wait is this troll or an actual
why:
You're arguing CON (why porn ISN'T destructive). I'm arguing PRO (why porn IS destructive).
You're arguing CON (why porn ISN'T destructive). I'm arguing PRO (why porn IS destructive).