For me argument strength is often determined while I am casting a vote. I may wholly agree with the side I vote against but find their reasoning in support of it to be lacking. This debate in particular due to one side missing too many rounds, left the outcome in my favor requiring no analysis.
Gender is a fairly ambiguous term. Pro argued it was simply synonymous with sexual organ identification but also more limited. I argued it’s a social term for part of someone’s self identity (thus far more diverse).
With less than a week remaining, and Novice committing to his best Brave Sir Robin impersonation, anyone at all is welcome to accept the challenge. If nothing else, you’ll be instantly proven to be a better debater than him.
Looks like Novice will not allow you to see the evidence to be able to stand in for him.
I’ll open the debate up for any friend of his to accept (assuming he has any). Failing that, maybe just maybe there’s someone left who believes there’s any merit to his words; based on the available evidence not even Novice believes anything he writes but I’ve been surprised before.
When someone misses rounds you have two good options:
1. Extend. Literally just type "Extend." to serve as a round.
2. Expand your arguments to bury them should they come back (some opponents will always forfeit one round, so for them this is best).
Also research and memory are both academic skills. That the scope is narrow, does not change that.
Not all that different from various debates on if God exists. One person presents their evidence, the other argues that the evidence is insufficient.
Novice lacks the ability to separate reality from his imagination. To such ends he keeps following me around proclaiming me a coward running away from him, in addition to the what amounts to bizarre conspiracies about things I’m supposed to have said about him.
You can read the latest iteration at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4207/comments/50853
There was one person who briefly seemed to believe him, and they had agreed to stand in for him.
…
That said, if Novice is of sound mind, then this is basically a free win for him (or anyone who believes him).
Granted, what I expect to happen is he’ll just keep spewing the same mouth diarrhea as before. As has already happened when I soundly mopped the floor with someone standing in for him (multiple times).
A useful tool for you both:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Basically I suggest using headings to separate different contentions, and copy your opponent’s headings when replying to them. This both saves a ton of characters, and makes it easy for judges to follow.
For this debate you might both share quality and quantity as primary headings, but I’d expect different sub points; in addition to any other major headings for things outside those two pre-agreed metrics.
Whiteflame: -> "It is not enough to simply say that the debate is won before any argument is had"
You treated this debate as a forgone conclusion. Which lowers your BoP, but something said in the debate should still be named (quoted or paraphrased). It could literally be: "Pro tried to prove that statistic does not exist because it can be explained, con countered that leaves it still existing." While extremely minimalistic, this shows a sample of the argument tactics from both sides.
As you've previous said: "The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened."
Therefore if Novice is neither insane nor a liar, this would be nearly the easiest win you'll ever have (given an argument time of one week for research; I wanted to make it two but the recent update prevents that).
As per definitions, a fitting set for delusions comes from WebMD "Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a psychotic disorder. People who have it can’t tell what’s real from what is imagined. ... But in reality, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated."
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder
We could simplify it down to repeatedly stating things even when contested, which have no basis in measurable reality. Such as how this debate is an example of how I'm too scared to debate Novice, via challenging him to debate (a direct contradiction to objective reality of me repeatedly challenging him to defend his claims about me). This applies to both lying and insanity, via the Lewis Trilemma I already tagged (either Novice is a liar, madman, or telling the truth; your side would be that he's telling the truth, mine would be a disconcert from reality be it liar or madman).
-> but it's like, a really weird way to phrase it, bordering on the intentionally malicious
It was a rather simple way to mock Chauvin for his odd beliefs about how black people breath best. Common knowledge of the case and context should have left no room for doubt; plus I even included a video link which clarified it was George Floyd who informed Chauvin those 27 times of the breathing difficulty during the murder.
"During the murder, DC was told 27 separate times by a breathing expert with 46 years’ experience, that the victim could not breath; the expert was African American, and DC wholly ignored the advice. Another breathing expert with 26 years’ experience (fellow officer Alexander Kueng) likewise advised DC that George Floyd no longer had a pulse, also an African American and was of course ignored [4]. Had DC respected superior knowledge when it comes from African Americans, he would not be in prison and George Floyd would still be alive."
-> It's like claiming, "I do practical work in my field for 8 hours each day," when you're a somnologist.
Pretty basic and obvious dad joke.
-> But I thought we were discussing whether Novice is a white supremacist, not whether Derek Chauvin is a racist.
Would Racism Squared be the right term? Extremely racist defenses of a racist serial torturer.
...
I notice you claim I'm projecting and afraid of losing and that's why I keep cowardly challenging Novice to debate. Since he's so very bravely chickening out on defending any of his claims, would you be interested in standing in for him?
George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, in a consistent manner to the testimony from the medical examiner. Derek Chauvin was found guilty during his criminal trial, to which the jury agonized over the evidence far more than either of us could hope to emulate.
Even after George Floyd stopped breathing, Derek Chauvin chose to maintain pressure on the neck thereby impeding the airway.
-> The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened.
You should read again in order. I referred to George Floyd as a breathing expert with x years experience (x=howevermany years he was alive), and Novice insisted I was lying by calling him black. He went into some rant about how George Floyd didn't really die, but was actually some white doctor who framed poor innocent Chauvin. It was weird, and to make proper use of the term, it was outright non-sequitur.
And yeah, I'm having fun with this as well. I of course do not respond to every line (comment discussions I do not take as seriously as real debates (I also don't respond to every line in debates, but I am sure to get thematic replies).
I'll mention that I am missing where you defended Zoya deserved being tortured for resisting. In the debate itself I outlined very clearly that when Chauvin lounged at her by surprise she instinctively pulled away; but all accounts agree that was the only moment of resistance (unless you count begging to not be tortured as resisting), and wholly disconnected from the literal torture which followed. The racism is inferred from Chauvin's repeated choice in victims for his violent outbursts in spite having greater opportunity with whites.
--> clear pattern of racist ideations
-> plus you've dropped everything you've said about Novice's other debates, showing that they were a non-sequitur.
You and I have a different definition of dropping, and of non-sequitur.
I kinda doubt you read that debate, as Novice got so comically bad he started denying that black people breath! 🤯
At one point he even insisted George Floyd was white to try to prove that Chauvin isn't racist "He is also a WHITE MAN, CON lied about him being African American."
DC’s continued the pattern of racism against African Americans throughout his defense, by using a series of badly cliché racist excuses[5].
To which Novice responded by repeating those racist cliches: "To establish the facts there, George Floyd had heart disease [17] and at the time of his arrested "Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system" [18]."
And denying there was a murder:
"We can never say with 100% certainty what was the ultimate cause of Floyd's death"
And FYI, this was a debate with a predefined cause of death, as opposed to being a debate about the cause of death "Derek Chauvin: man who killed george Floyd"
That was his defense of why it's justified to torture already restrained black women for fun.
Again, he utilized a point of comparison that Chauvin did the exact same thing to one white person (the exact same thing was being rude, not violent... not torturing... not murdering... but just being rude to a white person is apparently the same as either of those other crimes).
He insisted murdering George Floyd shouldn't count as murder due to blacks being criminals, literally in the case we've been discussing.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415-derek-chauvin-was-not-a-racist?argument_number=5
-> Nowhere in that debate did Novice claim that: -Chauvin hadn't done anything wrong
He literally defended that Chauvin gleefully torturing a woman who was already restrained. If memory serves, this was at least in part on the basis that she deserved it for her skin color. Ah, here's an actual line from his defense of Chauvin from for that incident "According to FBI crime statistics, black people commit violent crimes are over 2 times the rate of white people"
This might be a semantic difference in scales. I can separate run of the mill white supremacist douchery, from full blown Neo Nazidom.
In your opinion, how many black people must a Klansman lynch before it's fair to consider them a white supremacist?
We're discussing someone who would insist such such a person can't be racist, because murder doesn't count as murder if the victim is black...
The closed minded quote is from:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415/comments/41911
-> Who in the hell are you even talking about here.
That was a conversation about if it's fair to call Novice a batshit crazy white supremacist, on account of him being verifiably batshit crazy, and very strongly implied by his actions to be a white supremacist.
I strongly suspect voters were trolling Oro.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery-for-atoromagi
-> exists no evidence that Derek Chauvin is a racist, therefore Chauvin is not a racist
This was in direct reply to Derek Chauvin having a pattern of violence against African Americans, to include basically hogtying a woman then literally torturing her due to the color of her skin. He did contrasted this with a single example where Derek Chauvin was rude (but not violent) towards a white person; and since being rude to a white person is exactly the same crime as literally torturing a black person... Need I go on?
In the same debate after Denise Herd PhD gave testimony as to what a racist defense would look like, Novice willingly emulated the exact traits named by the subject matter expert.
And outside the debate he called anyone who considers racism against blacks a bad thing to be "close minded."
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415-derek-chauvin-was-not-a-racist
You're welcome to debate me on if there's been known unpunished acts of domestic terrorism committed by whites against blacks. If our justice system has really not left any of those hanging (no pun intended), it's an easy win for you.
If he's faking being insane for attention, to me speaks of a strong enough mental imbalance to still merit calling him insane.
But again, if he's not, then you should have the debate with me he keeps claiming to want; a single link is all you'd need to break my win streak.
Even a glance at the debate history shows a clear pattern of racist ideations. Drilling down, you practically get him defending lynching as not racist because it's what black people deserve. Even were his musings in that direction correct that due to being born with a different skin color they somehow deserve to be victimized, that would not magically remove the racism from it.
-> con clearly doesn't comprehend why blacks are given higher sentences
Pretty sure it's largely due to the color of their skin. You're of course welcome to propose another theory about what changes the nature of the crimes, and just so happens to coincide with skin color.
-> and there is NO terrorism against blacks that go unprosecuted in the US.
You may want to read the debate. I provided a particularly horrible example of exactly that.
It's not merely about a claim not having an immediate link provided, but the substance of such claims being so far disconnected from anything resembling objective reality that those making the claims are self implied to be either schizophrenic or faking schizophrenia for attention; then further hammering it home in with repetition.
But if you believe him at his word, you're welcome to challenge me to the debate on his behalf and win by providing a single link.
As for his debate history, please note the seeming obsession he has against minorities (this list is excluding the ones against non-racial minority types)...
Welcome to the site. Under the current settings you'll pretty much auto lose this debate. A single round gives you no ability to defend your case; and the resolution is poorly defined to say the least.
-> I find it shameful for you to call Novice "a batshit crazy white supremacist."
He is verifiably batshit crazy, via his continued insistence that I claim he follows me to my house... Anyone is welcome to stand in for him in that debate he keeps saying he wants then never goes through with. Again, if he is not insane, it's a free win. A single link would be all it takes to break my win streak.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8000-can-anyone-beat-barney?page=3&post_number=75
He's made many racist statements across several debates; to which were there any mistake that this is not really his beliefs, it would have taken him all of 30 seconds to clarify.
Were I to have called him a Nazi, then the conclusion would not follow from the evidence (same direction of bigotry but much further along it).
-> Novice may or may not be a better debater than you are
While he makes it easy to dismiss (such as how many times he's sought to prove that he's better than Mall). He is actually quite skilled.
-----> tangents and rants about various personal problems and/or theories about me following him to his house
----> As I dislike being lied about and I insist you are lying, I'll happily accept a debate challenge from you on if that actually occurred on this site instead of merely inside your imagination.
---> Happy to debate Barney anytime, unfortunately it seems as if he is still running from me.
--> If you're not batshit insane, I'm still offering you a free win. But if you'd rather keep telling everyone who will listen that I'm "running" from you as evidenced by your inability to debate, then by all means keep at it.
-> I want him to debate me, and stop running away
If you're actually crazy enough to think that my continued willingness to debate you on your claims about me is magically me running away from debating you, please see a psychiatrist.
For me argument strength is often determined while I am casting a vote. I may wholly agree with the side I vote against but find their reasoning in support of it to be lacking. This debate in particular due to one side missing too many rounds, left the outcome in my favor requiring no analysis.
Gender is a fairly ambiguous term. Pro argued it was simply synonymous with sexual organ identification but also more limited. I argued it’s a social term for part of someone’s self identity (thus far more diverse).
To me funny need not equal stupid. Taking something funny as the right kind of serious, tickles my funny bone.
Black Adder for example, is funny because it’s so witty; not because anyone farts… well, except Hugh Laurie.
You are almost out of time.
https://youtu.be/vW6se0AGQf0
With less than a week remaining, and Novice committing to his best Brave Sir Robin impersonation, anyone at all is welcome to accept the challenge. If nothing else, you’ll be instantly proven to be a better debater than him.
https://youtu.be/jYFefppqEtE
You two need to watch Person of Interest!
A safety vote or two would be appreciated.
Good luck!
Looks like Novice will not allow you to see the evidence to be able to stand in for him.
I’ll open the debate up for any friend of his to accept (assuming he has any). Failing that, maybe just maybe there’s someone left who believes there’s any merit to his words; based on the available evidence not even Novice believes anything he writes but I’ve been surprised before.
When someone misses rounds you have two good options:
1. Extend. Literally just type "Extend." to serve as a round.
2. Expand your arguments to bury them should they come back (some opponents will always forfeit one round, so for them this is best).
Someone got booped:
https://youtu.be/cwZyoaiSsgU?t=28
This one is a matter of intellectual integrity.
Also research and memory are both academic skills. That the scope is narrow, does not change that.
Not all that different from various debates on if God exists. One person presents their evidence, the other argues that the evidence is insufficient.
"Bump" may actually win this.
That study about how self identified straight men are more likely to have sex with multiple other men… ☠️
I instinctively doubt those findings or the interpretation of them, but still, I’m ☠️
He most likely was too busy to post a round, so booped to stay in the running and not commit the rudeness that is forfeiting.
Novice lacks the ability to separate reality from his imagination. To such ends he keeps following me around proclaiming me a coward running away from him, in addition to the what amounts to bizarre conspiracies about things I’m supposed to have said about him.
You can read the latest iteration at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4207/comments/50853
There was one person who briefly seemed to believe him, and they had agreed to stand in for him.
…
That said, if Novice is of sound mind, then this is basically a free win for him (or anyone who believes him).
Granted, what I expect to happen is he’ll just keep spewing the same mouth diarrhea as before. As has already happened when I soundly mopped the floor with someone standing in for him (multiple times).
A useful tool for you both:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Basically I suggest using headings to separate different contentions, and copy your opponent’s headings when replying to them. This both saves a ton of characters, and makes it easy for judges to follow.
For this debate you might both share quality and quantity as primary headings, but I’d expect different sub points; in addition to any other major headings for things outside those two pre-agreed metrics.
Good setup.
Whiteflame: -> "It is not enough to simply say that the debate is won before any argument is had"
You treated this debate as a forgone conclusion. Which lowers your BoP, but something said in the debate should still be named (quoted or paraphrased). It could literally be: "Pro tried to prove that statistic does not exist because it can be explained, con countered that leaves it still existing." While extremely minimalistic, this shows a sample of the argument tactics from both sides.
In case I have not already expressed it, thank you for voting!
As you've previous said: "The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened."
Therefore if Novice is neither insane nor a liar, this would be nearly the easiest win you'll ever have (given an argument time of one week for research; I wanted to make it two but the recent update prevents that).
As per definitions, a fitting set for delusions comes from WebMD "Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a psychotic disorder. People who have it can’t tell what’s real from what is imagined. ... But in reality, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated."
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder
We could simplify it down to repeatedly stating things even when contested, which have no basis in measurable reality. Such as how this debate is an example of how I'm too scared to debate Novice, via challenging him to debate (a direct contradiction to objective reality of me repeatedly challenging him to defend his claims about me). This applies to both lying and insanity, via the Lewis Trilemma I already tagged (either Novice is a liar, madman, or telling the truth; your side would be that he's telling the truth, mine would be a disconcert from reality be it liar or madman).
Everything pertinent is public but hopefully he'll agree to your information request...
Otherwise, do you pre-agree that repeated delusions and/or compulsive lying is proof of an unsound mind?
Do you authorize me to share the entirety of our PMs with AustinL0926, to close any information gap?
As you already have access to those, you are of course welcome to rise to the challenge and defend your claims.
Would you both like the resolution name to be fixed?
The debate is now open.
After all these months, are you now willing to debate me? Yes or no.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8IkbCeZ9to
-> but it's like, a really weird way to phrase it, bordering on the intentionally malicious
It was a rather simple way to mock Chauvin for his odd beliefs about how black people breath best. Common knowledge of the case and context should have left no room for doubt; plus I even included a video link which clarified it was George Floyd who informed Chauvin those 27 times of the breathing difficulty during the murder.
"During the murder, DC was told 27 separate times by a breathing expert with 46 years’ experience, that the victim could not breath; the expert was African American, and DC wholly ignored the advice. Another breathing expert with 26 years’ experience (fellow officer Alexander Kueng) likewise advised DC that George Floyd no longer had a pulse, also an African American and was of course ignored [4]. Had DC respected superior knowledge when it comes from African Americans, he would not be in prison and George Floyd would still be alive."
-> It's like claiming, "I do practical work in my field for 8 hours each day," when you're a somnologist.
Pretty basic and obvious dad joke.
-> But I thought we were discussing whether Novice is a white supremacist, not whether Derek Chauvin is a racist.
Would Racism Squared be the right term? Extremely racist defenses of a racist serial torturer.
...
I notice you claim I'm projecting and afraid of losing and that's why I keep cowardly challenging Novice to debate. Since he's so very bravely chickening out on defending any of his claims, would you be interested in standing in for him?
Whatever way it goes, this debate would benefit from a tie breaker vote.
George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, in a consistent manner to the testimony from the medical examiner. Derek Chauvin was found guilty during his criminal trial, to which the jury agonized over the evidence far more than either of us could hope to emulate.
Even after George Floyd stopped breathing, Derek Chauvin chose to maintain pressure on the neck thereby impeding the airway.
There's a few topics under discussion. Which one would you like?
-> The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened.
You should read again in order. I referred to George Floyd as a breathing expert with x years experience (x=howevermany years he was alive), and Novice insisted I was lying by calling him black. He went into some rant about how George Floyd didn't really die, but was actually some white doctor who framed poor innocent Chauvin. It was weird, and to make proper use of the term, it was outright non-sequitur.
And yeah, I'm having fun with this as well. I of course do not respond to every line (comment discussions I do not take as seriously as real debates (I also don't respond to every line in debates, but I am sure to get thematic replies).
I'll mention that I am missing where you defended Zoya deserved being tortured for resisting. In the debate itself I outlined very clearly that when Chauvin lounged at her by surprise she instinctively pulled away; but all accounts agree that was the only moment of resistance (unless you count begging to not be tortured as resisting), and wholly disconnected from the literal torture which followed. The racism is inferred from Chauvin's repeated choice in victims for his violent outbursts in spite having greater opportunity with whites.
Sorry for your difficulty with basic reading comprehension. Let me repeat, and sure, a yes or no on if you're going to chicken out is fine:
Do I have your permission to open a debate challenge against your statements?
If you're neither schizophrenic nor faking schizophrenia for attention, you'll get a free win.
--> clear pattern of racist ideations
-> plus you've dropped everything you've said about Novice's other debates, showing that they were a non-sequitur.
You and I have a different definition of dropping, and of non-sequitur.
I kinda doubt you read that debate, as Novice got so comically bad he started denying that black people breath! 🤯
At one point he even insisted George Floyd was white to try to prove that Chauvin isn't racist "He is also a WHITE MAN, CON lied about him being African American."
DC’s continued the pattern of racism against African Americans throughout his defense, by using a series of badly cliché racist excuses[5].
To which Novice responded by repeating those racist cliches: "To establish the facts there, George Floyd had heart disease [17] and at the time of his arrested "Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system" [18]."
And denying there was a murder:
"We can never say with 100% certainty what was the ultimate cause of Floyd's death"
And FYI, this was a debate with a predefined cause of death, as opposed to being a debate about the cause of death "Derek Chauvin: man who killed george Floyd"
Do I have your permission to open a debate challenge against your statements?
If you're neither schizophrenic nor faking schizophrenia for attention, you'll get a free win.
That was his defense of why it's justified to torture already restrained black women for fun.
Again, he utilized a point of comparison that Chauvin did the exact same thing to one white person (the exact same thing was being rude, not violent... not torturing... not murdering... but just being rude to a white person is apparently the same as either of those other crimes).
Are you willing to actually to defend your claims yet? Or are you going to keep chickening out while sharing your paranoid delusions?
He insisted murdering George Floyd shouldn't count as murder due to blacks being criminals, literally in the case we've been discussing.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415-derek-chauvin-was-not-a-racist?argument_number=5
-> Nowhere in that debate did Novice claim that: -Chauvin hadn't done anything wrong
He literally defended that Chauvin gleefully torturing a woman who was already restrained. If memory serves, this was at least in part on the basis that she deserved it for her skin color. Ah, here's an actual line from his defense of Chauvin from for that incident "According to FBI crime statistics, black people commit violent crimes are over 2 times the rate of white people"
This might be a semantic difference in scales. I can separate run of the mill white supremacist douchery, from full blown Neo Nazidom.
In your opinion, how many black people must a Klansman lynch before it's fair to consider them a white supremacist?
We're discussing someone who would insist such such a person can't be racist, because murder doesn't count as murder if the victim is black...
The closed minded quote is from:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415/comments/41911
-> Who in the hell are you even talking about here.
That was a conversation about if it's fair to call Novice a batshit crazy white supremacist, on account of him being verifiably batshit crazy, and very strongly implied by his actions to be a white supremacist.
I strongly suspect voters were trolling Oro.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery-for-atoromagi
-> exists no evidence that Derek Chauvin is a racist, therefore Chauvin is not a racist
This was in direct reply to Derek Chauvin having a pattern of violence against African Americans, to include basically hogtying a woman then literally torturing her due to the color of her skin. He did contrasted this with a single example where Derek Chauvin was rude (but not violent) towards a white person; and since being rude to a white person is exactly the same crime as literally torturing a black person... Need I go on?
In the same debate after Denise Herd PhD gave testimony as to what a racist defense would look like, Novice willingly emulated the exact traits named by the subject matter expert.
And outside the debate he called anyone who considers racism against blacks a bad thing to be "close minded."
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415-derek-chauvin-was-not-a-racist
You're welcome to debate me on if there's been known unpunished acts of domestic terrorism committed by whites against blacks. If our justice system has really not left any of those hanging (no pun intended), it's an easy win for you.
If he's faking being insane for attention, to me speaks of a strong enough mental imbalance to still merit calling him insane.
But again, if he's not, then you should have the debate with me he keeps claiming to want; a single link is all you'd need to break my win streak.
Even a glance at the debate history shows a clear pattern of racist ideations. Drilling down, you practically get him defending lynching as not racist because it's what black people deserve. Even were his musings in that direction correct that due to being born with a different skin color they somehow deserve to be victimized, that would not magically remove the racism from it.
-> con clearly doesn't comprehend why blacks are given higher sentences
Pretty sure it's largely due to the color of their skin. You're of course welcome to propose another theory about what changes the nature of the crimes, and just so happens to coincide with skin color.
-> and there is NO terrorism against blacks that go unprosecuted in the US.
You may want to read the debate. I provided a particularly horrible example of exactly that.
It's not merely about a claim not having an immediate link provided, but the substance of such claims being so far disconnected from anything resembling objective reality that those making the claims are self implied to be either schizophrenic or faking schizophrenia for attention; then further hammering it home in with repetition.
But if you believe him at his word, you're welcome to challenge me to the debate on his behalf and win by providing a single link.
As for his debate history, please note the seeming obsession he has against minorities (this list is excluding the ones against non-racial minority types)...
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3390-on-balance-affirmative-action-based-on-race-for-colleges-universities-in-the-united-states-does-more-harm-than-good
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415-derek-chauvin-was-not-a-racist
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3450-which-were-worse-the-blm-protests-riots-or-the-january-6th-capitol-protests-riots-atoromagi
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3576-thbt-the-majority-of-current-policing-racial-disparities-in-the-united-states-are-a-result-of-factors-or-variables-outside-of-racism
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3609-your-best-argument-for-any-white-person-to-be-a-white-nationalist
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3765-the-majority-of-current-policing-racial-disparities-in-the-united-states-are-a-result-of-police-racism
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3807-the-majority-of-current-policing-racial-disparities-in-the-united-states-are-a-result-of-police-racism
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3852-the-majority-of-current-policing-racial-disparities-in-the-united-states-are-a-result-of-police-racism
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3853-the-majority-of-current-policing-racial-disparities-in-the-united-states-are-a-result-of-police-racism
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3875-the-majority-of-current-policing-racial-disparities-in-the-united-states-are-a-result-of-police-racism
Welcome to the site. Under the current settings you'll pretty much auto lose this debate. A single round gives you no ability to defend your case; and the resolution is poorly defined to say the least.
-> I find it shameful for you to call Novice "a batshit crazy white supremacist."
He is verifiably batshit crazy, via his continued insistence that I claim he follows me to my house... Anyone is welcome to stand in for him in that debate he keeps saying he wants then never goes through with. Again, if he is not insane, it's a free win. A single link would be all it takes to break my win streak.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8000-can-anyone-beat-barney?page=3&post_number=75
He's made many racist statements across several debates; to which were there any mistake that this is not really his beliefs, it would have taken him all of 30 seconds to clarify.
Were I to have called him a Nazi, then the conclusion would not follow from the evidence (same direction of bigotry but much further along it).
-> Novice may or may not be a better debater than you are
While he makes it easy to dismiss (such as how many times he's sought to prove that he's better than Mall). He is actually quite skilled.
-----> tangents and rants about various personal problems and/or theories about me following him to his house
----> As I dislike being lied about and I insist you are lying, I'll happily accept a debate challenge from you on if that actually occurred on this site instead of merely inside your imagination.
---> Happy to debate Barney anytime, unfortunately it seems as if he is still running from me.
--> If you're not batshit insane, I'm still offering you a free win. But if you'd rather keep telling everyone who will listen that I'm "running" from you as evidenced by your inability to debate, then by all means keep at it.
-> I want him to debate me, and stop running away
If you're actually crazy enough to think that my continued willingness to debate you on your claims about me is magically me running away from debating you, please see a psychiatrist.