Nice comeback with the Billy Madison quote! I routinely cite that scene.
Here’s a useful tool for you, it even has a section on writing resolutions:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
What you suffered here is a trollish kritik. That it’s humorous doesn’t automatically make it invalid (at least to me), it rather becomes an extra standard by which to weigh the debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I'll reread this. Right now I'm torn. While bringing Ben back seems a fine direction for further sequel movies, said sequel movies were kritiked as a bad idea.
By that standard they would be many thousands of organizations, not a singular one. Also you'd be in a unique organization with everyone whom you've ever kinda made some kind of plans with. Such a standard leads to the word being all but meaningless.
In common English, organizations are defined by order, and always have a hierarchy (a few claim to be flat, such as the Catholic Church, in which The Pope is no higher at all than any priest... Their words on it do not match reality).
Antifa is a disorganized movement. There is no leadership, nor standards at all... Heck, I've met literal Neo-Nazis who identify as "Antifa."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
note: On any moderated debate, the only valid point allotment for such reasoning (which would still need to be expanded) would be arguments. Being bad at arguments, only relates to the argument award.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed (or would be, but too late)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 6 to con.
>Reason for Decision: pro is stating transitioning is good for kids but fails to provide evidence for this
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the time not expired)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: pro does not provide adequate sources of information and it would appear all of his statements are opinions
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Note: This decision can be appealed to whiteflame or oromagi. Essentially while the vote is barebones, it's from a new member and seems to get the gist across.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments and conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con made many points he was unable to prove
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
I advise changing the resolution to “antifa are often terrorists.” This would give you flexibility to show a widespread pattern of terrorist activities committed in their name, without needing to prove all or most; nor the obvious kritik that it’s not an organization.
You could also have a debate literally on if they are an organization, or for this one specify “assuming they’re an organization, antifa qualifies as a terrorist organization”
This is not a valid reason for voting. Should it have been raised as an argument, more assessment of it and at least one other contention would be required. As is, this is a vote based on outside content of your options which do not align with the debate which occurred.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: the_quiet_poet9 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline (in part due to the newness of the member). By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
In future for a complex debate like this, please have more specific detail rather than just the gist (even if that's what it ultimately boils down to). The side being voted against, should be left with a clear sense that you at least read their main contention to be able to say what either defeated it or outweighed it. A vote need not become long, but a little less short would go a long way.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Possible to Remove
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. However, votes cast against someone during an open feud receive extra scrutiny.
It's immediately noticeable via word search that a vote based on lack of analysis of the definitions of myths vs theories, was not an argument raised within the debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Sorry I missed this one. It looks well thought out on both sides.
I will note that being constitutional does not guarantee best; but we’ve had hundreds of years of the (arguably) best minds appointed to the Supreme Court to interpret laws for if they do or do not violate the constitution.
There’s a popular fan theory that the timelines got split during rebels. The New Trilogy being what happened if Ahsoka died; freeing the television writers to wholly ignore Space Leia and Emo Ren.
That said, I appreciated Emo Ren. A child pulling a temper tantrum with the power to move mountains. It’s different, and it’s scary in its own way. Sure we’re not going to respect the guy who stops in the middle of a fight to hurt himself as a cry for help or whatever, and he’s a complete novice with a lightsaber; but would the attitudes of the dark side really lead to well adjusted disciplined individuals?
Couldn’t be as bad as space Leia, but it’d be bad. Yoda is already using force lightening from beyond the grave, it would remove the impact of sacrifice if their afterlife becomes a revolving door.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
...
This vote was reported explicitly for: "gives no reasoning for the vote and instead just has links under reasoning"
Reviewed by oromagi: "I think he's just missing your posts in comments"
And from the voting policy: "...the comment section is the ideal place for any commentary which is not part of the vote. It is also an acceptable place to expand the reasoning for your vote"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
-> “ Con did a better job on two points which Pro did not counter ( Child marriage traumatizes children. and
Aisha was enslaved)”
Again this vote falls short on analysis. Basically it would not be fair to the effort pro put in to treat this debate as a foregone conclusion.
While referencing one side of the debate, and suggesting there were no replies to the two contentions named, at least one contention put forward by the other side should be named. The “precious puberty” line of reasoning for example, and how con overcame it.
In order for a vote to stand, moderation should be under the impression you have some understanding of both sides (it need not be complete understanding, but some).
A decent layout for a vote would be a quick gist of how each side tried to argue, followed by why you believe one came ahead.
Arguments
Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
While I wholly agree with you, your vote needs to be expanded with positive answers to two simple questions:
1. Did con make said argument about the UN?
2. What was pro’s attempted defense?
Additionally, your vote should contain a minimum of one contention from pro and how con countered it.
1 point(s)
Reason:
If one is to avoid the argument of whose moral judgement is superior, and look instead to making a judgement based on a universal morality, one may turn to the United Nations.
The UN describes it thus "Child and forced marriage:[ is ] a violation of human rights"...https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2016/11/child-and-forced-marriage-violation-human-rights
[
The point goes to Con.
-> “ society is dysfunctional because gay people feel the right to now wave their dick in your face and mold your children into monsters therefore pro wins”
Without even verifying if pro indeed made said argument, both sides need to be analyzed.
Vote deleted.
You’re crossing way over the line. Compounded with other recent offenses, were your account active there would almost certainly be the need for a short term ban.
Regarding the post in question…
First, there is no reason to bring assumed sexual preferences into the discussion. When harassment turns sexual, there’s no denying that harassment is occurring.
Second, as much as the topic of discussion may serve as an indicator of leanings; as a one off it shows no obsession with race to justify the leap of faith to white supremacy. The topic is not even saying best, just complex by some yet to be determined measure.
Nice comeback with the Billy Madison quote! I routinely cite that scene.
Here’s a useful tool for you, it even has a section on writing resolutions:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
What you suffered here is a trollish kritik. That it’s humorous doesn’t automatically make it invalid (at least to me), it rather becomes an extra standard by which to weigh the debate.
You beat me to this one by seconds. I strongly disagree with the notion that not being a slave equals murder.
Whiteflame and/or Oromagi are the people to tag for appeals.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I'll reread this. Right now I'm torn. While bringing Ben back seems a fine direction for further sequel movies, said sequel movies were kritiked as a bad idea.
You'll really need a definition for exist within the description.
By that standard they would be many thousands of organizations, not a singular one. Also you'd be in a unique organization with everyone whom you've ever kinda made some kind of plans with. Such a standard leads to the word being all but meaningless.
In common English, organizations are defined by order, and always have a hierarchy (a few claim to be flat, such as the Catholic Church, in which The Pope is no higher at all than any priest... Their words on it do not match reality).
Antifa is a disorganized movement. There is no leadership, nor standards at all... Heck, I've met literal Neo-Nazis who identify as "Antifa."
Only according to mistranslations.
I hate double negatives like this.
https://youtu.be/31IDDlKdls0?si=pB3PqM8Bvsi3IL1c
Thanks for voting!
Very well done R1 from both sides!
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4120-the-gender-pay-gap-doesnt-exist
Neat thing!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/politics/enrique-tarrio-sentencing-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy/index.html
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
note: On any moderated debate, the only valid point allotment for such reasoning (which would still need to be expanded) would be arguments. Being bad at arguments, only relates to the argument award.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed (or would be, but too late)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 6 to con.
>Reason for Decision: pro is stating transitioning is good for kids but fails to provide evidence for this
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the time not expired)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: pro does not provide adequate sources of information and it would appear all of his statements are opinions
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Note: This decision can be appealed to whiteflame or oromagi. Essentially while the vote is barebones, it's from a new member and seems to get the gist across.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments and conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con made many points he was unable to prove
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
Copied the short description into the full description for you, to ensure whomever accepts sees those specifications.
Not an organization.
I advise changing the resolution to “antifa are often terrorists.” This would give you flexibility to show a widespread pattern of terrorist activities committed in their name, without needing to prove all or most; nor the obvious kritik that it’s not an organization.
You could also have a debate literally on if they are an organization, or for this one specify “assuming they’re an organization, antifa qualifies as a terrorist organization”
-> “ Cause LGBTQ is demonic”
This is not a valid reason for voting. Should it have been raised as an argument, more assessment of it and at least one other contention would be required. As is, this is a vote based on outside content of your options which do not align with the debate which occurred.
-> “ Con forfeited 50% of debate.”
Sorry, misread this and deleted the wrong vote. Please revote.
And sorry for the trouble!
You’ve missed one round but can still make a comeback.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: the_quiet_poet9 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline (in part due to the newness of the member). By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
In future for a complex debate like this, please have more specific detail rather than just the gist (even if that's what it ultimately boils down to). The side being voted against, should be left with a clear sense that you at least read their main contention to be able to say what either defeated it or outweighed it. A vote need not become long, but a little less short would go a long way.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Possible to Remove
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. However, votes cast against someone during an open feud receive extra scrutiny.
It's immediately noticeable via word search that a vote based on lack of analysis of the definitions of myths vs theories, was not an argument raised within the debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Thank you for the vote!
Sorry I missed this one. It looks well thought out on both sides.
I will note that being constitutional does not guarantee best; but we’ve had hundreds of years of the (arguably) best minds appointed to the Supreme Court to interpret laws for if they do or do not violate the constitution.
Good luck,
Your topic combined with your username got me to step out of retirement.
I’m happy to give advice on strategies. I expect you’ll be using a basic non-sequitur kritik; but I’ve /occasionally/ been surprised…
There’s a popular fan theory that the timelines got split during rebels. The New Trilogy being what happened if Ahsoka died; freeing the television writers to wholly ignore Space Leia and Emo Ren.
That said, I appreciated Emo Ren. A child pulling a temper tantrum with the power to move mountains. It’s different, and it’s scary in its own way. Sure we’re not going to respect the guy who stops in the middle of a fight to hurt himself as a cry for help or whatever, and he’s a complete novice with a lightsaber; but would the attitudes of the dark side really lead to well adjusted disciplined individuals?
Couldn’t be as bad as space Leia, but it’d be bad. Yoda is already using force lightening from beyond the grave, it would remove the impact of sacrifice if their afterlife becomes a revolving door.
You’re thinking of current lite AI, instead of sentient AI.
And already we get angry at our computers for seeming to rebel against what we want them to do, instead of what they were programmed to do.
I suggest changing this to at least two rounds. Otherwise you cannot defend any of your points which are challenged.
Capitalism ensures greater variety of products, and availability.
Pretty much guaranteed to occur. Won’t be this generation but we’ll build something advanced enough one day.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
...
This vote was reported explicitly for: "gives no reasoning for the vote and instead just has links under reasoning"
Reviewed by oromagi: "I think he's just missing your posts in comments"
And from the voting policy: "...the comment section is the ideal place for any commentary which is not part of the vote. It is also an acceptable place to expand the reasoning for your vote"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Comments about someone's vote on another debate, should probably me made in the comment section for said debate.
Cool setup!
https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#writing-a-strong-resolution
If in doubt you can always use the forum to get feedback on potential resolutions.
No one is expected to vote perfectly from the start. There’s a learning curve to be sure.
-> “ Con did a better job on two points which Pro did not counter ( Child marriage traumatizes children. and
Aisha was enslaved)”
Again this vote falls short on analysis. Basically it would not be fair to the effort pro put in to treat this debate as a foregone conclusion.
While referencing one side of the debate, and suggesting there were no replies to the two contentions named, at least one contention put forward by the other side should be named. The “precious puberty” line of reasoning for example, and how con overcame it.
In order for a vote to stand, moderation should be under the impression you have some understanding of both sides (it need not be complete understanding, but some).
A decent layout for a vote would be a quick gist of how each side tried to argue, followed by why you believe one came ahead.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#arguments
Arguments
Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Nice vote.
My own arguments touch on the immorality of abortion bans; yet such does not make abortion moral, even if the morality of forbidding it is worse.
Yeah. Some people even have several iterations of the same topic active simultaneously.
While I wholly agree with you, your vote needs to be expanded with positive answers to two simple questions:
1. Did con make said argument about the UN?
2. What was pro’s attempted defense?
Additionally, your vote should contain a minimum of one contention from pro and how con countered it.
prefix
08.20.2023 10:20AM
#7
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
If one is to avoid the argument of whose moral judgement is superior, and look instead to making a judgement based on a universal morality, one may turn to the United Nations.
The UN describes it thus "Child and forced marriage:[ is ] a violation of human rights"...https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2016/11/child-and-forced-marriage-violation-human-rights
[
The point goes to Con.
-> “ i agree with con therefore i vote con”
That is never proper justification for a debate vote.
Your voting privileges are revoked until such time as you show an interest in following the voting guidelines.
-> “ society is dysfunctional because gay people feel the right to now wave their dick in your face and mold your children into monsters therefore pro wins”
Without even verifying if pro indeed made said argument, both sides need to be analyzed.
Vote deleted.
-> “Spoken like a true white supremacist cuck.”
You’re crossing way over the line. Compounded with other recent offenses, were your account active there would almost certainly be the need for a short term ban.
Regarding the post in question…
First, there is no reason to bring assumed sexual preferences into the discussion. When harassment turns sexual, there’s no denying that harassment is occurring.
Second, as much as the topic of discussion may serve as an indicator of leanings; as a one off it shows no obsession with race to justify the leap of faith to white supremacy. The topic is not even saying best, just complex by some yet to be determined measure.
“ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”
even without assigning points, this vote fails to imply any knowledge of the debate, and could indeed be said of every debate. As such. It’s deleted.