Thanks again for the debate. It was an interesting one. I can honestly say this is the only metric vs. imperial debate I've ever seen where the barleycorn and the typographical point got mentioned more than Fahrenheit and Celsius, lol. Usually, that becomes a major point of contention, but in this debate it hardly came up at all. I mentioned Fahrenheit and Celsius briefly in round 1 and then they never got brought up again. I can honestly say I wasn't expecting that, though I was totally prepared to defend Fahrenheit.
Sure thing, if I get my voting qualification before the voting period is ended I will definitely vote on it. I hate to see a debate tie solely due to being unvoted.
All I have to do to get my voting rights is complete three debates without forfeiting. One is already done, I'm just about to complete another, and I plan on making another brief debate very shortly.
That's fair; the relatively low character limit prevented this debate from getting really in-depth, which I think is a shame because there's always so many complex angles to consider when it comes to presidential elections.
Here's the thing though, as Con, you're trying to argue that the charges aren't politically motivated, but the way that the resolution (or question, really) is worded implies that you're arguing that they aren't politically motivated *at all*. If voters agree with that interpretation, and a good debater could certainly persuade them that way, then all it would take for Pro is to argue that the charges were politically motivated at least in part, even if there were other motivations and even if these other motivations took precedence. That's hard to argue against.
Just trying to save you from getting noob stomped.
I can't vote yet. I'm going to start a new debate soon and I might get my voting qualification before the voting period has expired. If not, I'll make a post in the forums detailing how I would have voted and why. I'll reread the debate before casting my vote, but for now, I'm leaning towards Pro. Overall, I think they did a better job connecting their arguments to the resolution.
"The difference from Hitler is that Trump isn't a war criminal and his actions can't possibly lead to a war if you exclude a nuclear bomb threat he had made years ago."
In other words, Trump's actions can't possibly lead to war except for when he threatens war. 10/10 argument
To be honest, I'm surprised this site hasn't seen more of this type of debate. Given that both contestants seem at least minimally competent at debating, I'll be interested to see how this one turns out. (For the record, I'm absolutely team Biden. I don't think anything could make me vote for Trump at this point.)
I'd consider joining this debate, if not for the fact that I'm in the middle of another debate currently and the instigator of this one is a newbie who so far has not proven that they won't simply FF.
Pro may have a point, but I find it ironic that you of all people agree, given that you're third on the leaderboards, have never lost a debate, and yet have hardly instigated any debates on this site. No shade, I just think that's kinda funny.
Honestly, with abortion rights under siege, the rise of "influencers" like Andrew Tate, and the growing presence of Christian nationalism in our government, I feel like feminism is *more* necessary in the US now than it has been in quite some time.
That makes sense to me, considering it was a bit shorter than your other rounds. I meant to have my R3 arguments up earlier, but I didn't quite get around to working on it.
Yeah, I didn't get my argument posted when I had wanted to. It's not because I was trying to trick you or anything, though, I'm just really, REALLY bad when it comes to procrastination. Even in my adult life, I haven't quite managed to kick the habit. That being said, I promised I wouldn't forfeit and I fully intend to keep that promise. I am sorry for making you wait longer than necessary. However, you did agree on the one week time limit, and that benefits you as much as it benefits me, so I'm not quite sure how I could even 'trick' you in the first place.
Just a word of advice: it's a good idea to include a clear resolution in the description of your debates. Personally, I would write something like this: "Resolution: On balance, Donald Trump's proposed border policies would be more harmful than helpful to the U.S. Economy". In the description, I would also include an outline of Trump's border policies. That way, the focus of the debate becomes crystal clear.
Thanks for accepting my offer. I'm at work rn (on break) but I'll try to get my opening argument published by Friday. Though, depending on how busy I am, it might have to wait until Saturday.
First of all, you started a debate arguing that children should be shown PH videos in school. I think it's more than fair to call you a troll. Second, don't waste time by accepting a debate just to drop some weak, borderline nonsensical arguments and then just give it all up round two. Put some actual effort in! Otherwise, you're just disrespecting everyone's time.
Also, I literally just challenged Tickbeat on this very topic and plan to attack the debate from a completely different angle, so that disproves your contention that this debate would have been forgotten without someone half-assing a defense.
"I suppose there aren't almost any people who genuinely disagree with me on this, and if they didn't, they'd know they probably wouldn't have enough logic to back up their claim, so this might be a while..."
I would agree with you here, and I think that's why the person who accepted this debate is clearly a troll. Just look at their debate history. Right now they're trying to argue that PronHub should be shown in schools.
That being said, I think there is an interesting argument to be made for the Con position here. I don't know if I'll actually win, but I'd like to try. If you start a new debate on this topic with me, I promise not to troll, forfeit, or concede. My only precondition is that you increase the argument time to at least one week and the voting time to at least one month.
I think the person you're debating here is pretty clearly a troll. If you'd like to find someone to actually engage with you on this topic, I'd be willing to.
Just a disclaimer, I'm not actually a Mormon personally, but I do find the arguments that they are not actually Christians to be weak and rely too much on special pleading.
I feel like this topic is simply way too broad for a debate like this. Also, arguing that the right wing is better because giving women the right to vote was a mistake is, uh... certainly something!
Just looking over your R1 arguments, you spend a lot of time on definitions, full explanations of basic doctrines of both Christianity and Islam, and whole quotes directly from the Bible (as opposed to just citing the relevant scripture). In my personal opinion, there is lot of wasted space here that could be better spent on actual logic and rhetoric.
Honestly, if even 30,000 characters isn't enough for you, you need to find a way to make your arguments more concise. There's no reason you should need that much space in your opening arguments.
Honestly, that was my thought as well. Regardless of whether it will reduce the national debt, it's obvious that it *can*. Seems like a dumb topic for a debate imo.
You're making very broad generalizations and comparing them to the behavior of a single person. Even if it is true that, in general, people with autism tend to act like Trump to a certain degree, that doesn't mean they're going to agree with his politics.
"I've noticed pretty much every autistic person is very conservative or libertarian."
Really? Most of the autistic people I know lean liberal/progressive. Of course, I do hang out mostly in liberal spaces online and don't know a whole lot of people that have autism and have told me so irl, so I'm definitely biased, but still. I wonder if they have done any studies on if there's a correlation between ASD and political ideology. I feel like the correlation would probably be fairly weak tbh.
You know what, looking at the medical definitions of disease, autism spectrum disorder, and developmental disorders, it seems fairly obvious to me that ASD would fall under the definition of disease. Perhaps you have some trick hidden up your sleeve, but the argument for Pro seems very simple and straightforward in my mind. I will accept this debate.
Okay, I've thought about this a bit and I'm interested in this debate. Increase the character limit to at least 5,000 and I'll accept.
Debating people who are more experienced and better than you is good for you in the long run. It helps you grow as a debater.
Thanks again for the debate. It was an interesting one. I can honestly say this is the only metric vs. imperial debate I've ever seen where the barleycorn and the typographical point got mentioned more than Fahrenheit and Celsius, lol. Usually, that becomes a major point of contention, but in this debate it hardly came up at all. I mentioned Fahrenheit and Celsius briefly in round 1 and then they never got brought up again. I can honestly say I wasn't expecting that, though I was totally prepared to defend Fahrenheit.
Bibliography
(1) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/5/74/contents/enacted
(2) https://web.archive.org/web/20200609181755/https://qz.com/1458672/the-history-of-the-international-prototype-kilogram/
(3) https://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/frn-59-5442-1959.pdf [NOTE: opens a pdf]
(4) https://web.archive.org/web/20180224003632/http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/ts/language/number/ndom.html
(5) https://wals.info/feature/131A#2/33.1/146.4
(6) https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cg/cgpm/26-2018/resolution-1
(7) https://www.etymonline.com/word/kilo-#etymonline_v_35298
(8) https://www.etymonline.com/word/centi-#etymonline_v_27865
(9) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/ac6afd
Oh, I guess you figured it out lol
Try typing the first three or four letters of a username into the "Mentions" box and you should get suggestions. Click the one you want.
Sure thing, if I get my voting qualification before the voting period is ended I will definitely vote on it. I hate to see a debate tie solely due to being unvoted.
All I have to do to get my voting rights is complete three debates without forfeiting. One is already done, I'm just about to complete another, and I plan on making another brief debate very shortly.
That's fair; the relatively low character limit prevented this debate from getting really in-depth, which I think is a shame because there's always so many complex angles to consider when it comes to presidential elections.
Here's the thing though, as Con, you're trying to argue that the charges aren't politically motivated, but the way that the resolution (or question, really) is worded implies that you're arguing that they aren't politically motivated *at all*. If voters agree with that interpretation, and a good debater could certainly persuade them that way, then all it would take for Pro is to argue that the charges were politically motivated at least in part, even if there were other motivations and even if these other motivations took precedence. That's hard to argue against.
Just trying to save you from getting noob stomped.
I can't vote yet. I'm going to start a new debate soon and I might get my voting qualification before the voting period has expired. If not, I'll make a post in the forums detailing how I would have voted and why. I'll reread the debate before casting my vote, but for now, I'm leaning towards Pro. Overall, I think they did a better job connecting their arguments to the resolution.
I'm very sorry you did that. You're going to lose a conduct point now.
Tip: don't start so many debates at once. Stick to one, maybe two debates at a time.
Seems my intuition was correct.
"The difference from Hitler is that Trump isn't a war criminal and his actions can't possibly lead to a war if you exclude a nuclear bomb threat he had made years ago."
In other words, Trump's actions can't possibly lead to war except for when he threatens war. 10/10 argument
You're starting a lot of debates at once, huh?
To be honest, I'm surprised this site hasn't seen more of this type of debate. Given that both contestants seem at least minimally competent at debating, I'll be interested to see how this one turns out. (For the record, I'm absolutely team Biden. I don't think anything could make me vote for Trump at this point.)
My parents went camping for memorial day weekend. I went to visit them on Saturday. Other than that, I just chilled at home for the most part.
By the way, you're running out of time to post an argument. I figured I'd let you know.
I feel like this one is pretty much just a truism.
I'd consider joining this debate, if not for the fact that I'm in the middle of another debate currently and the instigator of this one is a newbie who so far has not proven that they won't simply FF.
Pro may have a point, but I find it ironic that you of all people agree, given that you're third on the leaderboards, have never lost a debate, and yet have hardly instigated any debates on this site. No shade, I just think that's kinda funny.
Honestly, with abortion rights under siege, the rise of "influencers" like Andrew Tate, and the growing presence of Christian nationalism in our government, I feel like feminism is *more* necessary in the US now than it has been in quite some time.
That makes sense to me, considering it was a bit shorter than your other rounds. I meant to have my R3 arguments up earlier, but I didn't quite get around to working on it.
How was your Memorial Day weekend?
I'm curious how you would have voted on this one.
Honestly, you're not even wrong
Yeah, I didn't get my argument posted when I had wanted to. It's not because I was trying to trick you or anything, though, I'm just really, REALLY bad when it comes to procrastination. Even in my adult life, I haven't quite managed to kick the habit. That being said, I promised I wouldn't forfeit and I fully intend to keep that promise. I am sorry for making you wait longer than necessary. However, you did agree on the one week time limit, and that benefits you as much as it benefits me, so I'm not quite sure how I could even 'trick' you in the first place.
Just a word of advice: it's a good idea to include a clear resolution in the description of your debates. Personally, I would write something like this: "Resolution: On balance, Donald Trump's proposed border policies would be more harmful than helpful to the U.S. Economy". In the description, I would also include an outline of Trump's border policies. That way, the focus of the debate becomes crystal clear.
Thanks for accepting my offer. I'm at work rn (on break) but I'll try to get my opening argument published by Friday. Though, depending on how busy I am, it might have to wait until Saturday.
First of all, you started a debate arguing that children should be shown PH videos in school. I think it's more than fair to call you a troll. Second, don't waste time by accepting a debate just to drop some weak, borderline nonsensical arguments and then just give it all up round two. Put some actual effort in! Otherwise, you're just disrespecting everyone's time.
Also, I literally just challenged Tickbeat on this very topic and plan to attack the debate from a completely different angle, so that disproves your contention that this debate would have been forgotten without someone half-assing a defense.
"I suppose there aren't almost any people who genuinely disagree with me on this, and if they didn't, they'd know they probably wouldn't have enough logic to back up their claim, so this might be a while..."
I would agree with you here, and I think that's why the person who accepted this debate is clearly a troll. Just look at their debate history. Right now they're trying to argue that PronHub should be shown in schools.
That being said, I think there is an interesting argument to be made for the Con position here. I don't know if I'll actually win, but I'd like to try. If you start a new debate on this topic with me, I promise not to troll, forfeit, or concede. My only precondition is that you increase the argument time to at least one week and the voting time to at least one month.
RM has quit Dart, so if you make any arguments at all for your side you'll win by default.
I think the person you're debating here is pretty clearly a troll. If you'd like to find someone to actually engage with you on this topic, I'd be willing to.
Just a disclaimer, I'm not actually a Mormon personally, but I do find the arguments that they are not actually Christians to be weak and rely too much on special pleading.
Best.Korea is a troll. I would recommend not engaging in their debates in the future.
I feel like this topic is simply way too broad for a debate like this. Also, arguing that the right wing is better because giving women the right to vote was a mistake is, uh... certainly something!
Just looking over your R1 arguments, you spend a lot of time on definitions, full explanations of basic doctrines of both Christianity and Islam, and whole quotes directly from the Bible (as opposed to just citing the relevant scripture). In my personal opinion, there is lot of wasted space here that could be better spent on actual logic and rhetoric.
Honestly, if even 30,000 characters isn't enough for you, you need to find a way to make your arguments more concise. There's no reason you should need that much space in your opening arguments.
Honestly, that was my thought as well. Regardless of whether it will reduce the national debt, it's obvious that it *can*. Seems like a dumb topic for a debate imo.
You're making very broad generalizations and comparing them to the behavior of a single person. Even if it is true that, in general, people with autism tend to act like Trump to a certain degree, that doesn't mean they're going to agree with his politics.
Thanks for posting your Round 1 arguments. Sorry to have kept you waiting this long, I'll have my arguments posted by tomorrow.
"I've noticed pretty much every autistic person is very conservative or libertarian."
Really? Most of the autistic people I know lean liberal/progressive. Of course, I do hang out mostly in liberal spaces online and don't know a whole lot of people that have autism and have told me so irl, so I'm definitely biased, but still. I wonder if they have done any studies on if there's a correlation between ASD and political ideology. I feel like the correlation would probably be fairly weak tbh.
You know what, looking at the medical definitions of disease, autism spectrum disorder, and developmental disorders, it seems fairly obvious to me that ASD would fall under the definition of disease. Perhaps you have some trick hidden up your sleeve, but the argument for Pro seems very simple and straightforward in my mind. I will accept this debate.
It would be helpful, and is generally a good idea, to clearly define "disease" in the description of your debate.