FishChaser

Pro is probably going to live longer based on nutritional science.

Round 1 was pretty even but Pro went harder in round 2. Pro stayed ahead in round 3, the flow-quality from con wasn't consistent whereas with pro each song has good flow all the way through. In round 4 pro won hands down.

In round 1 Con focuses too much on results and not on the actual proposition which is that the MOTIVE was the same for both movements. In round 2 Con tries to conflate better execution with different motives. Pro's reply in round 2 was weak but Con is still in the wrong. Round 3 was equally as pathetic as the rest of the debate. Final verdict: Pro wins but both debaters should kill themselves.

Right off the bat I find pro's case stupid due to the stupidity of Diogenes's philosophy of minimalism. Wealth is a tool and a weapon that can protect and provide for you in life and it is literally just stupid to deliberately choose to be poor. I also find the opinion that having things/obsession is the root cause of depression stupid. Depression can be caused by many things including a mere chemical imbalance.

My initial impression is that Diogenes was an opinionated but very unwise bum.

Pro argues that being an idiot who picks fights with powerful people who can fuck you makes him wise which is absurd but what is even more absurd is making this claim while also overlooking the fact that he probably didn't stand up to them in any meaningful way or he would have been fucked.

I'm also giving sources to Con right off the bat because Pro simply makes unbacked assertions throughout round 1.

Pro attempts to salvage Diogenes from loserdom by claiming he was adaptable but I'm not seeing it. He adapted by being less comfortable and powerful than he could have been if he was truly wise and sought to accumulate fat stacks of paper. Truly wise mother fuckers only care about making money, staying safe and eating well.

I am disgusted by pro's round 2. He goes on to claim that being popular and having "spiritual discipline" makes someone wise. He's blowing a bunch of hot air.

In round 3 he asserts a bunch of things that EVEN IF make Diogenes "wise" to an extent, fall short of making him the wisest mother fucker to ever practice philosophy.

Pro forfeits any hope of winning the debate (if he didn't already) in round 4 by admitting that in his view of wisdom, you can live like a retard and still be wise. The absolute central sign of wisdom is how you live your life and by discounting this he seems like he's just blowing hot air up Diogenes's ass hole. He asserts that he understands humanity on a "spiritual level" but all I see is a hobo with opinions about human nature that didn't win him anything in life but a reputation. The only valid argument is his street-smarts but was he really the most street-wise philosopher and does that alone make him the wisest? No, it doesn't and no he probably wasn't because the man was an idiot for being smarter than average compared to a real genius philosopher.

I am also giving conduct to Con for Pro making up the language thing.

Round 1:

The first song from pro is bad, the beat and the delivery of the words don't go together. 2/10
The second song is good but nothing impressive. 4/10
third song 5/10 (from now on I will just give rankings)
count your blessings: 4/10

con:
disappointed: 5/10
one take freestyle: 3/10
wish you were here: 2/10
nasty: 3/10

round 2:
pro:
per peri sauce: 3/10
10 commandments: 3/10
castella freestyle: 4/10
ghost writer: 2/10

con:
wiley flow: 4/10
scary: 2/10
bullet from a gun: 2/10
it ain't safe: 3/10

round 3:
Pro:
chip daily duppy: 2/10
light work: 3/10
Devlin daily duppy: 5/10
mad about bars: 3/10

con:
toxic trait: 3/10
we're all alone in this together: 2/10
waze: 0/10
look out: 1/10

round 4:
pro:
flowers: 3/10
live in the booth: 4/10
blow your mind: 5/10
fire in the booth 3: 4/10

con:
this is what I meant: 4/10
vossi bop: 3/10
energy: 3/10
too many men: 4/10

The idea that we shouldn't discuss actual facts, especially when they may be useful to health research or otherwise, just because some people are stupid racist bastards actually contributes to the level of immaturity that fails to differentiate facts from racism and turns the anti-racist sentiment behind it into an equally stupid bastard position. I also agree with Con that discussing the true nature of race-based differences helps destroy false stereotypes.

Pro starts off the debate with the arbitrary claim that even morally neutral (causing no good and no evil) actions are unacceptable and that we always must do option 1. I would let this slide in the context of this debate if he could prove discussing race differences always causes some harm but he failed. There are differences between races that don't imply superiority and his statement is actually racist because it implies that any discussion about factual race differences imply one race is superior to another. You are literally either saying there are no differences that aren't connected to some hierarchy between races or that there is no way to discuss race differences that won't be perceived as such.

The black and white way pro views good and evil is so extreme that it fails to see there is such a thing as slight harm in the name of much greater good. Would you not let a surgeon make a small incision to perform a surgery that will save your life just because it makes a widdle boo boo?

See comments

I like how RationalMadman raps like a schizophrenic on crack. It is very sexual to the penis juices. Flow is absent from both participants, they both suck but Rational has more weird factor appeal.

Con ran pro over in this debate with a trillion reasons why orgasms are good.

Con forfeited round 3 and conceded in round 4.