Had I not had to go through 4 hours of tutorials for how to administer online tests to one of the largest public school counties in all of Florida I probably couldve put a good amount of time into this and put up some good arguments :P
You're allowed to list quotes from sources, even extensively, if the quoted material directly relates to the debate. Christen did that, you failed to make a successful counter argument to save your life, so that gives the edge to him for overall points.
You both barely refuted each others arguments so the fact that Christen was more elaborate with his points and that his points were inherently stronger to his case than your argument were to yours gave him the edge overall. You spent a vast majority of the debate trying to poke holes in his points by dismissing them as unimportant which was thoroughly unconvincing
Not sure when the HoF kicks up but Ima tag you in this as my submission for best debate in the event that im on one of my long ass hiatuses from the site whenever that thing starts up
Like this is easily a Hall of Fame caliber debate, and a close loss in a debate as great as this one 90% of the time will feel better than a win in a debate against some regular dingus.
You fuckin SHOULD BE proud of your performance. You did just about as good as anyone could have possibly done in this debate for your side, and you def used a lot of good information in it as well
Cons arguments were average at best but you dropped the ball on such a massive scale that even with his late round forfeit, his arguments were still clearly superior to yours
I forgot that you don't have the attention span to read anything resembling reason, nor the ability to understand what is actually said rather than what you wish was said..... I'll go ahead and leave you to the state of retardation you seem to like living in, feel free to post your argument whenever you're ready so that you can pick up the inevitable loss.
Thats the beauty of it: I dont actually have to.... There isnt any sort of objective metric to definitively show what game is better than another game, the same way there isnt an objective metric to show what movie or song is better than another movie or song..... The only options for weighing these kinds of things are personal opinion, which is completely and utterly worthless in debate that you still havent figured out yet, and collective opinions of professional critics + overall sales, which put together establish at least some sort of precedent of what game is considered more successful or better despite the inherent flaws of those kinds of metrics.
You are committed to the stupider of the two options, which is fine by me because it makes my job of taking this easy win much easier
Not when your own arguments are themselves only unsubstantiated opinions..... The sooner you learn that your opinion isn't fact just because its your opinion, then the sooner you might be able to get your win rate above 10%
Pretty hard yeah..... He seems to be really desperate to win this debate, since he didn't complain nearly as much about the people who voted against him in the Ron Paul/Gary Johnson debate he lost to ShabShoral
Hey my bad for citing the Packers-Chiefs game in round one which was the pointless preseason game, I meant to refer to the Packers-Redskins game instead that happened in week 3 but somehow got them mixed up. Will post arguments tomorrow
I appreciate the vote, but you might wanna explain why you allocated conduct points in your reasoning or just leave it at tied, otherwise your vote might end up getting deleted.
"There are a lot of smart/knowledgeable people on both sides of the aisle who would pass the citizenship test with flying colors, but that doesn't explain how two sets of smart people come to two different conclusions"
Different people have different priorities and concerns when it comes to politics. One smart person could be chiefly concerned about healthcare reformation, while another smart person could be more concerned about entanglement in foreign conflicts.... In more general measures, one smart person would be concerned with potential benefits an action could bring about, while another person would be more concerned with the potential costs.....
"how precisely smart voters are most likely to pick the best candidates"
Hypothetically speaking, what would you need to see or read that would convince you that smart voters pick the best candidates? What I was going for was "More informed voters -> More informed decisions -> Better candidates/candidates who make more informed decisions"...... Where along that line of reasoning would you have preferred I elaborate on?
Solid vote, thanks for the RFD! I just have one question regarding it.... When you say in your analysis that ""PRO never develops the idea of how exactly voters who answered citizenship questions correctly would result in the country having better leaders"" What do you mean regarding the word 'exactly'
The very first argument I make in round 1 begins with how citizenship tests would weed out the very stupidest of voters from being able to vote based on how ignorant they are about critical basic facts..... So wouldn't it be natural to conclude that a voter base being less ignorant of how the government and how the world works would lead to the remaining voters electing leaders with better understanding of how the country and the world works (aka better politicians)?
I was surprised that the maker of the debate was prepared to argue in favor of the prequels. Me having hated the prequels when I first saw them in theaters made me accept the debate in an instant, since Episodes 1 and 2 deserve to be sent to the depths of hell
The voting criteria for source points is 'Better Sources' not 'The Most Sources'.... If source points were awarded for who used more of them, then people would just post 8 links that all say the same thing for the same argument.
Can we avoid the counter-vote bombing thing? Its just gonna lead to people getting groups of friends together to always vote on each others debates which itself opens up an even bigger can of worms.
I can avoid bringing up entirely new arguments in the final round, so that wont be an issue. Im just asking if you would want to convert the final round into a round for additional arguments + conclusions, rather then sticking mostly to conclusions
If you want to convert the last round into an additional argument round I'm fine with it. We both got off to a bit of a screwy start, we can use the last round for additional space if you prefer
Sorry I didn't clarify it better in my rfd, let me try again:
The way I interpreted the title of the debate, the main arguments about whether or not the united states SHOULD require UBC's for gun transactions would focus on the possible benefits and drawbacks such a system would have should it be implemented..... On the other hand, focusing arguments on the legality of UBC's in general would be central in a debate about whether or not the united states COULD require UBC's. It could not if UBC's were unconstitutional, it could if UBC's were constitutional, and a majority of the arguments in this debate revolved around those points rather than the benefits and drawbacks of UBC systems in the first place.
Feasibility of implementing a system in terms of how it fits into legality would definitely be an argument worth exploring, but it shouldn't be the main argument that takes up 80% of the entire debate. It should have been a side argument at most. Having the legality arguments be the main focus of the debate changes the debate from being about whether or not the united states SHOULD do something, to debating if it COULD be implemented legally in the first place.
Does that help, or have I only made things far more confusing?
Had I not had to go through 4 hours of tutorials for how to administer online tests to one of the largest public school counties in all of Florida I probably couldve put a good amount of time into this and put up some good arguments :P
I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED
Better luck next time
You're allowed to list quotes from sources, even extensively, if the quoted material directly relates to the debate. Christen did that, you failed to make a successful counter argument to save your life, so that gives the edge to him for overall points.
You both barely refuted each others arguments so the fact that Christen was more elaborate with his points and that his points were inherently stronger to his case than your argument were to yours gave him the edge overall. You spent a vast majority of the debate trying to poke holes in his points by dismissing them as unimportant which was thoroughly unconvincing
Not sure when the HoF kicks up but Ima tag you in this as my submission for best debate in the event that im on one of my long ass hiatuses from the site whenever that thing starts up
Like this is easily a Hall of Fame caliber debate, and a close loss in a debate as great as this one 90% of the time will feel better than a win in a debate against some regular dingus.
You fuckin SHOULD BE proud of your performance. You did just about as good as anyone could have possibly done in this debate for your side, and you def used a lot of good information in it as well
Cons arguments were average at best but you dropped the ball on such a massive scale that even with his late round forfeit, his arguments were still clearly superior to yours
called it from early on :P
Ok fr I wanna know who is reporting the votes cause it sure as fuck aint me
I forgot that you don't have the attention span to read anything resembling reason, nor the ability to understand what is actually said rather than what you wish was said..... I'll go ahead and leave you to the state of retardation you seem to like living in, feel free to post your argument whenever you're ready so that you can pick up the inevitable loss.
"You have to explain why it's better"
Thats the beauty of it: I dont actually have to.... There isnt any sort of objective metric to definitively show what game is better than another game, the same way there isnt an objective metric to show what movie or song is better than another movie or song..... The only options for weighing these kinds of things are personal opinion, which is completely and utterly worthless in debate that you still havent figured out yet, and collective opinions of professional critics + overall sales, which put together establish at least some sort of precedent of what game is considered more successful or better despite the inherent flaws of those kinds of metrics.
You are committed to the stupider of the two options, which is fine by me because it makes my job of taking this easy win much easier
Wouldn't be the first time you couldnt recognize basic facts as reality.
Not when your own arguments are themselves only unsubstantiated opinions..... The sooner you learn that your opinion isn't fact just because its your opinion, then the sooner you might be able to get your win rate above 10%
If being wrong was required for winning then your debate record would be a lot better than what it is now... You're just terrible at making arguments
You seem to be completely and hilariously ignorant of the difference between 'appeal to popularity' and 'critical consensus', but thats to be expected
looking forward to another easy win
Who the hell reported logical's vote? He damn near wrote an entire essay for his RFD
Pretty hard yeah..... He seems to be really desperate to win this debate, since he didn't complain nearly as much about the people who voted against him in the Ron Paul/Gary Johnson debate he lost to ShabShoral
Hey my bad for citing the Packers-Chiefs game in round one which was the pointless preseason game, I meant to refer to the Packers-Redskins game instead that happened in week 3 but somehow got them mixed up. Will post arguments tomorrow
I appreciate the vote, but you might wanna explain why you allocated conduct points in your reasoning or just leave it at tied, otherwise your vote might end up getting deleted.
"There are a lot of smart/knowledgeable people on both sides of the aisle who would pass the citizenship test with flying colors, but that doesn't explain how two sets of smart people come to two different conclusions"
Different people have different priorities and concerns when it comes to politics. One smart person could be chiefly concerned about healthcare reformation, while another smart person could be more concerned about entanglement in foreign conflicts.... In more general measures, one smart person would be concerned with potential benefits an action could bring about, while another person would be more concerned with the potential costs.....
"how precisely smart voters are most likely to pick the best candidates"
Hypothetically speaking, what would you need to see or read that would convince you that smart voters pick the best candidates? What I was going for was "More informed voters -> More informed decisions -> Better candidates/candidates who make more informed decisions"...... Where along that line of reasoning would you have preferred I elaborate on?
I love a fuckin good sports debate. Will try to keep my arguments short and to the point. Good luck! :D
Solid vote, thanks for the RFD! I just have one question regarding it.... When you say in your analysis that ""PRO never develops the idea of how exactly voters who answered citizenship questions correctly would result in the country having better leaders"" What do you mean regarding the word 'exactly'
The very first argument I make in round 1 begins with how citizenship tests would weed out the very stupidest of voters from being able to vote based on how ignorant they are about critical basic facts..... So wouldn't it be natural to conclude that a voter base being less ignorant of how the government and how the world works would lead to the remaining voters electing leaders with better understanding of how the country and the world works (aka better politicians)?
Goddamn, what I miss? o_O
I was surprised that the maker of the debate was prepared to argue in favor of the prequels. Me having hated the prequels when I first saw them in theaters made me accept the debate in an instant, since Episodes 1 and 2 deserve to be sent to the depths of hell
The voting criteria for source points is 'Better Sources' not 'The Most Sources'.... If source points were awarded for who used more of them, then people would just post 8 links that all say the same thing for the same argument.
Can we avoid the counter-vote bombing thing? Its just gonna lead to people getting groups of friends together to always vote on each others debates which itself opens up an even bigger can of worms.
I can avoid bringing up entirely new arguments in the final round, so that wont be an issue. Im just asking if you would want to convert the final round into a round for additional arguments + conclusions, rather then sticking mostly to conclusions
If you want to convert the last round into an additional argument round I'm fine with it. We both got off to a bit of a screwy start, we can use the last round for additional space if you prefer
Sorry I didn't clarify it better in my rfd, let me try again:
The way I interpreted the title of the debate, the main arguments about whether or not the united states SHOULD require UBC's for gun transactions would focus on the possible benefits and drawbacks such a system would have should it be implemented..... On the other hand, focusing arguments on the legality of UBC's in general would be central in a debate about whether or not the united states COULD require UBC's. It could not if UBC's were unconstitutional, it could if UBC's were constitutional, and a majority of the arguments in this debate revolved around those points rather than the benefits and drawbacks of UBC systems in the first place.
Feasibility of implementing a system in terms of how it fits into legality would definitely be an argument worth exploring, but it shouldn't be the main argument that takes up 80% of the entire debate. It should have been a side argument at most. Having the legality arguments be the main focus of the debate changes the debate from being about whether or not the united states SHOULD do something, to debating if it COULD be implemented legally in the first place.
Does that help, or have I only made things far more confusing?