It is written below in the story of St Columba that you quoted that he encountered a wizard that was keeping an Irish slave girl captive. It is part of the story that you brought up in your argument. The story has Pedophilic undertones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness#Miscellanea
According to Adomnán, when Columba visited King Bridei I of Pictland at his house on the River Ness, he met a wizard named Broichan who had an Irish slave-girl that he refused to release even though Columba pleaded with him. Columba went out of Bridei's house and picked up a white pebble from the river. He said that the pebble would be used to heal many sick people in Pictland, and that Broichan was suffering for his sins at that very moment. After he had finished speaking, two messengers came to tell them that Broichan had a seizure and they wanted Columba to help them. Columba gave them the stone and said to dip it in water to give to Broichan, if he agreed to release the slave-girl. He agreed to do so, and the stone was put in water and it floated on it; the wizard drank from the water and was healed. This stone was kept by King Bridei in the royal treasury for the rest of his life, and anyone who came there for healing would be given water with the stone floating in it, and they would be healed.[18]
As much as anything else it is to guard against those that would take on a debate and argue over some absurd definition. I try to make it clear that the debate is about me defending the claim in the title and my opponent disproving that claim.
My past experience was good.
It was the fact I run my own business and need to be at the beck and call of my customers 24/7 that made debates impractical. But Covid has gave me some free time. And as embarrassing as it is going to be to lose a debate regarding the shape of the earth, I like to pay my way, but I forget where the donations page is. Where is it?
US agents using atrocity propaganda to justify an invasion of the middle east is not the same thing as deliberately imploding a sky scraper live on television and launching a missile in to their own headquarters.
Makes no sense that i forfeited. I asked my opponent to let me make my argument again, on this comment section, and he obliged within 20 minutes, and i posted my argument.. Was not forfeit.
If you think i am debating that Saddam Hussein did not get found guilty, and i think he did not, then there is nothing i can do if this is what you think..
If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty, then let me know, and i'll make a new debate on the subject...As i have no wish to debate it in the comment section
sorry to see you have unfortunately been banned.
I shall hold back on responding to give you more time.
I have the debate set on two weeks for arguments anyway.
DrSpy needs to come back and start debating. His debate tactics are sorely missed.
If he comes back and starts debating again, he can have my CD collection of Bob Mar lee.
I understand i have lost this debate.
I am not going to try and change definitions.
And even in the event someone votes for me, i shall make sure the vote gets removed and oromagi is to win.
I dont want my rating to fall any lower just now, as i am new to the site and have not accumulated many points yet. Therefore i shall play it out. Oromagi will have to be patient to receive his victory.
But oromagi "has" won.
There is no debate going to take place.
I have roped myself in to arguing about something i do not even believe.
I have no opinion on Robert de Bruce, other than that he was a Catholic Norman, that waged war in Scotland, and was just one small part of the Norman conquests that seeked self interests above his station, and conned and conived to get it.
I do not even look upon myself as Scottish. I look upon myself as British, and have great admiration for the Norse. I am part Norse myself. So not anti-norman... However i kind of spat the dummy when i got defeated on the last thread.
I had hoped that the thread would just fizzle out in to a draw. As defeat would be a sore one.
But i got defeated, so i grinned and bared it and congratulated my opponent and hoped the thread would just fall.
However when the debate began in the comment section i had this overwhelming urge to go right through the Falkirk rolls and find something on this Robert Bruce. What i found was what i already knew. And that is his Norman relative.
However in haste i wringfully attributed this relative as being his son, forgetting William is not Willam, and William was son of Robert Bruce of annandale, But Robert Bruce of annandale is also the Great Great grandfather of the Robert the Bruce in question.
So in haste, i boobed, because i forgot to stay composed, and do the research first.
I usually research everything before writing.
But there will be no redifining.
No debate.
The instant i pressed publish i realised i had made an error
And Gary Mcallister is a Scottish professional footballer. He became famous during euro96 when he was in the Scotland team that went to Wembley to face England.. The match was played at a time when "Braveheart" had just hit the screens. The tartan army descended upon Wembley to the tune of "freedom" raved up in to techno. The Scotland team for a pre-match team talk, watched the film "braveheart". The scotland team that day were captained by defender Colin Hendry, nicknamed "braveheart".
Scotland only needed a draw to qualify for the knock out stages. Scotland went 1-0 down.
But then they began to rally. on the 79th minute they got a penalty.
And Gary Mcallister stepped up to take it. He "missed".
Gary Mcallister was never forgiven for this. He soon had to announce his retirement from international football.
It was unforgivable.
He was supposed to score, so that the Scots could continue with their techno raved up version of braveheart for the rest of the tournament.
The film braveheart became synonymous with Scottish culture.
English of course wished to point out the flaws in the historical accuracy.
But scots at the time were not bothered about that.
It was purely a great time.
Magical. I will never forget the 96 trip to wembley. It is etched in my memory forever.
Robert Bruce could try to claim defamation.
But Robert Bruce was never ever a scottish national hero before braveheart. Not amongst anyone else other than catholic normans anyway.
It was the film braveheart, that made him a national hero.
I can assure you.
However Bruce went down in my estimations. He was actually just part of the Norman conquests really. He was self interested. He fought a civil war in Scotland, yet he was not himself scottish. He donated lands to the man that betrayed wallace.
Bruce does not deserve the recognistion he received from scots after braveheart.
You are correct. I have made the error of talking whilst i research. William was actually Robert Bruce Grandfather.
Willam was grandson of William de Breuse.
Apologies.
As i live 5 miles from Robert Bruce place of death, and regularly visit Rosslyn chapel, i took defeat on this quite badly.
As i never looked upon Robert Bruce as a traitor. Nor does any scotsman i know.
Nobody thought he faught at Falkirk.
Were never taught this at school.
However he did have a reputation as being a bit "Norman" English.
Which there is nothing wrong with.
However, like i said. "Congratulations on your victory".
And i meant that.
Thank you.
How do you explain Robert Bruce son, William, being on the Falkirk rolls?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/The_Falkirk_Roll_of_Arms_-_Panel_2_-_La_Batayle_le_Eveske_de_Dureme.jpg
So does anyone have any disputes from the link below, where i showed Robert De Brus son fought for the English that day, and is on the Falkirk rolls? How well can we trust historians to narrate for us, when even i, can zoom in on the Falkirk rolls, and find Roberts son on them, fighting for the english, within 10 seconds
Or maybe we are by this period, looking for an actual De Breuse, because here is Roberts son, William, on one of the Falkirk rolls
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/The_Falkirk_Roll_of_Arms_-_Panel_2_-_La_Batayle_le_Eveske_de_Dureme.jpg
I'm actually studying the Falkirk rolls of arms now. I know just before the battle of Falkirk, Robert Bruce had pledged allegience to Edward. That is not in disupte. However i do not believe even if Robert did fight at Falkirk, he would be stupid enough to have his name put in the Falkirk roll of arms. I dont think the Falkirk roll of arms means that much. But i am studying all the names on the Falkirk roll of arms to find any discrepancies
Just to say...Great choice btw.
I was thinking of asking for a draw after researching Maldini.
However i think i might have a way of defeating Maldini.
But not guaranteed.
Maldini is a great choice.
Was not expecting a defender.
I did not see your reply.
I thought you had forfeited.
Any chance of just responding quickly, and advancing quickly to round 3?
Unless of course you wish to take your time.
I have to be honest. I did not even look for your reply. I automatically thought you had forfeited. As this is the first time i have ever saw you reply to a thread.
Apologies for my wrongful assumption
I made an error.
I initially did not see my opponents reply.
All i saw first time i looked was empty space.
After posting i saw his reply.
I thought he had forfeited.
As annoying as it is, i shall respond in round 3
If it is the fact that you find the "quantity" of argument too much to deal with, you could try not engaging with the opponent. You could try simply building your own case, and then finish by concluding that this is the correct conclusion. Therefore regardless of what my opponent says, it cannot be true, because "this is true".
Though that does not always work either. I was met with this when i first came on here. I took on a challenge and then when i went to look at the my opponents round 1 argument i was met with a 10,000 character great wall of text. And i thought "how on earth am i supposed to refute all of that"? Where do i even begin? What are his key points to refute, and what are not? So i decided to just skip it. And put forward my own argument and let him refute me instead. Though i have noticed a voter may view failing to refute an opponents argument = validating their argument, and may not see that you refuted their entire argument, when you offered a conclusion that your own argument was the correct conclusion.
Yes, there is a genuine debate known as "the GOAT/goat debate" and there are all kinds of arguments as to why the footballing association is wrong about Pele being the GOAT.
Arguments are "but half of Pele's goals" came in friendly matches against rubbish teams. To which i showed how this likely effected his goal-scoring record negatively, and not positively, due to the insane amount of matches he was playing, and in different countries.
Other arguments are that Pele never played for a top club.. I counter this by showing how Santos were one of the most successful clubs in the world during the period Pele played for them.
Other arguments are that Pele was not tested at top level against top european teams... But i showed Pele, in 7 matches against Benfica (5), Ac Milan (2), Inter Milan (0), real madrid (1), scored a total of 8 goals in 7 matches, all against european cup winners. His record against european cup winners was actually better than his record against rubbish teams in friendlies, and this was while supposedly playing for an inferior Santos team.
Other criticisms of Pele are that he could only score 77 goals in 90 odd games whilst playing for the best footballing nation in the world...However, i showed how Pele was actually not an out and out striker. He was mostly a playmaker, and he has the world record for most goal assists in the world cup.
Also there is the wrongful argument that "but no top european club wanted him". And i showed, Pele actually signed for Inter Milan, but had to be escorted back to Brazil for national security purposes, as Santos fans threatened to tear the city up.
I will likely copy and paste this in to my summary for round 5 once it has passed back to me
I do not think you are a troll.
"Trolling" is not the same as being a "troll".
It is possible to act like a troll in one instance and not on another. And is hardly crime of the century.
My style is to give my opponents as much scope as possible.
Though this is being abused a little, and sometimes my opponents are using the scope i give them, to attempt to try to argue about something completely irrelevant.
For this reason, i would advise sticking to "ancient aliens" as described in the famous history channel documentary "ancient aliens".
As it is mostly the claims from the show i will be debunking.
Though if you wish to provide your own evidence outwith the show, i will not prevent you from doing so, and i will also attempt to engage with you upon other related issues regards to ancient aliens.
But the general definition of ancient aliens would be as defined by the documentary.
Claims that the pyramids were built by Aliens et cetera.
Or claims that much of the stories in the OT, could be actually depicting Aliens.
What i will not be discussing is "modern day alien accounts".
Modern day alien accounts are not related to claims made by the ancient aliens documentary team.
But a "father" does not have to be a "biological father".
And Donald Trump was under no obligation to go in to further detail.
As who his father is, was "not" his claim.
His claim was, that the EU are ripping USA off by a full 1%.
USA are paying the EU 2% when they should only be paying 1%.
That was "his claim".
The media chose to dismiss this part, and highlight wrongfully, that his claim was that his father is born in Germany.
And regarding me being pro-trump.
Do you notice i never took on any of your other debates regarding Trump? I only took on the debate which i knew i could disprove you on.
This does not make me anti-trump, nor pro-trump.
You had 2 rounds to make this argument.
I put forth evidence that his grand-father is in-fact the Patriarch father of the entire Trump family.
That is pretty conclusive.
However you had 2 rounds to show how that is not the case.
You should make your debates 30,000 characters.
You don't need to use all 30,000 characters. But at least then you will have more room to make up for incidents like this.
Also you should extend how much time you give for arguments to be presented
It is written below in the story of St Columba that you quoted that he encountered a wizard that was keeping an Irish slave girl captive. It is part of the story that you brought up in your argument. The story has Pedophilic undertones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness#Miscellanea
According to Adomnán, when Columba visited King Bridei I of Pictland at his house on the River Ness, he met a wizard named Broichan who had an Irish slave-girl that he refused to release even though Columba pleaded with him. Columba went out of Bridei's house and picked up a white pebble from the river. He said that the pebble would be used to heal many sick people in Pictland, and that Broichan was suffering for his sins at that very moment. After he had finished speaking, two messengers came to tell them that Broichan had a seizure and they wanted Columba to help them. Columba gave them the stone and said to dip it in water to give to Broichan, if he agreed to release the slave-girl. He agreed to do so, and the stone was put in water and it floated on it; the wizard drank from the water and was healed. This stone was kept by King Bridei in the royal treasury for the rest of his life, and anyone who came there for healing would be given water with the stone floating in it, and they would be healed.[18]
The story of St Columba has Paedophilic undertones. Where did I accuse rationalmadman of this?
As much as anything else it is to guard against those that would take on a debate and argue over some absurd definition. I try to make it clear that the debate is about me defending the claim in the title and my opponent disproving that claim.
My past experience was good.
It was the fact I run my own business and need to be at the beck and call of my customers 24/7 that made debates impractical. But Covid has gave me some free time. And as embarrassing as it is going to be to lose a debate regarding the shape of the earth, I like to pay my way, but I forget where the donations page is. Where is it?
US agents using atrocity propaganda to justify an invasion of the middle east is not the same thing as deliberately imploding a sky scraper live on television and launching a missile in to their own headquarters.
Just so say i will likely not be participating in any more debates for the forseeable future, so you can probably have a free win here
Makes no sense that i forfeited. I asked my opponent to let me make my argument again, on this comment section, and he obliged within 20 minutes, and i posted my argument.. Was not forfeit.
If you think i am debating that Saddam Hussein did not get found guilty, and i think he did not, then there is nothing i can do if this is what you think..
If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty, then let me know, and i'll make a new debate on the subject...As i have no wish to debate it in the comment section
Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully.
Show the direct quote where i said this...I said "accidentally".
sorry to see you have unfortunately been banned.
I shall hold back on responding to give you more time.
I have the debate set on two weeks for arguments anyway.
Welcome back.
I look forward to your next argument
DrSpy needs to come back and start debating. His debate tactics are sorely missed.
If he comes back and starts debating again, he can have my CD collection of Bob Mar lee.
I'll wait until more Brits join the site.
American football and baseball in USA isn't it.. And i see most of the users on here are from US.
If you are a football fan, you could perhaps try requesting to have the debate passed over to you
Thanks..But not a great way to win a debate. Will volunteer to simply have the debate removed, in the absence of an opponent
Looks like it might be a draw
Exactly, yes, minus Northern ireland, which has slightley different laws to Britain.
So, Britain, not UK.
As i suggested in the "short description".
Current gun law restrictions of the UK would be a good model to follow.
Are you going to give a clue as to what you are arguing for? Are you arguing that cars "are" or "are not" Robots?
I understand i have lost this debate.
I am not going to try and change definitions.
And even in the event someone votes for me, i shall make sure the vote gets removed and oromagi is to win.
I dont want my rating to fall any lower just now, as i am new to the site and have not accumulated many points yet. Therefore i shall play it out. Oromagi will have to be patient to receive his victory.
But oromagi "has" won.
There is no debate going to take place.
I have roped myself in to arguing about something i do not even believe.
I have no opinion on Robert de Bruce, other than that he was a Catholic Norman, that waged war in Scotland, and was just one small part of the Norman conquests that seeked self interests above his station, and conned and conived to get it.
I do not even look upon myself as Scottish. I look upon myself as British, and have great admiration for the Norse. I am part Norse myself. So not anti-norman... However i kind of spat the dummy when i got defeated on the last thread.
I had hoped that the thread would just fizzle out in to a draw. As defeat would be a sore one.
But i got defeated, so i grinned and bared it and congratulated my opponent and hoped the thread would just fall.
However when the debate began in the comment section i had this overwhelming urge to go right through the Falkirk rolls and find something on this Robert Bruce. What i found was what i already knew. And that is his Norman relative.
However in haste i wringfully attributed this relative as being his son, forgetting William is not Willam, and William was son of Robert Bruce of annandale, But Robert Bruce of annandale is also the Great Great grandfather of the Robert the Bruce in question.
So in haste, i boobed, because i forgot to stay composed, and do the research first.
I usually research everything before writing.
But there will be no redifining.
No debate.
The instant i pressed publish i realised i had made an error
And Gary Mcallister is a Scottish professional footballer. He became famous during euro96 when he was in the Scotland team that went to Wembley to face England.. The match was played at a time when "Braveheart" had just hit the screens. The tartan army descended upon Wembley to the tune of "freedom" raved up in to techno. The Scotland team for a pre-match team talk, watched the film "braveheart". The scotland team that day were captained by defender Colin Hendry, nicknamed "braveheart".
Scotland only needed a draw to qualify for the knock out stages. Scotland went 1-0 down.
But then they began to rally. on the 79th minute they got a penalty.
And Gary Mcallister stepped up to take it. He "missed".
Gary Mcallister was never forgiven for this. He soon had to announce his retirement from international football.
It was unforgivable.
He was supposed to score, so that the Scots could continue with their techno raved up version of braveheart for the rest of the tournament.
The film braveheart became synonymous with Scottish culture.
English of course wished to point out the flaws in the historical accuracy.
But scots at the time were not bothered about that.
It was purely a great time.
Magical. I will never forget the 96 trip to wembley. It is etched in my memory forever.
Robert Bruce could try to claim defamation.
But Robert Bruce was never ever a scottish national hero before braveheart. Not amongst anyone else other than catholic normans anyway.
It was the film braveheart, that made him a national hero.
I can assure you.
However Bruce went down in my estimations. He was actually just part of the Norman conquests really. He was self interested. He fought a civil war in Scotland, yet he was not himself scottish. He donated lands to the man that betrayed wallace.
Bruce does not deserve the recognistion he received from scots after braveheart.
You are correct. I have made the error of talking whilst i research. William was actually Robert Bruce Grandfather.
Willam was grandson of William de Breuse.
Apologies.
As i live 5 miles from Robert Bruce place of death, and regularly visit Rosslyn chapel, i took defeat on this quite badly.
As i never looked upon Robert Bruce as a traitor. Nor does any scotsman i know.
Nobody thought he faught at Falkirk.
Were never taught this at school.
However he did have a reputation as being a bit "Norman" English.
Which there is nothing wrong with.
However, like i said. "Congratulations on your victory".
And i meant that.
Thank you.
How do you explain Robert Bruce son, William, being on the Falkirk rolls?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/The_Falkirk_Roll_of_Arms_-_Panel_2_-_La_Batayle_le_Eveske_de_Dureme.jpg
So does anyone have any disputes from the link below, where i showed Robert De Brus son fought for the English that day, and is on the Falkirk rolls? How well can we trust historians to narrate for us, when even i, can zoom in on the Falkirk rolls, and find Roberts son on them, fighting for the english, within 10 seconds
Or maybe we are by this period, looking for an actual De Breuse, because here is Roberts son, William, on one of the Falkirk rolls
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/The_Falkirk_Roll_of_Arms_-_Panel_2_-_La_Batayle_le_Eveske_de_Dureme.jpg
We must also remember. I am not even sure if historians are aware. We are not looking for a Robert De Brus. We are looking for a Robert le Fiz
I'm actually studying the Falkirk rolls of arms now. I know just before the battle of Falkirk, Robert Bruce had pledged allegience to Edward. That is not in disupte. However i do not believe even if Robert did fight at Falkirk, he would be stupid enough to have his name put in the Falkirk roll of arms. I dont think the Falkirk roll of arms means that much. But i am studying all the names on the Falkirk roll of arms to find any discrepancies
Congratulations to oromagi
Now that my opponent has had a strike through his name, can we put the thread back up for debating?
Thank you.
Just to say...Great choice btw.
I was thinking of asking for a draw after researching Maldini.
However i think i might have a way of defeating Maldini.
But not guaranteed.
Maldini is a great choice.
Was not expecting a defender.
I did not see your reply.
I thought you had forfeited.
Any chance of just responding quickly, and advancing quickly to round 3?
Unless of course you wish to take your time.
I have to be honest. I did not even look for your reply. I automatically thought you had forfeited. As this is the first time i have ever saw you reply to a thread.
Apologies for my wrongful assumption
I made an error.
I initially did not see my opponents reply.
All i saw first time i looked was empty space.
After posting i saw his reply.
I thought he had forfeited.
As annoying as it is, i shall respond in round 3
Ok, i began my debate as if i did not know you were backing Paolo, and began with only speaking up for Pele
If it is the fact that you find the "quantity" of argument too much to deal with, you could try not engaging with the opponent. You could try simply building your own case, and then finish by concluding that this is the correct conclusion. Therefore regardless of what my opponent says, it cannot be true, because "this is true".
Though that does not always work either. I was met with this when i first came on here. I took on a challenge and then when i went to look at the my opponents round 1 argument i was met with a 10,000 character great wall of text. And i thought "how on earth am i supposed to refute all of that"? Where do i even begin? What are his key points to refute, and what are not? So i decided to just skip it. And put forward my own argument and let him refute me instead. Though i have noticed a voter may view failing to refute an opponents argument = validating their argument, and may not see that you refuted their entire argument, when you offered a conclusion that your own argument was the correct conclusion.
Yes, there is a genuine debate known as "the GOAT/goat debate" and there are all kinds of arguments as to why the footballing association is wrong about Pele being the GOAT.
Arguments are "but half of Pele's goals" came in friendly matches against rubbish teams. To which i showed how this likely effected his goal-scoring record negatively, and not positively, due to the insane amount of matches he was playing, and in different countries.
Other arguments are that Pele never played for a top club.. I counter this by showing how Santos were one of the most successful clubs in the world during the period Pele played for them.
Other arguments are that Pele was not tested at top level against top european teams... But i showed Pele, in 7 matches against Benfica (5), Ac Milan (2), Inter Milan (0), real madrid (1), scored a total of 8 goals in 7 matches, all against european cup winners. His record against european cup winners was actually better than his record against rubbish teams in friendlies, and this was while supposedly playing for an inferior Santos team.
Other criticisms of Pele are that he could only score 77 goals in 90 odd games whilst playing for the best footballing nation in the world...However, i showed how Pele was actually not an out and out striker. He was mostly a playmaker, and he has the world record for most goal assists in the world cup.
Also there is the wrongful argument that "but no top european club wanted him". And i showed, Pele actually signed for Inter Milan, but had to be escorted back to Brazil for national security purposes, as Santos fans threatened to tear the city up.
I will likely copy and paste this in to my summary for round 5 once it has passed back to me
I do not think you are a troll.
"Trolling" is not the same as being a "troll".
It is possible to act like a troll in one instance and not on another. And is hardly crime of the century.
Feel free to debate.
But if you do, i forsee "Edison is truly the GOAT (3)".
Real men eat vindaloo for breakfast.
Thank you my friend.
I forgive you for trolling my debate.
:)
My style is to give my opponents as much scope as possible.
Though this is being abused a little, and sometimes my opponents are using the scope i give them, to attempt to try to argue about something completely irrelevant.
For this reason, i would advise sticking to "ancient aliens" as described in the famous history channel documentary "ancient aliens".
As it is mostly the claims from the show i will be debunking.
Though if you wish to provide your own evidence outwith the show, i will not prevent you from doing so, and i will also attempt to engage with you upon other related issues regards to ancient aliens.
But the general definition of ancient aliens would be as defined by the documentary.
Claims that the pyramids were built by Aliens et cetera.
Or claims that much of the stories in the OT, could be actually depicting Aliens.
What i will not be discussing is "modern day alien accounts".
Modern day alien accounts are not related to claims made by the ancient aliens documentary team.
But, i am flexible within reason.
Congratulations to fauxlaw
But a "father" does not have to be a "biological father".
And Donald Trump was under no obligation to go in to further detail.
As who his father is, was "not" his claim.
His claim was, that the EU are ripping USA off by a full 1%.
USA are paying the EU 2% when they should only be paying 1%.
That was "his claim".
The media chose to dismiss this part, and highlight wrongfully, that his claim was that his father is born in Germany.
And regarding me being pro-trump.
Do you notice i never took on any of your other debates regarding Trump? I only took on the debate which i knew i could disprove you on.
This does not make me anti-trump, nor pro-trump.
You had 2 rounds to make this argument.
I put forth evidence that his grand-father is in-fact the Patriarch father of the entire Trump family.
That is pretty conclusive.
However you had 2 rounds to show how that is not the case.
"According to Donald, his father was born is a beautiful place in Germany. Too bad Fred Trump's birth certificate says he was born in New York."
No, only if you are dishonest would you argue that.
However in his discription it is quite clear what he is referring too.
Please give up with this phase you are going through.
You should make your debates 30,000 characters.
You don't need to use all 30,000 characters. But at least then you will have more room to make up for incidents like this.
Also you should extend how much time you give for arguments to be presented
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeees, a debate about the beautiful game at long last.
Yeha.
Will be posting my argument soon.