A member since August 3, 2019
Total comments: 220
The argument I have in mind accounts for religion.
Interested?
If no one takes this debate then I could lower it to the point which you could accept it
Although I could lower the requirements if needs be.
I can see quite a few people above 1600 who would be willing and able to take this challenge.
Oro is losing!!! NANI?!?!?!?! :O
Thanks for voting!
Boompski
Define “off”
“Con aborted this debate”
Nice 👌
Thanks
Thank you all for voting!
Last round go oof
Technically all debates that don't have any forfeited rounds will be in the "Quality Debates" section. But yes, this was a good debate.
It’s an F, therefore it’s Fawful
Do you want me to help Con here? If it's fine with you then I can reveal it.
Nice attempt at sleight of hand. Sadly, it's wrong (not going to tell Con how though, since spectators are supposed to be impartial).
Probably another falafel
Say "Falafel of Fawful" 10 times fast ;)
Hi User.
"Fawful" is a character in the Mario & Luigi superstar saga, so saying Fawful Falafel is the same as saying Falafel of Fawful.
Fawful likes falafels :)
Ooooo this should be spiccy
Sources for R1: 1. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god 2. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/exist 3. http://thekingsbible.com/Concordance/God
Big oof
Pro was the one who conceded Con was the one who forfeited final round
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
YOU BROKE THE VOTE CHAIN REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Disagree. It was a fawful falafel.
Yeet
Just saying it's a possibility ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But you can still have it removed if you tell that you want to have it removed
F for chain
It's never too late to save the chain :^)
YOU BROKE THE VOTE COMMENT CHAIN!!!
I would also like to add to my RFD the following: “Pro did not define the BOP in the description and first round. Con did so in his opening round. Since Con defined the BOP first, the BOP for the entire debate is the one that Con defined.”
Alrighty then
;–(
Y u gotta do me like dis bruh??
Make the number of characters 420 and I'll do it
mmm mmmm yummy semantics
Could see this from a mile away
Wait, people still trust Nat Geo as a credible source?
But voting on the 20 debates that someone makes and then forfeits are fun ;(
I mean, there's still SOME value in the description, like learning the words "victuals", "viands", "viaticum", and "comestibles"
Might use that vocab in a fancy restaurant someday 🤔
Oof.
I mean, there are still SOME good new debates here... right?
"You can try again when we have 3000 haha" Welp, guess I'll see you again in six months, lol
Oh wow have the times gone by...
I still remember when I made a "1000th debate" that never came to fruition, lol
How much do parents in America spank their children now?
I apologize for this silly mistake lol
To make it up, I will provide both opening arguments and rebuttals in the next round
Also 30000 character limit ;)
Make this two weeks and I'll do this
Woah woah, hold up there...
Vote RFD: "RFD in comments" Comment RFD: "RFD in votes"
THAT'S CIRCULAR REASONING! REEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
The argument I have in mind accounts for religion.
Interested?
If no one takes this debate then I could lower it to the point which you could accept it
Although I could lower the requirements if needs be.
I can see quite a few people above 1600 who would be willing and able to take this challenge.
Oro is losing!!!
NANI?!?!?!?! :O
Thanks for voting!
Boompski
Define “off”
“Con aborted this debate”
Nice 👌
Thanks
Thank you all for voting!
Last round go oof
Technically all debates that don't have any forfeited rounds will be in the "Quality Debates" section. But yes, this was a good debate.
It’s an F, therefore it’s Fawful
Do you want me to help Con here? If it's fine with you then I can reveal it.
Nice attempt at sleight of hand. Sadly, it's wrong (not going to tell Con how though, since spectators are supposed to be impartial).
Probably another falafel
Say "Falafel of Fawful" 10 times fast ;)
Hi User.
"Fawful" is a character in the Mario & Luigi superstar saga, so saying Fawful Falafel is the same as saying Falafel of Fawful.
Fawful likes falafels :)
Ooooo this should be spiccy
Sources for R1:
1. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god
2. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/exist
3. http://thekingsbible.com/Concordance/God
Big oof
Pro was the one who conceded
Con was the one who forfeited final round
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
YOU BROKE THE VOTE CHAIN REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Disagree. It was a fawful falafel.
Yeet
Just saying it's a possibility ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But you can still have it removed if you tell that you want to have it removed
F for chain
It's never too late to save the chain :^)
YOU BROKE THE VOTE COMMENT CHAIN!!!
I would also like to add to my RFD the following:
“Pro did not define the BOP in the description and first round. Con did so in his opening round. Since Con defined the BOP first, the BOP for the entire debate is the one that Con defined.”
Alrighty then
;–(
Y u gotta do me like dis bruh??
Make the number of characters 420 and I'll do it
mmm mmmm yummy semantics
Could see this from a mile away
Wait, people still trust Nat Geo as a credible source?
But voting on the 20 debates that someone makes and then forfeits are fun ;(
I mean, there's still SOME value in the description, like learning the words "victuals", "viands", "viaticum", and "comestibles"
Might use that vocab in a fancy restaurant someday 🤔
Oof.
I mean, there are still SOME good new debates here... right?
"You can try again when we have 3000 haha"
Welp, guess I'll see you again in six months, lol
Oof.
Oh wow have the times gone by...
I still remember when I made a "1000th debate" that never came to fruition, lol
How much do parents in America spank their children now?
I apologize for this silly mistake lol
To make it up, I will provide both opening arguments and rebuttals in the next round
Also 30000 character limit ;)
Make this two weeks and I'll do this
Woah woah, hold up there...
Vote RFD: "RFD in comments"
Comment RFD: "RFD in votes"
THAT'S CIRCULAR REASONING! REEEEEEE!!!!!!!!