Forgive me for not acknowledging your rebuttals in Round 2. I was keeping my response brief, so you didn’t get annoyed with the length of the response.
In Round 3, I’ll focus specifically on your rebuttals from Rounds 2&3.
All theatre performances involve leadership of some kind.
It’s not uncommon for more experienced actors/actresses with seniority to delegate commands to their proteges or even offer advice.
Kurt Russell is a brilliant actor. He is the star of quite a few of John Carpenter’s movies and he demonstrates his leadership ability in the characters he plays.
Yeah. Having sparring certainly makes a difference, especially in establishing the dojo as a legitimate one.
However, the amount of rules and restrictions in modern TKD sparring really limit what you’re able to do. The sparring is great for tournaments and scoring points, but useless in street or cage fighting.
Capitalism wasn’t really the focus here, as I’m the one who draws the comparison first to illustrate there are worse evils than the misdeeds invoked in the name of Socialism.
My quote: “It is this abusive treatment of the poor by the rich and wealthy that proves the need for socialism.”
But despite me referencing it several times, it isn’t very relevant to the debate.
Logicae: “While I do not defend capitalism explicitly in this debate, I will entertain this point.”
Logicae's quote on Socialism being anti-social.:
"Contention 1 Socialism is anti-social
The use of the word “social” in Socialism is disingenuous because it aims to sneak in the preconceived notion that we are all involved and have a say in its construction and implementation. But Socialism, despite euphemism in name, is far from social."
My response:
"Social Darwinism was a sociological theory that embraced the idea of “Survival of The Fittest” in society, allowing only wealthy people to triumph while completely disregarding those at the bottom of the hierarchy. This theory was used to enable rich industrialists taking advantage of poor people and even justify racism.
Socialism is the antithesis to Social Darwinism. Socialism is based on the idea that cooperation is more effective for long-term survival and balance than competition. In an ideal socialist world, everyone has value.
That’s okay. Let’s discuss.
If the semantics is your main concern, why not create a new debate by challenging Austin directly and rally the court of public opinion to your side?
Sounds good to me.
The thread had an interesting title.
Forgive me for not acknowledging your rebuttals in Round 2. I was keeping my response brief, so you didn’t get annoyed with the length of the response.
In Round 3, I’ll focus specifically on your rebuttals from Rounds 2&3.
Oh boy, this is going to escalate. 😂😂😂
Awesome
May I accept?
I had similar discussions about this particular subject on Reddit. Though, I don’t know how much my actual insight will pan out as a whole.
You win by default. (Just announce it in the 2nd round in your following reply.)
If the topic is not established within the first round and Con forfeits, you can declare an auto loss.
It’s recommended you include in the description, “No forfeiting,” but it’s not a requirement.
This argument reads spiritual vibes. It’s more like my opinion vs your opinion instead of which is objectively more true.
Skipper presents better arguments and established his version with more conviction.
Liam’s “rebuttals” only bring the convo to an impasse.
Called what
I'm pretty confident in my chances regardless of those factors.
Easy for you to lose.
🤪
This will be an easy victory.
Don’t even know the guy personally. I’m only aware that his debate skills are top-tier.
You cannot escape your fate by postponing the inevitable.
All theatre performances involve leadership of some kind.
It’s not uncommon for more experienced actors/actresses with seniority to delegate commands to their proteges or even offer advice.
Kurt Russell is a brilliant actor. He is the star of quite a few of John Carpenter’s movies and he demonstrates his leadership ability in the characters he plays.
Yeah, the resolution is destroyed with one word.
Politician.
Alcibiades is a classic example of this.
I tried to warn you.
Just read his post in the 1st round.
Now consider he’s only using 1% of his power.
I might have given him the benefit of the doubt, but after this brief interaction, I’m convinced now more than ever that I’m right.
I’m saying credibility isn’t necessary to argue my point.
HOW did you misinterpret that??????
It has nothing to do with Skipper personally. Austin is frankly, just too good.
Skipper could have utilized months of prep and study time, and it still wouldn’t make a difference.
I don’t need credibility. The results will eventually prove my point for me.
My lack of credentials will have no effect on Austin’s victory in this debate.
Having Skipper debate Austin is too big of a mismatch.
The latter is going to make quick work of this discussion.
LOL. Islam is the only?
Your idol may not have much luck in 2024, especially concerning his dinner date with the Nazi's biggest cheerleader.
My favorite debate thus far.
Great job to both participants.
Oh dear lord, I can estimate the amount of triggered people in the following few weeks.
Yeah. Having sparring certainly makes a difference, especially in establishing the dojo as a legitimate one.
However, the amount of rules and restrictions in modern TKD sparring really limit what you’re able to do. The sparring is great for tournaments and scoring points, but useless in street or cage fighting.
Logicae’s position: Socialism is evil.
Mine: Socialism is good for mankind.
Capitalism wasn’t really the focus here, as I’m the one who draws the comparison first to illustrate there are worse evils than the misdeeds invoked in the name of Socialism.
My quote: “It is this abusive treatment of the poor by the rich and wealthy that proves the need for socialism.”
But despite me referencing it several times, it isn’t very relevant to the debate.
Logicae: “While I do not defend capitalism explicitly in this debate, I will entertain this point.”
Logicae's quote on Socialism being anti-social.:
"Contention 1 Socialism is anti-social
The use of the word “social” in Socialism is disingenuous because it aims to sneak in the preconceived notion that we are all involved and have a say in its construction and implementation. But Socialism, despite euphemism in name, is far from social."
My response:
"Social Darwinism was a sociological theory that embraced the idea of “Survival of The Fittest” in society, allowing only wealthy people to triumph while completely disregarding those at the bottom of the hierarchy. This theory was used to enable rich industrialists taking advantage of poor people and even justify racism.
Socialism is the antithesis to Social Darwinism. Socialism is based on the idea that cooperation is more effective for long-term survival and balance than competition. In an ideal socialist world, everyone has value.
No more needs to be said."
I realize the subject matter is intended to be offensive, but I find it difficult to take this debate seriously.
The compulsive use of homophobic slurs in the description followed up with the pseudonym "fruitcake" has me losing it.
Vici spends 24+ hours of their time trying to get Barney's attention and proceeds to accuse the latter of seeking validation.
Ironic.
Thank you and likewise!
This is a very fascinating thread.