Saying a word, Milkshake, does not imply ALL milkshakes. Fish are blue. Isn't necessarily saying that all fish are blue, there isn't enough information there to assume that ALL fish are blue. Of course it CAN imply that, but it does not necessarily have too. Again, semantic is semantic.
You are one of the most dishonest debaters I have ever witnessed. "Where's the evidence?" Literally ignores the source number in the quote YOU provided.
Yeah..... you've been utterly demolished. All of your rebuttals were hogwash, and when you attempted to justify a claim, you misunderstood most core premises.
Overall good debate, I think I might've won if we were going points basis, especially considering how you kind of ignored half of my points. But I did like your counter rebuttal.
My dude.... you have no idea how much I want to respond with a single sentence. It's fine though, I'm gonna write another argument that's 5 times longer than yours and you'll still only reference ONE point. (Well, 2, but that's not as dramatic)
I look forward to your argument, but do realize that nihilism doesn't have much to do with the pro side of the debate. I mean, it kind of does, but it's not an enviable position.
Thank you for the welcomes! I've actually wanted to debate this topic for a long time but this specific would be trolled on debate.com in minutes. Thank you Intelligence_06 for recommending me here.
Saying a word, Milkshake, does not imply ALL milkshakes. Fish are blue. Isn't necessarily saying that all fish are blue, there isn't enough information there to assume that ALL fish are blue. Of course it CAN imply that, but it does not necessarily have too. Again, semantic is semantic.
I believe that I said, GENERALLY, in the description. Please stop it with the semantic ignorance.
I apologize for the late argument, I've been very busy recently, hopefully my 1st round is challenging enough.
That's fair, kinda nervous for my first serious debate here, but hopefully I provide a good challenge. I'll post first argument then.
I think it was smart considering the resolution's wording, but I disagree
The semantics are real with this one...
You are one of the most dishonest debaters I have ever witnessed. "Where's the evidence?" Literally ignores the source number in the quote YOU provided.
Yeah..... you've been utterly demolished. All of your rebuttals were hogwash, and when you attempted to justify a claim, you misunderstood most core premises.
Overall good debate, I think I might've won if we were going points basis, especially considering how you kind of ignored half of my points. But I did like your counter rebuttal.
In round 4, the last note should be Note III instead of Note II, my bad.
My dude.... you have no idea how much I want to respond with a single sentence. It's fine though, I'm gonna write another argument that's 5 times longer than yours and you'll still only reference ONE point. (Well, 2, but that's not as dramatic)
No problem, its definitely an interesting point.
I look forward to your argument, but do realize that nihilism doesn't have much to do with the pro side of the debate. I mean, it kind of does, but it's not an enviable position.
I'm going to be honest with you- I had some flashbacks there, I almost thought he followed me here.
Thank you for the welcomes! I've actually wanted to debate this topic for a long time but this specific would be trolled on debate.com in minutes. Thank you Intelligence_06 for recommending me here.