Said document indicates it was ready sometime on the18th,
if you know this then why do you have to be such a fucking jerk? It's not my fault that the fucking site would not let me in. If the site didn't let you in it would be out of your control and I would know that so I would let you remake the argument and post it into the comments. many other debaters have done this in this the past on this site (jeffgoldum)and its all right but you're just such a fucking stuck up cunt that you have to preserve your ego. if you really thought you were good you would think you could beat me on fair grounds, not by site crash.
I messaged Whiteflames 14 minutes after the completing of my round with photographic evidence that the site would not let me in and also that my round was finished. Also, I have spoken to users before this issue took place complaining that the website is often crashing when I get in (therefore more credibility since this has happened before). Could we make a new debate and I'll just send the same thing in because I dont want voters to be confused
hey friend, as you can see, this is a site issue (https://imgur.com/a/HX4sHZw) which was happening before I could submit, and I have a also messaged members of this website at a prior time telling them that I had issues logging into this site. Also, my arguments already done before the due date (https://justpaste.it/7cfv6) so could we create another contest?
hello good friend! Can we make a new debate and when you accept I'll submit an argument as soon as I see you have accepted (the exactly argument in the link I posted yesterday).
"If you really believe that, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate over if winning debates which makes such a profound difference for the lives of many "is nothing about debating ok?""
blah blah blah blah rubbish rubbish I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIFE OK. STOP TRYING TO GET VALIDATION. "yada yada Im a soldier this that" bro this is a debating website I dont care ok?
"As is, within this debate you made real would accomplishments in debating a key point of yours,"
yup if you think it was "key" then it clearly implies that you yourself are missing key parts of your brain. It is neither proportionally nor substantially "key".
"CONDUCT to CON because PRO violated his own single rule for this debate, limiting scope to debateart.com and then pretending that rule does not apply to his (entirely absent) defintion of a "good" debater."
yup - and this is further proof that you lack any logic. absolute monstrosity. no wonder you lost you novice.
I admit to being at a loss for how anyone thinks forfeiting online debates is inherently equal or greater than saving the lives of children
blah blah blah blah why do you keep trying to pull at heartstrings???? "wah wah im so great I saved kids" buddy this is nothing about debating ok? this is the embodiment of "no body asked".
oh so just because I mentioned teject, means that my proof of whiteflames, bmdrocks21, RationalMadMan, Intelligence and MrChris are somehow null? I think you are lacking in the reason faculty.
To prove me wrong you'd need to hack into the server and edit your previous arguments were relied upon DDO.
relied? Again, since you are illiterate you ignored that whiteflames, bmdrocks21, RationalMadMan, Intelligence and MrChris have a good record here? and that I mentioned a plethora of examples which prove you wrong? Did my argument rely on DDO? IF YES then you are clearly just not smart.
oh so accidentally mentioning someone as good when mistaking this site with DDO within an ocean of 7 other examples consists of making an argument? If thats what you consider an argument, then that expalins why your so bad at debating lmao.
oh my GODDDDDD do you want to winge any more??????
"I had asked you to define a scale (what percentile of debaters here I need to be better than to be considered good). I am not seeing it."
Yeah guess what, I dont need to make arguments for you. if you want to propose a scale, it will probs be different from mine so why dont we DEBATE (oh wow what a startling surprise!) which scale is better?? if yo think that I "wholly lost on three out of four metrics" then its an easy win for you then right?? if you think your metric is so good then it must be easy for you to propose it and convince voters then.
"I want you to pre-agree what you losing would look like"
if you can prove that you are "good" according to the dictionary definitions (quite a lenient path of victory for you) then you win. how about that. you can pull any argument you want (this or that metric yada yada).
"I am curious why added rule against DDO"
I have no access to it so I can't judge it
“Is it possible, maybe 1 in 100,000 chance, that Barney doesn't really care about how "good", "vicious" or "competitive" he is?”
Very very unlikely. This is clear through him axcepting the first debate with me (and also that he asks for many changes in definitions to be added to this debate, expressing clear interest), and also . Also, if you look at barney’s record, he mercily snipes noobs who are utterly terrible at debating, indicating that he is interested in farming the superficial elo as opposed to actual debating. If he cared about the art form, he would be like Whiteflames, who does anime debates and takes on good opponents, or like thett3, who despite winning a debate clearly, demanded a draw for his opponent (who was beefing with him) got busy. These are virtuous attributes. Barney? He cares nothing for integrity and farms wins because it sustains his ego.
“If he really is, he would have at least 50 debates by now seeing he has been a user since the very beginning over 3 years ago.”
But then he would end up like oromagi - a laughing stock losing left right and centre.
what's the point of asking all the questions then just hiding? all the definitions are done - just take your time whilst you rack your brain and find more excuses.
I'll like to see you will yet again bend backwards to somehow argue that this is not a sufficient vote, all whilst ensuring to ad hoc render the votes against me in my debate valid. Good luck!
What do you think of how I convincingly refuted that when I said
B quite cheekily states the following: I shall assume via context that it is a reference of degree of skill and quality to a notably above average at debating within the confines of this website. I will refer you to the definition proposed in the first round, which says a debater is "a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B is trying to make it so that to be considered "good", they must be good only within this site. This is not the case. Imagine if I created a public speaking community with three people and I am the best. Sure, I would be the best within the site but would I be "a good speaker"? Clearly not, because the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use, it is whether they are good at "arguing about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B may wish to say the description says "we only consider debateart", but this clearly does not mean we should redefine "debater". Using my speaker example again, if I were to open a speaking comp and question whether someone else was good, whilst putting into description "we only consider this site", it clearly indicates that we can only use what we know of the person from the site (hence consider this site), but that we are still considering their speaking ability with the common definition as opposed to some weirdo skewed one which only considers those within the site.
In other words: I'm open to the idea because I know I won't actually have to do it.
nope, instead of using "in other words" inference which you are clearly cognitively unable to apply, how about you read what I say - I am open to this idea.
but if you wish for me to be explicit, yes I will beat Barney in any debate which fairly gives participants an even footing.
" Because it sounds like Vici is backing out of proving her(him?)self."
I'm sorry that you were dropped at birth, but could you tell me what part of " I am open to this idea" do you not understand. I GARUNTEE that barney will not debate me in a propper contest, we know that his little 37-0 and too precious., hence him not debating say novice in a fair contest.
Said document indicates it was ready sometime on the18th,
if you know this then why do you have to be such a fucking jerk? It's not my fault that the fucking site would not let me in. If the site didn't let you in it would be out of your control and I would know that so I would let you remake the argument and post it into the comments. many other debaters have done this in this the past on this site (jeffgoldum)and its all right but you're just such a fucking stuck up cunt that you have to preserve your ego. if you really thought you were good you would think you could beat me on fair grounds, not by site crash.
I messaged Whiteflames 14 minutes after the completing of my round with photographic evidence that the site would not let me in and also that my round was finished. Also, I have spoken to users before this issue took place complaining that the website is often crashing when I get in (therefore more credibility since this has happened before). Could we make a new debate and I'll just send the same thing in because I dont want voters to be confused
https://justpaste.it/7cfv6
just to make sure you saw it. Thanks!not my fualt there was a site crash of course...
do you not think that this is just the best thing to do lmao
only 9 days so still time for us to delete this debate.
Hello, do you agree that a recreating of the debate is the most virtuous thing to do?
Dont want to bombard, but here is my argumemt https://justpaste.it/7cfv6 posted on the day of the closing of the contest.
as thi was a site issue (prove provided) I request that this debate is deleted immediately. thank you
Do you agree to have this debate deleted, as to allow for a fair chance for both participants?
I was attempting to log in for an hour.
and as shown it wasn't working.
All my other websites were working, discord, Facebook, etc.
hey friend, as you can see, this is a site issue (https://imgur.com/a/HX4sHZw) which was happening before I could submit, and I have a also messaged members of this website at a prior time telling them that I had issues logging into this site. Also, my arguments already done before the due date (https://justpaste.it/7cfv6) so could we create another contest?
hello good friend! Can we make a new debate and when you accept I'll submit an argument as soon as I see you have accepted (the exactly argument in the link I posted yesterday).
this is not my fault - I have proof I was no able to get into the site and also proof that the argument was ready prior to the date
what the fuck is this - I couldn't even get into the site.
can we confirm that I can submit this as a document
(https://justpaste.it/7cfv6)
observe the date 19th
https://imgur.com/a/HX4sHZw
this fucking started happening and when I tried to get back into the site it started bugging
could I submit this as a form of a document?
I have it in a document and proof that it was complete before the time.
it hasn't been letting me get in
I already finished but it didn't let me post
time to get a coffee and hit the type righter.
oops haven't started
JUST say sum like "the goods of Gender Affirming Therapy is better than the bads" so then Larney can accept. ( he still wont tho you watch )
"If you really believe that, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate over if winning debates which makes such a profound difference for the lives of many "is nothing about debating ok?""
blah blah blah blah rubbish rubbish I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIFE OK. STOP TRYING TO GET VALIDATION. "yada yada Im a soldier this that" bro this is a debating website I dont care ok?
"As is, within this debate you made real would accomplishments in debating a key point of yours,"
yup if you think it was "key" then it clearly implies that you yourself are missing key parts of your brain. It is neither proportionally nor substantially "key".
"CONDUCT to CON because PRO violated his own single rule for this debate, limiting scope to debateart.com and then pretending that rule does not apply to his (entirely absent) defintion of a "good" debater."
yup - and this is further proof that you lack any logic. absolute monstrosity. no wonder you lost you novice.
I admit to being at a loss for how anyone thinks forfeiting online debates is inherently equal or greater than saving the lives of children
blah blah blah blah why do you keep trying to pull at heartstrings???? "wah wah im so great I saved kids" buddy this is nothing about debating ok? this is the embodiment of "no body asked".
oh so just because I mentioned teject, means that my proof of whiteflames, bmdrocks21, RationalMadMan, Intelligence and MrChris are somehow null? I think you are lacking in the reason faculty.
was my argument reliant on DDO in other words will my argument collapse without DDO yes or no.
To prove me wrong you'd need to hack into the server and edit your previous arguments were relied upon DDO.
relied? Again, since you are illiterate you ignored that whiteflames, bmdrocks21, RationalMadMan, Intelligence and MrChris have a good record here? and that I mentioned a plethora of examples which prove you wrong? Did my argument rely on DDO? IF YES then you are clearly just not smart.
oh so you've moved away then? first you accuse me of using ddo. then I prove you wrong you move to the "man just post an argument". nice!
oh so then you ignored that whiteflames, bmdrocks21, RationalMadMan, Intelligence and MrChris have a good record here? Great!
oh so accidentally mentioning someone as good when mistaking this site with DDO within an ocean of 7 other examples consists of making an argument? If thats what you consider an argument, then that expalins why your so bad at debating lmao.
since you relied upon evidence from that site in the previous debate...):
why do you keep saying this bull shit?
do you think you are good
if yes accept
if no leave
its simple, simpleton.
oh my GODDDDDD do you want to winge any more??????
"I had asked you to define a scale (what percentile of debaters here I need to be better than to be considered good). I am not seeing it."
Yeah guess what, I dont need to make arguments for you. if you want to propose a scale, it will probs be different from mine so why dont we DEBATE (oh wow what a startling surprise!) which scale is better?? if yo think that I "wholly lost on three out of four metrics" then its an easy win for you then right?? if you think your metric is so good then it must be easy for you to propose it and convince voters then.
"I want you to pre-agree what you losing would look like"
if you can prove that you are "good" according to the dictionary definitions (quite a lenient path of victory for you) then you win. how about that. you can pull any argument you want (this or that metric yada yada).
"I am curious why added rule against DDO"
I have no access to it so I can't judge it
can I accept.
right well take your time I suppose.
how does it feel that the person who voted for you is chronically unable to vote?
“Is it possible, maybe 1 in 100,000 chance, that Barney doesn't really care about how "good", "vicious" or "competitive" he is?”
Very very unlikely. This is clear through him axcepting the first debate with me (and also that he asks for many changes in definitions to be added to this debate, expressing clear interest), and also . Also, if you look at barney’s record, he mercily snipes noobs who are utterly terrible at debating, indicating that he is interested in farming the superficial elo as opposed to actual debating. If he cared about the art form, he would be like Whiteflames, who does anime debates and takes on good opponents, or like thett3, who despite winning a debate clearly, demanded a draw for his opponent (who was beefing with him) got busy. These are virtuous attributes. Barney? He cares nothing for integrity and farms wins because it sustains his ego.
“If he really is, he would have at least 50 debates by now seeing he has been a user since the very beginning over 3 years ago.”
But then he would end up like oromagi - a laughing stock losing left right and centre.
what's the point of asking all the questions then just hiding? all the definitions are done - just take your time whilst you rack your brain and find more excuses.
Why did you ask so many questions and now you aren't accepting? What the hell? were you just waisting my time?
you are the embodiment of when did I ask.
Hey, you're the one stipulating this and that and this and that and now you've gone cold feet? What's the point of all the questions then coward.
this is what happens when you dont accept.
I'll like to see you will yet again bend backwards to somehow argue that this is not a sufficient vote, all whilst ensuring to ad hoc render the votes against me in my debate valid. Good luck!
What do you think of how I convincingly refuted that when I said
B quite cheekily states the following: I shall assume via context that it is a reference of degree of skill and quality to a notably above average at debating within the confines of this website. I will refer you to the definition proposed in the first round, which says a debater is "a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B is trying to make it so that to be considered "good", they must be good only within this site. This is not the case. Imagine if I created a public speaking community with three people and I am the best. Sure, I would be the best within the site but would I be "a good speaker"? Clearly not, because the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use, it is whether they are good at "arguing about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B may wish to say the description says "we only consider debateart", but this clearly does not mean we should redefine "debater". Using my speaker example again, if I were to open a speaking comp and question whether someone else was good, whilst putting into description "we only consider this site", it clearly indicates that we can only use what we know of the person from the site (hence consider this site), but that we are still considering their speaking ability with the common definition as opposed to some weirdo skewed one which only considers those within the site.
Do you think this is fair? I would love a vote
Votes?
In other words: I'm open to the idea because I know I won't actually have to do it.
nope, instead of using "in other words" inference which you are clearly cognitively unable to apply, how about you read what I say - I am open to this idea.
but if you wish for me to be explicit, yes I will beat Barney in any debate which fairly gives participants an even footing.
" Because it sounds like Vici is backing out of proving her(him?)self."
I'm sorry that you were dropped at birth, but could you tell me what part of " I am open to this idea" do you not understand. I GARUNTEE that barney will not debate me in a propper contest, we know that his little 37-0 and too precious., hence him not debating say novice in a fair contest.
Great! You two can vote against me, and I'll report it and you'll be humiliated! Nothing the pair of you aren't used to.