Mharman round 5. It sounds like the background music to a space shooter game. Very mid song. If rms song is shit mharman will win. If TMs song is good and he has only had 1 good song than RM wins.
If Rms song is mid also it comes down to who had the least gay song.
Rm round 4. The song is aboutbsimping and portrays some loser who is a drug addict or alcoholic or other sort of degenerate. I oppose both degeneracy and simping so the round goes to mharman
I have ran into similar situations and it shouldn't be hypocritical for pro to argue for points but in my experience voters have a difficult time understanding arguments like THAT. for example if I accept a debate as pro on Pro should lose this debate and I argue for why I should be judged as winner, judges struggle to figure out that if I argue better for why I should lose than I should win because they are supposed to evaluate strength of arguments and not my opinion as to whether I win or not.
To take a look at how I use the snowflake method to build arguments than look at the following thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10632-live-draft-of-an-argument-for-a-debate
I think I am going to screen record my judging process. Some people I feel like are giving very good votes and yet using less effort than me. I usually take e hours to judge a debate.
I do one read through and then use 2 pieces of paper. One to track pros arguments. One to track cons arguments and then I track rebuttals and responses.
At the end I see what is standing and then do an impact analysis.
Then if I feel like the debate was close, I beat myself up for 3 days second guessing if any biases slipped into the vote that gave one side the edge.
Here is another thing that I noticed that is odd. My bias is harder to fight when a topic is above my head. I have clicked on debates and I was not understanding the jargon because it was 2 philosophy needs debating an obscure philosophy. Now I have to read their citations and look for outside sources for definitions to understand them and then after 10 hours of work I realize that despite it being a topic I have no opinion on; I still somehow have more bias than a topic I have a strong opinion on.
"I just turned tail and dodged his impacts using a strategy that might have worked for less experienced judges, but certainly not ones on the caliber of whiteflame or oromagi."
Oromagi seems to have a hard time separating his bias from his judgements and I think the fact he even awarded source points in this debate does not reflect well on his ability to use reasoned judgement.
Pro you should have looked at the effective altruism movement. I just started reading the debate but a lot of his objections seem to already have been addressed by the effective altruism movement. We also have examples of people in the movement who no bullshit live in poverty off of 25% of their income and donate 75% to help the needy, and these are people happier as a result of doing so.
Pro has the entire BOP here. You insist you have suicidal ideation. So BOP is on you to prove that you have enough things you feel good about yourself that con cannot use this suicidal ideation against you.
I have been depressed myself. Good luck proving you have enough things to live for that the voters agree with couldn't be overcome by a convincing, and genius narcissist who gets off on the emotional trauma he causes others.
"if the cock of life ever reaches your unsuspecting ass hole unless you are privileged to have the cock moving towards you slowly or to have fast enough legs to escape it with ease but that is not the case for most beings."
I think Murray rothbard takes it to its logical conclusion if I am not mistaken and actually believed in legalizing child neglect. Some libertarians view the point of birth as a creation of a type of contract but the latter is more cope to deal with the uncomfortable reality of the logical conclusion that libertarian philosophy leads to.
I dont know if you actually believe the following statement but it would make a more interesting debate than whatever this is. I also dont think me and you have ever debated. I also don't know how far you are willing to take this premise. If you take it to its logical conclusion than it would be easier to defend but then you would be doing it from an extreme libertarian position.
". The constitution's 13th amendment forbade slavery and involuntary servitude [1]. Needless to say, forcing women to be pregnant against their wishes is using them as a slave caste."
This is why you have to refrained the debate. Flat earthers start with a philosophy of you can only trust personal experiments on the matter and that the collected knowledge and wisdom of scientists are useless because younneed to be able to personally verify the work. You then have the judges actually conduct simple experiments they can do at home to prove flat earth. Pro will then try to explain what is seen through a round earth model but judges have an ethical obligation to dismiss his arguments if they dont involve the ability for you to personally test if they are true, given the framework imposed by the flat earther.
Why do you have that interpretation. Honest question my interpretation is a split BOP where pro has to prove a spherical earth is more likely than not and con has the BOP to determine a flat earth more likely than not.
It's not all set for pro. Pineapple is not available in some parts of the world and some people may be allergic to it. If con is one of the people allergic in a region that doesn't have any than it should be an easy win
I still can't vote yet. I will say I don't think pedophiles are as small in number as we would like to believe. At least not judging by my run ins with people who tried to molest me as a kid.
I would say the failure to get treatment is more than likely due to a fear of being outed to the police even if thy are a non offending pedophile a therapist may feel a legal obligation to report them if they have any contact with children. So a family man with w daughters who fights the urge to molest seeks help so he doesn't molest than a therapist would be required by law to report that his daughters are in danger and his kids will be taken away, even if he never touched them and in fact was in therapy to ensure he never will touch them.
The laws requiring reporting are probably to blame for a lot of incidents of molestation. I guess you would have to balance whether the report laws save more children or harm more children to know if thy re worth it, but I am skeptical of forced reporting.
I am just an idiot with bad taste in music who was asked to share his opinion and the chanting reminded me of a few beheading videos I watched.
If fish chaser prefers music that makes his chakras feel good that should be a reasonable vote.
Unfortunately RM had a decent song in round 5.
I am annoyed now that my recommended have likely been altered. I am also annoyed that I had to watch ads for RMs songs but not for mharmans.
I also hate techno and probably leaned towards songs that sound less techno and for that I apologize in advance but RM wins.
Mharman round 5. It sounds like the background music to a space shooter game. Very mid song. If rms song is shit mharman will win. If TMs song is good and he has only had 1 good song than RM wins.
If Rms song is mid also it comes down to who had the least gay song.
Rm round 4. The song is aboutbsimping and portrays some loser who is a drug addict or alcoholic or other sort of degenerate. I oppose both degeneracy and simping so the round goes to mharman
Mharman round 4. This is his first song I actually liked the sound of.
Rm round 3.
This is the first song u actually would consider adding to my Playlist so I have to give RM the point for round 3
Mharman round 3 is a song supporting biden by adapting his slogan of build back better
Rm round 2 sounds like the chants I heard from hamas when thy were raping an killing Israeli children.
I cannot support terrorism so round 2 goes to mharman
Mharman round 2 sounds like a sexy woman making sex noises. Erection officially lost now
RM song 1 sounds like a guy gargling on cock.
Round 1 goes to RM for making me hard
Mharman song 1 feels like a 90s intro to a goosebumps style show
Not a fair topic. Usually you should avoid debating truisms
I might just match energy here and give the same effort to round 2 as he did.
Fine.
I am not about to vote and be accused of bias unless I am the only option to break the tie
If you don't feel like reading round 2, he says it is retarded because he disagrees with the conclusion.
I have ran into similar situations and it shouldn't be hypocritical for pro to argue for points but in my experience voters have a difficult time understanding arguments like THAT. for example if I accept a debate as pro on Pro should lose this debate and I argue for why I should be judged as winner, judges struggle to figure out that if I argue better for why I should lose than I should win because they are supposed to evaluate strength of arguments and not my opinion as to whether I win or not.
I agree given the spirit of his reminder of 3 hours being left
I would not worry about the forfeited round. People will have a hard time justifying giving pro conduct points here.
To take a look at how I use the snowflake method to build arguments than look at the following thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10632-live-draft-of-an-argument-for-a-debate
I think I am going to screen record my judging process. Some people I feel like are giving very good votes and yet using less effort than me. I usually take e hours to judge a debate.
I do one read through and then use 2 pieces of paper. One to track pros arguments. One to track cons arguments and then I track rebuttals and responses.
At the end I see what is standing and then do an impact analysis.
Then if I feel like the debate was close, I beat myself up for 3 days second guessing if any biases slipped into the vote that gave one side the edge.
Here is another thing that I noticed that is odd. My bias is harder to fight when a topic is above my head. I have clicked on debates and I was not understanding the jargon because it was 2 philosophy needs debating an obscure philosophy. Now I have to read their citations and look for outside sources for definitions to understand them and then after 10 hours of work I realize that despite it being a topic I have no opinion on; I still somehow have more bias than a topic I have a strong opinion on.
"I just turned tail and dodged his impacts using a strategy that might have worked for less experienced judges, but certainly not ones on the caliber of whiteflame or oromagi."
Oromagi seems to have a hard time separating his bias from his judgements and I think the fact he even awarded source points in this debate does not reflect well on his ability to use reasoned judgement.
Pro you should have looked at the effective altruism movement. I just started reading the debate but a lot of his objections seem to already have been addressed by the effective altruism movement. We also have examples of people in the movement who no bullshit live in poverty off of 25% of their income and donate 75% to help the needy, and these are people happier as a result of doing so.
If you want to be a dick just make sure you out logic your opponent. Conduct points only matters in close debates.
Spelling and grammar points should be extremely rare to award. Just to avoid unfair bias against non native English speakers.
Just going to ue this as an excuse to test out my new strategy that has yet to be implemented to see if the argumentbis even remotely interesting
I will never bitch about lack of votes. People have real lives. If the shit isn't engaging enough to get votes than so be it.
Pro has the entire BOP here. You insist you have suicidal ideation. So BOP is on you to prove that you have enough things you feel good about yourself that con cannot use this suicidal ideation against you.
I have been depressed myself. Good luck proving you have enough things to live for that the voters agree with couldn't be overcome by a convincing, and genius narcissist who gets off on the emotional trauma he causes others.
It is really hard to get through canning season in Alaska but if you survive it you would have a ton of money to start a new life with.
Here is a real quote from fish chaser.
"if the cock of life ever reaches your unsuspecting ass hole unless you are privileged to have the cock moving towards you slowly or to have fast enough legs to escape it with ease but that is not the case for most beings."
I am considering this. I think I have an angle
I think Murray rothbard takes it to its logical conclusion if I am not mistaken and actually believed in legalizing child neglect. Some libertarians view the point of birth as a creation of a type of contract but the latter is more cope to deal with the uncomfortable reality of the logical conclusion that libertarian philosophy leads to.
I dont know if you actually believe the following statement but it would make a more interesting debate than whatever this is. I also dont think me and you have ever debated. I also don't know how far you are willing to take this premise. If you take it to its logical conclusion than it would be easier to defend but then you would be doing it from an extreme libertarian position.
". The constitution's 13th amendment forbade slavery and involuntary servitude [1]. Needless to say, forcing women to be pregnant against their wishes is using them as a slave caste."
I dont know what the fuck that was but it made me pro life. Thanks pro.
Yes.
Thanks for an unbiased jidgement . Pro's latest thread may change your mind though
Fuck this was closer than I expected. Not sure how it will play out when judging is done.
I do not admit to saying that.
Good luck with your rebuttal.
I can tell you that defending always right or always wrong seems easier than being nuanced but it just feels wrong.
It's just a joke LOL. It also happens to be factually accurate that the debate is about the penises of children
bill gates is not famous for wearing a black polo shirt. I am pissed at myself for missing that type
The book zetetic astronomy lays out the argument I am talking about better and is free online
This is why you have to refrained the debate. Flat earthers start with a philosophy of you can only trust personal experiments on the matter and that the collected knowledge and wisdom of scientists are useless because younneed to be able to personally verify the work. You then have the judges actually conduct simple experiments they can do at home to prove flat earth. Pro will then try to explain what is seen through a round earth model but judges have an ethical obligation to dismiss his arguments if they dont involve the ability for you to personally test if they are true, given the framework imposed by the flat earther.
Why do you have that interpretation. Honest question my interpretation is a split BOP where pro has to prove a spherical earth is more likely than not and con has the BOP to determine a flat earth more likely than not.
It's not all set for pro. Pineapple is not available in some parts of the world and some people may be allergic to it. If con is one of the people allergic in a region that doesn't have any than it should be an easy win
Anyone who. Doesn't pick cat suit is an idiot.
I knew leftwing ideology was completely indefensible
I skimmed it and saw it. I read some rounds portions entirely and skimmed others. Just adding to what you said
I still can't vote yet. I will say I don't think pedophiles are as small in number as we would like to believe. At least not judging by my run ins with people who tried to molest me as a kid.
I would say the failure to get treatment is more than likely due to a fear of being outed to the police even if thy are a non offending pedophile a therapist may feel a legal obligation to report them if they have any contact with children. So a family man with w daughters who fights the urge to molest seeks help so he doesn't molest than a therapist would be required by law to report that his daughters are in danger and his kids will be taken away, even if he never touched them and in fact was in therapy to ensure he never will touch them.
The laws requiring reporting are probably to blame for a lot of incidents of molestation. I guess you would have to balance whether the report laws save more children or harm more children to know if thy re worth it, but I am skeptical of forced reporting.