the reasoning why I stopped focusing on quality is that even with all the evidence combined, overall I found that schools were equal in quality, charter or not. I felt like it couldn't defeat how the fraud outweighed the effect of public schools, and so I didn't bother stressing it too much, especially since supadudz presented evidence without reasoning. In the end, I suppose I could've bluffed my way through since Supadudz would've had to put in so much more effort to defeat the positive points.
sorry for not using sources, I kind of meant this to be a 7 point mostly logic-based argument. Is it fine if we ask voters not to vote on sources? I don't want to lose just due to having no sources. I like relying on logic
also I'd appreciate it if you try not to use too much statistics about PTSD if you can. I don't want this to turn into an "Exact number of people affected" debate that depends on level 9,000 research lol
never mind, I listened to his "I love you" speech and I don't think anything could defeat that, the idea that humans are emotional creatures and therefore must speak useless truths at times.
the woman in the Chinese show uses the crux, "let me think, let me be silent, let me craft a better argument, so that not only is this true, it is also worth mentioning", that's how she almost ties the pro side [but Pro's solid useless "I love you" is a very, very strong conclusion]
I could easily claim cherry pick fallacy and that 17 debate with 88% win is nothing compared to 350 debates with 60% winrate (https://www.debate.org/9spaceking/)
to be honest, I kind of wanted to see if supadudz could play the nitty-gritty game and slowly but surely take down the arguments. He didn't have time against Oromagi so we don't know for sure if the thorough refutation was enough to defeat him.
you might want to check out https://gaymarriagedebate.jimdofree.com/ if you want to see a lengthier debate (though con side caves in and isn't as well researched)
PRO: Sources clarify and greatly help argument. A) source must be used to build the impact of argument, B) necessary to prove absurd notions (fiction ex), C) creates superior argument
CON: Not needed to win debate. A) should be vs are necessary B) hypothetical situation was weak C) Facts are well known and don't need sources
PRO: A) source is still needed for voting, and con is ambiguous with relations of source B) No evidence that voters don't need to vote on sources. C) even one source would defeat con's notion and con just wanted more
CON: A) Pro still dodges question on voting policy (voters still not required) B) Claims that pro is making false assertions, especially how a source itself is not an argument C) Dismisses (not real situation)
PRO: A) argues from necessities B) supports A by saying it further helps requirement of a vote C) Uses "Winter is Coming" to create an idea for implied goal/objective
CON: A) says Pro failed to provide actual evidence and experience B) denies pro and implied he hasn't proved it yet C) Dismissed again and speaks with the author of the voting guide D) confused by pro arg
PRO: A) Says it's simple logic and con is dismissing too many things B) Implies that his own experience is enough C) notes from his own research that people do in fact vote on sources D) continues on with the idea that timing is important so C cannot be used for rebuttal
CON: A) points out pro still hasn't shown the text B) infers that the lack of info still yet disproves pro's case C) DISMISSES! The new argument and says it was previously agreed that no new args in round 4 D) relates back to pro's untrustworthiness and false statements.
Overall I feel like pro's case isn't fulfilled enough and he continuously dodged the burden, while con kept pointing out that not all debates needed sources
I listened to both and I like eminem's music better, but it feels less consistent message wise (Eminem's album have not been such a massive influence as Pimp Butterfly)
im just basing off of the songs and the success they had in the last decade; it seems lamar's impact is greater than eminem. Though overall yeah I feel m&m has better impact
...though I am beginning to regret challenging one of the strongest debaters on the site while playing devil's advocate (I think it should just be legalized generally lol)
haha, con, you bastard, that's not how it works, if Bill Gates asserted he was the richest man on earth there is no need to check that everyone on the planet has less money than him, it would be up to someone to have more money and challenge Bill Gates for the title
this debate looks very painful. You're gonna need Oromagi's destruction to kill all these ridiculous sources.
it's obvious who's going to win this one.
you might want the "tie your shoe", "please be careful" argument now...
ohhh wait, it's not for no reason that you are loathed -- it's disgusting person; slob
the reasoning why I stopped focusing on quality is that even with all the evidence combined, overall I found that schools were equal in quality, charter or not. I felt like it couldn't defeat how the fraud outweighed the effect of public schools, and so I didn't bother stressing it too much, especially since supadudz presented evidence without reasoning. In the end, I suppose I could've bluffed my way through since Supadudz would've had to put in so much more effort to defeat the positive points.
forfeiting deducts conduct point, and is hence, a mistake.
guess I just have to defeat your arguments in a ratio of at least 3:2 votes lol, that's difficult
sorry for not using sources, I kind of meant this to be a 7 point mostly logic-based argument. Is it fine if we ask voters not to vote on sources? I don't want to lose just due to having no sources. I like relying on logic
thoughts on this one? I'm taking pro cuz he won, though I think con's args are decent
that fraud argument might be the end of me... lol, good luck Supadudz
also I'd appreciate it if you try not to use too much statistics about PTSD if you can. I don't want this to turn into an "Exact number of people affected" debate that depends on level 9,000 research lol
done.
oh, I just thought of an excellent argument to counter "I love you"
thoughts on this topic? Is con impossible to win, as shown in I can I BB? Or can you two garner some incredible arguments that Con hasn't thought of?
never mind, I listened to his "I love you" speech and I don't think anything could defeat that, the idea that humans are emotional creatures and therefore must speak useless truths at times.
the woman in the Chinese show uses the crux, "let me think, let me be silent, let me craft a better argument, so that not only is this true, it is also worth mentioning", that's how she almost ties the pro side [but Pro's solid useless "I love you" is a very, very strong conclusion]
never mind, are you sure you thought of a good argument against the woman? She seemed remarkably difficult to defeat.
is this even possible for con to win this one?
how the hell can pro win this?
I could easily claim cherry pick fallacy and that 17 debate with 88% win is nothing compared to 350 debates with 60% winrate (https://www.debate.org/9spaceking/)
okay
you'd be surprised what a little research can do (https://www.deviantart.com/sel-diora/art/The-Ineffectiveness-of-Gun-Control-Policies-592871880)
to be honest, I kind of wanted to see if supadudz could play the nitty-gritty game and slowly but surely take down the arguments. He didn't have time against Oromagi so we don't know for sure if the thorough refutation was enough to defeat him.
you might want to check out https://gaymarriagedebate.jimdofree.com/ if you want to see a lengthier debate (though con side caves in and isn't as well researched)
couldn't think of anything
o no
RFD
PRO: Sources clarify and greatly help argument. A) source must be used to build the impact of argument, B) necessary to prove absurd notions (fiction ex), C) creates superior argument
CON: Not needed to win debate. A) should be vs are necessary B) hypothetical situation was weak C) Facts are well known and don't need sources
PRO: A) source is still needed for voting, and con is ambiguous with relations of source B) No evidence that voters don't need to vote on sources. C) even one source would defeat con's notion and con just wanted more
CON: A) Pro still dodges question on voting policy (voters still not required) B) Claims that pro is making false assertions, especially how a source itself is not an argument C) Dismisses (not real situation)
PRO: A) argues from necessities B) supports A by saying it further helps requirement of a vote C) Uses "Winter is Coming" to create an idea for implied goal/objective
CON: A) says Pro failed to provide actual evidence and experience B) denies pro and implied he hasn't proved it yet C) Dismissed again and speaks with the author of the voting guide D) confused by pro arg
PRO: A) Says it's simple logic and con is dismissing too many things B) Implies that his own experience is enough C) notes from his own research that people do in fact vote on sources D) continues on with the idea that timing is important so C cannot be used for rebuttal
CON: A) points out pro still hasn't shown the text B) infers that the lack of info still yet disproves pro's case C) DISMISSES! The new argument and says it was previously agreed that no new args in round 4 D) relates back to pro's untrustworthiness and false statements.
Overall I feel like pro's case isn't fulfilled enough and he continuously dodged the burden, while con kept pointing out that not all debates needed sources
I listened to both and I like eminem's music better, but it feels less consistent message wise (Eminem's album have not been such a massive influence as Pimp Butterfly)
I couldn't figure out how to beat Ajabi's argument so I thought it was perfect lol
im just basing off of the songs and the success they had in the last decade; it seems lamar's impact is greater than eminem. Though overall yeah I feel m&m has better impact
ahhh... *best* solution! That's how I defeat the pro side of the argument.
You could make that case. But it’s still tough to overcome the ban, and agreeing on specific countries holding power is tough
does it matter?
this was seriously too tough lol plz increase 100 char limit
I don't see the point of having 100 char limit only to have a doc with much bigger char limit
you just gave me a malicious idea.
I am very curious why Christopher thinks my resume isn't enough to be employed for an internship.
please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--HdatJwbQY
infinities get really weird. Look up the Ghandi series and how you can derive 0, 1, 1/2, from 1-1+1-1+1-1+1....
wrong. "31134" can mean "hello".
you fell for my trap!
*person draws single blue line* "yes"
though I suppose if you were religious, I'd have to argue the opposite (that god is not going to help your argument, lol)
o, I just wanted to resolve the tie on his other debate since it had no votes
get rekt bro it's an English quine
...though I am beginning to regret challenging one of the strongest debaters on the site while playing devil's advocate (I think it should just be legalized generally lol)
by the way this debate is going I fear Ragnar supporting euthanizing babies lol
crap ran out of time
haha, con, you bastard, that's not how it works, if Bill Gates asserted he was the richest man on earth there is no need to check that everyone on the planet has less money than him, it would be up to someone to have more money and challenge Bill Gates for the title
you could definitely prove that Whiteflame is better than Oromagi using that many characters LOL