Total posts: 352
Posted in:
I just stumbled upon this review of Frozen I wrote years ago when I first watched it. Contains spoilers. Enjoy, folks.
With beautiful animation, catchy songs, and a great story line in general, Disney has really outdone itself with its new movie, Frozen. Although with some minor errors and much improvement to be applied, it is still a wonderful movie.
Starting out with a strange chant, Frozen opens up with introducing Kristoff and his hard life and close connection to his reindeer. The scene quickly moves to two playful sisters, one named Anna and the other named Elsa, whom has icy powers, and inadvertently leads to an accident that almost kills Anna. Anna was only saved by a magical Troll with healing powers, mentioning that if it was the heart that was frozen, it would be much harder to unfreeze. In addition, her parents die in a tragic massive wave, which only pressures her stress more, and by the end of the first song, "Do You Want to Build a Snowman", it is established that Elsa is a lonely and cold character, and while Anna is playful at first, she becomes unsociable as well, which explains her awkwardness in front of people, even during coronation day, Anna is so excited she blurts out her feelings in the song "For the First Time in Forever", crashing into a handsome man named Hans.
After that, the scene quickly transitions and there's a spark of hope as Elsa actually interacts with Anna, surprising her, and the energetic song "Life's an Open Door" is sang loudly and proudly from Anna and the stranger she just met that very day, Hans. However, this scenery is destroyed almost immediately, as Elsa is so frustrated she reveals her powers, adding an unexpected plot twist, which only increases the suspense and excitement.
After Elsa runs into the forest, she leaves the castle and village in eternal winter, leaving Anna next in line for rule and while climbing the mountain, she displays her amazing powers in yet another catchy song, "Let it Go", even creating a humongous ice castle! Anna quickly follows, leaving the rule to Hans, then getting help from a man named Kristoff, who really needed his equipment and carrots which Anna bought, for the reason of his tough job, which was revealed in the beginning of the film.
While exploring, the two find the snowman Anna and Elsa had build when they were young--except it became alive throughout "Let it Go", unbeknownst to Elsa. The snowman, named Olaf, is hilarious, funny, and childish, liking the idea of summer, singing a jovial song "In Summer", adding a comedy style to the movie, stressing the image that it's all going to be okay, in contrast to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, in which he kills off the comedian, and the book ends in a tragedy.
When Anna enters Elsa's castle, she attempts to rejoice by singing a reprise of "For the First Time in Forever", but Elsa rejects, yelling out and striking Anna right in the heart, sending a gigantic snow golem that narrowly killed them. While Anna, Kristoff, and Olaf try to figure out what to do, Kristoff figures out that Anna was harmed by Elsa, and so he brings her to his friends...who are the trolls in the beginning of the movie! Kristoff turned out to have watched the healing scene and thought the trolls had the power to fix Anna. Unfortunately, the trolls misunderstand Kristoff's true purpose, even going so far as to sing the song "Everybody's a Bit of a Fixer-Upper", which only dramatizes the situation, and instantly when the leader troll steps in the audience can sense a lot of tension.
This is when the solution of True Love comes in, and the audience will probably groan and moan about the lameness of the idea, but-- there's more to it! When Anna finally gets together with Hans, he quickly reveals that he really didn't love her after all and it was a ploy all along. Hans even told her he had already arrested and took hold of Elsa in jail, who didn't know how to unfreeze the winter; he was just waiting for the right reason to finish off Elsa--the murder of Anna. As he diminishes the fire burning in the room and with amazing acting skills, announces Anna's death, he goes to kill Elsa.
Elsa's bursting out of jail releases lots of chaos, attracting Kristoff's reindeer's attention, who forcibly pushes Kristoff towards the castle, knowing something went wrong. Olaf goes ahead, assisting Anna in her escape from the crumbling castle. Soon enough, the climax of the movie is reached, and as Kristoff is just about to reach Anna, she sees her sister about to become murdered by Hans. And so Anna stops Hans' blade, even freezing just in time.
After some weeping and somberly taking the scene in, Anna --Unfreezes!! This is explained by the sisterly sacrifice, adding yet another meaning to "true love". As Elsa thaws out the winter, Olaf starts to melt, stating that "This is my best day ever. Possibly the last day too." But Elsa saves Olaf by creating a mini-personal snow flurry!
The rest of the movie goes like all Disney movies go--Hans is punched, drenched in water, then put in jail, and after Kristoff and Anna share a kiss, everybody is skating across Elsa's ice-skating rink, and the movie ends.
Although with such good plot and catchy songs, Frozen nevertheless has some mistakes: the suspense could be increased much more and thus be more exciting, Hans could leave some hints about his greediness and be ten times meaner, creating more suspense in the movie, and finally, even the main characters seem very undeveloped throughout the story, giving the illusion that Olaf is the best and most complicated character, even though, based on the creators, he was supposed to be "simple". Oh yes, and we can't ignore the fact that Kristoff never says his name yet Anna guesses it correctly on her first try. However, these flaws still barely impede the movie, and the movie flashes by fast enough to create drama and whisk the audience past all these mistakes.
In summary, Frozen is an amazing movie. Despite its flaws, I agree with the title "Best Animated Movie of the Year". Rating it 10 out of 10, I suggest you to watch it too.
Created:
Posted in:
Also I noticed that Oromagi accepts like 90% of his debates rather than instigating... that infers that the way to win consistently is to pick a good/vulnerable topic posted by someone else, rather than attempting to start debates yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
wikipedia.org
some think it's obvious, others think it's untrustworthy. It's a decent starting point.
Created:
Posted in:
which debate topics are you guys strongest at? Here's my list:
- Smoking Should be Criminalized (pro)
- Gun Control Should be Tightened in the US (con)
- On Balance Social Media has negative effect on users' mental health (pro)
- Gay Marriage Should be Legalized (pro)
- Table Tennis is the most enjoyable Asian sport (pro)
- We Should Colonize Mars by 2100 (pro)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
"hardest debate yet"
*seldiora sad noises*
Created:
Posted in:
I like to review songs for all that don't know. Check out favesongs.wordpress.com if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
would you like to debate me about this? You will lose, 100% guaranteed.
Created:
Posted in:
with the big obstacle intel out of the way, I believe MisterChris is going to win against Supadudz, based off previous experience. Thoughts?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
So... Kantian. We've gone back to Kantianism, Categorical Imperatives + Virtue Theory. Both of which have been thoroughly negated before for their weaknesses. lol
Created:
Posted in:
yes.... Oromagi edges ever closer with every debate he takes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
to be fair, most of it was noob sniping. My prowess was only shown with smoke ban and ping pong being the best sport. I didn't get to debate gun control or anything.
Created:
Posted in:
After I finish my abortion debate with misterchris, if I am still below 1500 I'm gonna transfer to a farming account dedicated to winning debates. The name will be obvious so you guys can watch out for it. Stay tuned!
Created:
Posted in:
I searched up debating sites and DART was not anywhere near the top. DebateIsland barely gives a chance for the instigator to respond on what is mostly "change my mind" posts, and it's excruciatingly difficult to create and access actual debates on the site. Kailo is fine, but limited to students + teacher community. And Debate hub is ... okay theoretically, but the layout is so mundane and even sorting by votes gets error lol.
Created:
Not intended as insult or attack, just found it funny to poke fun at, because my elo was so low that he got bumped out of top 5.... lol
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
The description will serve as the first round. you are not listening, random is random, RANDOM, you have not shown me what you say is true.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Mikal is probably even more confusing
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
an interesting argument, but the nature of animals to be free directly challenges animal rights, a controversial issue.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Okay. Back to the drawing board. This time I will add Socrates method questioning in order to break through the argument.
P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
Q: Is it possible to clarify further this statement? MisterChris has noticed that even despite heavily differing opinions, there are specific measures which we appeal to -- liberty, life, happiness. Therefore, P1 as detailed as possible would be: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles, for example, concerning life, liberty, and happiness.
Q: Can he back this up? The problem is, he expects that anything objective has universal use of a standard. But E=MC^2 was not used until Einstein's discovery of the formula, despite its objective nature. Similarly, Calculus was not even perfected until Isaac Newton broke through with his discoveries. Physics was only established as a standard from Aristotle's time, despite being universally objective. There are countless objective scientific theories we have not found the basis to. For example, there is no "standard set of principles" to ground the Reimann Hypothesis, despite it being objective. Many objective ideas are not "universally used with a standard set". (especially considering physics did not exist in BC era, so we couldn't have used it)
P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.
Whenever two men have a dispute, the one side tries to convince the other that they have violated a standard of good conduct that they both share, while the other argues that they have not violated such a standard.
If there were not a shared standard between them, such an argument would be pointless, as one could simply say “to hell with your standard.” If that were the case, we could not condemn genocide, rape, or any other cruel act because we could not compare it to a universal standard of good conduct. Similarly, you can not argue that a football player committed a foul if the rules of football are not universally true.
Since we DO make disputes/condemnations, this universal standard must exist. Thus, we affirm daily that morality is indeed objective.
Q: Can MisterChris make this statement clearer? Yes, he can. From reading his explanation, P2 as detailed as possible is: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously, shown within disputes that are comparable to a universal standard.
Q: Can he back this claim up? At first, it seems obvious, people should be able to ground their reasoning upon basic ideas and compare and contrast. But when you compare to mathematics and physics, suddenly the objective standard falls apart. There is a 500 page proof of 1+1=2 and anyone who would dare to dispute this would be considered, stupid, insane, joking, or maybe all three. There are no reasonable disputes on 1+1=2. On the other hand, countless debates have formed about abortion, murder, torture, so on and so forth. If our appeal to the universal standard was so rigorous, then arguments would indeed be pointless, as 1+1=3 type of standard entirely ruins math and destroys life as we know it. Yes, re require 1+1=2 as a basic standard to prove that if x+1=2, x must equal 1, but this is still without dispute. Any mathematical logic proof that is sound must be accepted without proof because the objective truth is that powerful. So mathematics can just say "to hell with your standard" if you think 1+1=3.
C1: Morality is objective.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
ah.... interesting. Then what about past practices that have been since abandoned, like slavery, human sacrifice, etc.? Or someone who does not even know language, such as Genie the feral child? Wouldn't she appeal to the most animalistic instincts, believing it is moral to bite things, crawl around, and be used to a starved horrible lifestyle? Or are you saying this only applies to educated persons past a certain age? Otherwise, the children's belief is valid, that it is fine for Santa to violate privacy (sees you when you're sleeping), pollute the North/South pole, monopolize gifts, and control child labor, despite being an absurd fictional story. [Any person other than "Santa" would be condemned for these actions]
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
two different morality philosophies? What about anarchy (no gov) vs dictatorship (total gov control)? What about the idea of Virtue (Aristotle, "there must be one right thing to do in this situation") pitted up against Egoism (whatever is good for myself is best) pitted against Nihilism ("I can do anything I want, regardless of what Aristotle thinks.")?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
problem is, morality must exist in some form, because otherwise "nothing matters, it just is" contradicts itself (meaning you cannot believe that nothing matters and that "it just is")
Created:
I found MisterChris's argument interesting because I have never seen it before (and it resonates with my scientific thinking). Here I will try to cross examine with Socrates method to show if it holds water or not.
A. Intuition.P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.C1: Morality is objective.Let’s work through this. Whenever two men have a dispute, the one side tries to convince the other that they have violated a standard of good conduct that they both share, while the other argues that they have not violated such a standard.If there were not a shared standard between them, such an argument would be pointless, as one could simply say “to hell with your standard.” If that were the case, we could not condemn genocide, rape, or any other cruel act because we could not compare it to a universal standard of good conduct. Similarly, you can not argue that a football player committed a foul if the rules of football are not universally true.Since we DO make disputes/condemnations, this universal standard must exist. Thus, we affirm daily that morality is indeed objective.
Obviously, we already see problems with P2, the contradictory nature of humans. Kant claims that it is the universal law that makes an action moral. John Stuart Mill claims that the consequence with greater good is moral. In a dispute between Kant and John Mill alone, if they solidly believed in their philosophy, they could arguably both say "to hell with your standard", and stand by their personal claims. Therefore, I will produce a more easily backed premise based on MisterChris's logic.
P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.P2: The vast majority of humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.C1: Morality is objective.
P2 seems weaker, however, there can still be an objective standard even if only a majority accepts it. For example, it has been proven beyond a doubt that the Earth is Round. But some people lack scientific thinking, or have no experience with experimentation, and therefore believe that the earth is flat, contradicting this idea. But as the majority of scientists and educated men have managed to find and agree on this objective fact, they have successfully established its objective nature.
However, there are still problems even with this more lax expectation. There are often undecidable problems within reality. Trump vs Clinton was nearly a tie in popular vote, for example. In addition, the "majority of humans" might still believe in something wrong, such as the earth being center of the universe, before exploring outer space. Due to lack of information, they could not find the objective truth.
Therefore, I propose an overhaul to the entirety of the universe as a standard. The reasoning behind this is that the vast majority of universe has to follow certain laws: Conservation of matter, speed limit of light, equal and opposite motions, so on and so forth. We have gathered from countless evidence in order to prove the universe's age, not merely from humans or earth, but from the entirety of the universe itself. It would be cherry picking to pick from Earth, after all.
So the whole repealed argument can be like this:
P1) What is objective (ex. science, math, truisms) can find overwhelming evidence in fact within the whole universe
P2) The whole universe follows certain laws and rules, patterns, among these which are our actions
C) Therefore, because our actions can be found to follow a certain pattern during certain times, this can be overwhelming evidence combined to show objective morality.
(however, the problem is that science is "what should happen", not "what should I do", which is a whole other can of worms...)
Created:
Posted in:
"Pretend"? So you're saying everyone named Karen is being fake? You know who is really fake? You. You and your misled ideals about what people named Karen should act, merely because of a single stereotype. WE ARE PROUD WOMEN and we will not be taken lightly, especially by you disgusting men and your absurd thoughts. I wish to speak to DART's manager. Hello? Anyone there? Is this site even running? I am having a customer problem with your website. Your users are absolutely atrocious and insulted me personally. Their words are so profane that I cannot even spell them out for you. They should be banned, each and every one of them. If you do not satisfy my needs, I will report this to the FDA and watch as your horrible website and its service is taken down. Goodbye.
Created:
Posted in:
It's time to go beyond... PLUS ULTRA!
My name is 9spaceking, and I am here to show why 40 days was far too vague or an absurd long time (though I will admit, 42 is a fantastic number on its own).
Firstly, Ragnar notes
A recent example of targeted harassment against voters: complaining with obscenities and drama that someone's vote was not automatically deleted for being against him
I will admit that my first vote was done too hastily and I had to reread it. The quality of my vote was not up to any standard. It is merely that RM's reaction was phrased in a way that seemed off putting to those who didn't know. After re-judging I changed my mind on who won the argument. Therefore, I will argue that RM was justified, even with minor profanity. He insulted the vote, not the person. This is not to blame.
Ragnar interprets RM's sarcasm as "doxxing", which raises eyebrows about Ragnar's ability to understand RM.
RM says:
Better get ready to do their homework and braid some hair, otherwise the clique will reject you while they blow air on their elitist nail varnish.Oh, the horror of not being in the cool kids club.
What does this mean? I think he is just trying to make a joke of how the static mafia live is not as good as it is made out to be. He is giving an excuse not to join without saying "sorry, mafia is not cool in my opinion". The visualization of "elitist nail varnish" got one other user to even play along and say: "These things are sooo much fun though!" The resulting insult battle between Mikal and RM are arguably equal faulted for each, as a toxic conversation cannot happen without both participants. His vague threat of "it will backfire" is hardly reaching levels of outright saying he has mod levels of power.
I cannot find the scam link.
The only thing left is his sole contention about Ramshutu, which RM apologized for.
There is justification beyond a reasonable doubt for a few days a ban. Maybe even two weeks, for harsh language. But to double that final idea is a questionable action, and confusing to me. Yes, RM's wording could be better, but it seems to me most of his "faults" did not seem to justify 40 days.
Created:
the fact that Ragnar, who never accepts a debate he can't win, has not accepted my debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/2487-court-trial-was-rms-ban-justified highlights his regret and his indecision. Pro side to "RM ban was justified" is impossible to win.
Created:
Posted in:
Until Oromagi tries to battle Whiteflame for his 100th win though, I guess it's too hard to say for sure. Maybe he was too lazy before and so only Ragnar and Bsh1 were the competent debaters he faced. He might've been too lazy to battle thett3/raisor/mikal and the gang. After 90 more debates, he may have raised himself to bsh1/blamonkey level. It's difficult to say because Whiteflame's penetrating insight is definitely more obvious than Oromagi's.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm still not entirely convinced. Whiteflame feels more consistent with tackling extremely difficult opponents and trying to improve. He lost against Larz twice (including the Edeb8 about vaccination), the man who had managed to also defeat Raisor, who feels definitively better than Oromagi. His battle against TUF (https://www.debate.org/debates/2nd-DDO-Census-Debate-Syrian-Refugees/1/) proved his worth, with the latter having defeated Mikal, who is arguably the noob sniping king and debates far more varied topics than Oromagi (https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-Should-Adopt-No-Gay-Zones/1/).
He has also gone toe to toe against Fourtrouble (https://www.debate.org/debates/Assisted-suicide-should-be-illegal./1/), who has managed to tie thett3 (https://www.debate.org/debates/United-Nations-peacekeepers-should-have-the-power-to-engage-in-offensive-operations/1/), won against thett3 (https://www.debate.org/debates/Conservatism-and-Libertarianism/1/). Remember that even Roy, who established himself as a strong debater in politics, especially by defeating a gauntlet which had imabench and conservative politico, personally has only lost to Raisor, thett3, TUF, Daneille, and a handful of others ( https://www.debate.org/RoyLatham/debates/1/lost). The top tier debaters in DDO feel consistently raising themselves above Oromagi in quality of sheer debate, while Oromagi has only been up against bsh1 and lost against him. Bsh1's prowess has been proved throughout his debates in DDO and his debate against Blamonkey clearly infers that he is a level above Oromagi. The way Oromagi does kritiks seems cheating and he has never done one of the mainstream issues against an actual competent debater (no offense to Intelligence or MisterChris, they feel a level below bsh1/thett3/roylatham).
Created:
Posted in:
also based on Whiteflame's consistency I feel like Oromagi's slightly below him. "The beast slayer" Larz may very well be capable of gaining a deserved win given his unusual victories over seemingly better debaters
Created:
Posted in:
bsh1 defeated thett3 [https://www.debate.org/debates/Who-Would-Make-a-Better-Husband-for-YYW/1/] who defeated roy
bsh1 defeated whiteflame [https://www.debate.org/debates/PMF-Debate-Voting/1/]
Created:
Posted in:
(Oromagi is ranked higher than Ragnar for his willingness to battle Bsh1 and saying he is planning to have Whiteflame challenge his 100th win. Ragnar, despite having 88+33 wins has not actively challenged anyone that I see. He said he clashed with Roy some time ago, but since I haven't seen that debate I have no idea if he truly won.)
If Ragnar won against Roy then he is probably around Whiteflame's level but just being lazy.
(Also the way Ragnar chooses topics and debates them feels like Blade of Truth level, who lost to Kasmic, who is right below Danielle/Bsh1/Whiteflame level]
Created:
Posted in:
Here are the top active debaters on DART ranked by how good they are in overall topics, in my opinion.
1) Whiteflame [Bsh would be tied here if still active]]
2) Blamonkey
3) Ramshutu
4) Oromagi
5) Ragnar [Zaradi would be somewhere here]
6) MisterChris
7) Intelligence_06
8) Trent0405
9) Imabench [If he doesn't get to troll or talk about Frozen]
10) Supadudz
Created:
Posted in:
wow I can I BB is basically PF Debate
3 min opening speeches
2 min max cross examination (1 min allotted each side)
1 min conclusions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
you could also argue from actual articles that are long [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages]
Created:
Posted in:
9spaceking: Stacks a bunch of research and tries to prove, sometimes shooting himself in the foot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
eh. Considering how Larz "the Beast slayer" managed it in his own website, you could also see if long scholarly papers truly are worth mentioning with that much characters.
Created:
Posted in:
Oromagi used up 30k in my debate about whether to reduce the 30k limit
Created:
Posted in:
Today's a sad sad day
And he's up at the bay
A mysterious time to go away
Won't you sa-ay
He forfeited two rounds
Openin' himself to my pounds
Easily could lose
As he snooze(s)
Heyyyyyyy
Sir Local-wide
I'm 9spaceking
Elade
makin' beings scream cling bling
Nothin' is gonna gonna stop me
top dog yo leadin' the microphone
Zappin' poppin' off his sockets
Shoot him off a rocket
Mark my words
haha let's not darken it
Today's a sad sad day
And he's up at the bay
A mysterious time to go away
Won't you sa-ay?
He forfeited two rounds
Openin' himself to my pounds
Easily could lose
As he snooze(s)
Today's a sad sad day
And he's up at the bay
A mysterious time to go away
Won't you sa-ay?
He forfeited two rounds
Openin' himself to my pound
Easily could lose
As he snooze(s)
(slow)
Poor Plutarch...forfeited dos rounds
Opening up for getting zound,,,,,
Learn your lessons my friend and don't lose
By nodding your head off and then snooze....
Created:
Posted in:
Mall: You are not listening, you are not listening, tell me why I am FALLLSE, and why you are TRUEEE, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE
Imabench: here's a different definition of fossil fuel.
Mikal: Predictions of energy use in the future....
Trent: Uses specific country knowledge under 3,500 characters and stacks sources together
Created:
Posted in:
13. Statistics ("10 out of 230 people...") https://static.skillshare.com/uploads/project/58366/cover_1242_29a691616151a3fcd2d5ce63f804b03d.jpg
14. Anecdote ("Personally, I've experienced...") https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rBqTsIlrfaY/maxresdefault.jpg
15. Lying (....) https://savethecat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/untitled1.png
Created:
Posted in:
I like to visualize arguments to gauge how strong they are, for fun. Here are a few.
- News Article ("Washington post says this is true...") https://i.insider.com/5a56818ba75e201f008b4c14?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp
- Scholarly Article ("This research suggests that...") https://elements-video-cover-images-0.imgix.net/files/4a281793-1744-4a9e-bbe9-9c9268c836d7/inline_image_preview.jpg?auto=compress&crop=edges&fit=crop&fm=jpeg&h=800&w=1200&s=f3af20cc2ef0d9b63dc686ae75c01947
- Truism ("All men are created with unalienable rights.") https://media.wired.com/photos/593757239a93607bd17ca914/master/pass/WonderWoman_Deflection.jpg
- Fallacious argument ("Trump said this, and he lies so much, this must also be a lie") https://images.theconversation.com/files/304864/original/file-20191203-67028-qfiw3k.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=638%2C2%2C795%2C745&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip
- Questioning approach ("if this is true, then why has this occurred?") https://gammalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/phoenix-ready-1.jpg
- Logical Syllogism Argument (also applies to cause + effect -> "If this, then this, and so this.") https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-000612624997-l3gb9f-t3000x3000.jpg
- Argument with single error ("I have compared object A to object B. Even though they are slightly different, the similarities should outweigh...") https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/31074196/one-does-not-simple-escape-their-tragic-flaw.jpg
- Mere assertion ("This is definitely true.") https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/417PnbtqvgL._AC_SY400_.jpg
- Moving the goal post ("there is another problem somewhere else...") https://scienceterms.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Red-herring-fallacy.jpg
- Pinpointing the argument ("My argument argues in this exact stance, while opponent is saying this precise thing") https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0200/0548/products/415RA_300x300.png?v=1482264136
- Emotional argument ("What joy this brings, what sadness caused...") https://business.uni.edu/sites/default/files/news/emotional-girl-covid19.jpg
- Credibility attack ("This is not trustworthy because...") https://www.goodleadership.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/devil.gif
Created:
Posted in:
hmmm... it really all depends how strongly the Christian believes in the rule and follows it. It's up to interpretation. Most of the time, the Christian rules of life are meant to help in their quality of living, but some beliefs are outdated.
Created:
Posted in:
pretty sure I'm not improving. I already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that "9spaceking" was a superior debater to "seldiora"
Created:
Posted in:
yeah I somehow lost “I’d rather live in a world without global warming than a world where abortion is banned”. #seldioraisbaddebaterconfirmed
Created:
v.gd rocks
Created: