
bol.....back and forth...back and forth...back and forth...bol


Posted by GetMisted
Why can't you just admit that you suck at debating?

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
I defined liberty... You serious that I have to present you with some sort of source for every single thought of mine even if the thought is solely mine....
This debate was a very philosophical type of debate. He said we could use empirical evidence and thats what I chose to use. If you think we shouldn't be able to use that you should have not agreed to play or found fault with the rules from the onset.
How do you debate without solid evidence? "I'm right because I say so". Really? Is that was wins a debate? I'm going to try that in the next one.
Once again, it leaves the game open to bias on the judges part.click to expand

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
Why can't you just admit that you suck at debating?
Why can't you lose humbly ^.^?
Define "humbly".
Why don't you have manners?
Define "manners".
Why don't you get over it already?
Define "it" in regard to "getting over".
Why do I have to accept someone talking about me wrongly?
Define why constitutes speaking "wrongly" about someone.
Why should I accept you being rude?
Define "rude".
I mean obviously you have the free will to do whatever the hell you want. But, so do I and I'll be here all day.
😄
Why must you answer a question with a question?
Ps, Free will is not an inalienable right according to you.click to expand

Posted by StoicGoatFor the purposes of this debate, —human rights?? shall be defined as —those fundamental rights humans have by virtue of being human.??
Posted by StoicGoat
For the first debate, each team is charged to identify those 5 rights it believes most essential as human rights. , The winning team will be determined based on how well its members argue in favor of their rights, defend them against attack, support them logically and/or with empirical evidence and weaken the opposing team??s chosen rights. For the purposes of this debate, —human rights?? shall be defined as —those fundamental rights humans have by virtue of being human.?? The members of the winning team will each receive one point for the first debate. Points awarded to the winning team??s members in each subsequent debate will increase by one. The winner will (hopefully) be declared 24 hours after the conclusion of each debate, at which time the challenge will be presented.
(cont.)click to expand

Posted by lisabethur8
oh my god.... (takes two 1000 mg paracetomals after reading just this page) -.-

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
Why can't you just admit that you suck at debating?
Why can't you lose humbly ^.^?
Define "humbly".
Why don't you have manners?
Define "manners".
Why don't you get over it already?
Define "it" in regard to "getting over".
Why do I have to accept someone talking about me wrongly?
Define why constitutes speaking "wrongly" about someone.
Why should I accept you being rude?
Define "rude".
I mean obviously you have the free will to do whatever the hell you want. But, so do I and I'll be here all day.
😄
Why must you answer a question with a question?
Ps, Free will is not an inalienable right according to you.
LoL how many times are you going to lie today?
Define "lie".click to expand

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
Why can't you just admit that you suck at debating?
Why can't you lose humbly ^.^?
Define "humbly".
Why don't you have manners?
Define "manners".
Why don't you get over it already?
Define "it" in regard to "getting over".
Why do I have to accept someone talking about me wrongly?
Define why constitutes speaking "wrongly" about someone.
Why should I accept you being rude?
Define "rude".
I mean obviously you have the free will to do whatever the hell you want. But, so do I and I'll be here all day.
😄
Why must you answer a question with a question?
Ps, Free will is not an inalienable right according to you.
LoL how many times are you going to lie today?
Define "lie".click to expand

Posted by GetMisted
1. He said you could use law. That means if I use it, you must counter it.
2. You still have to prove your empirical evidence. You don't get studies published by simply saying I saw this or did that, without "documenting" your methods of research and findings.
You're stuck in the "It is because I say".
If you want to cite a sourse that shows how the empirical evidence came to be, then go for it. But unless you what to do the research, present it, and use it as your claim.. Cite a source.

Posted by GetMisted
"All will define a lie for you. Any more definitions and I'm afraid I'll have to charge a fee."
I can pay you in bubble gum and sarcasm.
Will either of those work for you?

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
1. He said you could use law. That means if I use it, you must counter it.
2. You still have to prove your empirical evidence. You don't get studies published by simply saying I saw this or did that, without "documenting" your methods of research and findings.
You're stuck in the "It is because I say".
If you want to cite a sourse that shows how the empirical evidence came to be, then go for it. But unless you what to do the research, present it, and use it as your claim.. Cite a source.
I did
No, you didn't.
click to expand

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
1. He said you could use law. That means if I use it, you must counter it.
2. You still have to prove your empirical evidence. You don't get studies published by simply saying I saw this or did that, without "documenting" your methods of research and findings.
You're stuck in the "It is because I say".
If you want to cite a sourse that shows how the empirical evidence came to be, then go for it. But unless you what to do the research, present it, and use it as your claim.. Cite a source.
I did
No, you didn't.
It's not my problem if you don't understand plain English.
There's no issue with my understanding of the English language. There is an issue when the judge awards a team win, to a team that didn't fully defend the arguements in the debate.
Hence my suggestion.click to expand


Posted by GetMisted
I don't plan to drop out unless you get voted to my team.

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
1. He said you could use law. That means if I use it, you must counter it.
2. You still have to prove your empirical evidence. You don't get studies published by simply saying I saw this or did that, without "documenting" your methods of research and findings.
You're stuck in the "It is because I say".
If you want to cite a sourse that shows how the empirical evidence came to be, then go for it. But unless you what to do the research, present it, and use it as your claim.. Cite a source.
I did
No, you didn't.
It's not my problem if you don't understand plain English.
There's no issue with my understanding of the English language. There is an issue when the judge awards a team win, to a team that didn't fully defend the arguements in the debate.
Hence my suggestion.click to expand



Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
If your not going to drop out then ... it would only make sense that you shut that big ass mouth of yours.
I'll shut my big gluteus mouth of mine when you learn how to debate, and the Goat gives a better reason for why a team won other than just because.click to expand

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
1. He said you could use law. That means if I use it, you must counter it.
2. You still have to prove your empirical evidence. You don't get studies published by simply saying I saw this or did that, without "documenting" your methods of research and findings.
You're stuck in the "It is because I say".
If you want to cite a sourse that shows how the empirical evidence came to be, then go for it. But unless you what to do the research, present it, and use it as your claim.. Cite a source.
I did
No, you didn't.
It's not my problem if you don't understand plain English.
There's no issue with my understanding of the English language. There is an issue when the judge awards a team win, to a team that didn't fully defend the arguements in the debate.
Hence my suggestion.
You know you have gall to talk about my TEAM at all....
At least every team member in my entire team posted something GENIUS.
That by default alone should win us the debate by the way you defined it from your perception earlier.
You had like 3-4 people not contribute squat which should by default be trumped by team members of another team actually contributing SOMETHING.
Hey Mr. Rules Quoter, why don't you go quote what it says about being here for challenges and debates.click to expand

Posted by GetMisted
You do not have to be here for either if you can't make it #airhead

Posted by aquapiscescusp
you people take this stuff way too seriously...

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
If your not going to drop out then ... it would only make sense that you shut that big ass mouth of yours.
I'll shut my big gluteus mouth of mine when you learn how to debate, and the Goat gives a better reason for why a team won other than just because.
I gave you plenty of reasons
😄
So now you just need to learn how to debate.
click to expand

Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
You do not have to be here for either if you can't make it #airhead
Why wouldn't I be able to make it?
What happens if Snoz or Stillwater can't make it?
By your rules, your team would automatically lose.
Also just posting a comment isn't debating. Did Twinks actually even argue anything?click to expand


Posted by GetMistedPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by GetMisted
You do not have to be here for either if you can't make it #airhead
Why wouldn't I be able to make it?
What happens if Snoz or Stillwater can't make it?
By your rules, your team would automatically lose.
Also just posting a comment isn't debating. Did Twinks actually even argue anything?click to expand

Posted by LetltB
Open a thread stoic and let the audience vote.


Posted by Damnata
Can we please let.it.go?
@ beluga
Yes in a real debate you have to define every term..but there are a lot of rules in a real debate that do not apply here. We go with whatever rules we are given by the judge in this case.
We can all agree to disagree on which team won. Meanwhile, a new challenge is coming our way and we should save our brains for that. *shrug*

Posted by StillWater
10 more minutes......... who is it going to be.........

Posted by StoicGoatPosted by LetltB
Open a thread stoic and let the audience vote.
That would be unfair at this point. Maybe next time.click to expand






Posted by SteveWPosted by StoicGoatPosted by LetltB
Open a thread stoic and let the audience vote.
That would be unfair at this point. Maybe next time.
In all fairness to the judge: he probably wanted the voting to be private to curtail drama. "Oh you voted for so and so?" He could find no other method for the voting.
How would shellshocker know that Nights was cheating? How does shellshocker have access to his inbox?click to expand



Posted by StoicGoat
The audience members who submitted their votes have traded NotYourAverageAquarius to the Downy Dryer Sheets. Double D's, please give your new teammate a warm welcome. A new debate topic will be posted this evening.

Posted by LetltB
Regarding FAIRNESS?
The audience are not in this game, so us voting in ONE thread together would make it very simple. Easy to count and BOTH TEAMS can fairly see the vote. Not the one the judge chooses.

Posted by SteveWPosted by StillWater
In a way it will be good because you guys will get more support. It wasn't fair that only you two were contributing on behalf of the entire team.
I'm not sure why one of our members have to go over to the opposing team? Wouldn't that make the winning team one player short? I am not trying to step on the judge's toes but why should a winning team be penalized in a way in this Survivor game?click to expand

Posted by StoicGoatPosted by LetltB
Regarding FAIRNESS?
The audience are not in this game, so us voting in ONE thread together would make it very simple. Easy to count and BOTH TEAMS can fairly see the vote. Not the one the judge chooses.
I see you are still leveling allegations and still failing to provide any substantiating evidence. Carry on.click to expand

Posted by GetMisted
Word on the street is that you won because everyone else quit due to judge bias. Any truth to that?

Posted by SteveWPosted by StillWater
In a way it will be good because you guys will get more support. It wasn't fair that only you two were contributing on behalf of the entire team.
I'm not sure why one of our members have to go over to the opposing team? Wouldn't that make the winning team one player short? I am not trying to step on the judge's toes but why should a winning team be penalized in a way in this Survivor game?click to expand

Posted by TwirlingStrawberry
are you seriously going to start whining NOW?



Posted by LetltB
They are all pming each other now...
..lol

Posted by GetMistedPosted by StoicGoat
The audience members who submitted their votes have traded NotYourAverageAquarius to the Downy Dryer Sheets. Double D's, please give your new teammate a warm welcome. A new debate topic will be posted this evening.
Sersiously? This is BSclick to expand
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →