saying less means more then saying a lot of things someoe else said that you agree with
Debate Rounds (3)
Thanks for what I'm sure will be an enlightening debate. I may have missed the point that my opponent was trying to make, but I will attempt to make a few important clarifications.
1. Less does not actually mean more. The expression may be used that less words cause more good (or something to that effect), but that involves two entities (words, good) and an abstract concept like goodness. As far as tangible objects are concerned, less cannot be more.
2. I'm not entirely sure what the contention with factoids is, but I wish to clarify that the only thing that bloviators should spout are provable facts and not simply opinions of their idols.
3. Communism is not a negative attribute of an individual, it is a political ideology. However, it appears from my opponent's tone that he is referring to Communists in a derogatory manner, which I nonetheless doubt bears any significance to his case.
If my interpretation was correct, then what is your contention? I fail to see where the point of debate lies within this topic. I suppose there is always room in the final round for something of an abbreviated and non-rebuttaled debate.
You say" 1. Less does not actually mean more. The expression may be used that less words cause more good (or something to that effect), but that involves two entities (words, good) and an abstract concept like goodness. As far as tangible objects are concerned, less cannot be more."
Think seeds, less is more in the hands of a worker, more is a lot less in the mouth of a tyrant.
Number 2, my favorite duty (doody?) ," 2. I'm not entirely sure what the contention with factoids is, but I wish to clarify that the only thing that bloviators should spout are provable facts and not simply opinions of their idols."
A fact proven by a capitalist, university sort, with huge dollars in the bank is only a fact sometimes, even if it a 97% fact. What that means is every time a "scholar" and their "peers" convince a politician to believe what they say, 3% or more of the populace gets lied to. The more scientific facts or politicos sell themselves to, the more people get screwed. A provable fact is one that has been proven with your own eyes and ears, not someone elses that you admire.
I will agree that communism has been very beneficial to the subscribers, and who else?
I'm not entirely sure how workers and tyrants are examples of less being more. That concept of less (quantity) of an objecti being more is simply impossible. Another fundamentally impossible concept that my opponent introduces is the concept of something being a 97% fact. Fact is not a statistic. A fact is either a 100% true statement, or it is not a fact. There are no partial singular truths. I am also unsure what my opponent is referring to by subscribers. It is unfortunate that not much was accomplished in this debate, but I remind potential voters that while arumentation and sources may not be easily applicable to this debate, that spelling and grammar still apply. Thanks, Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This troll debate never really went anywhere, and wasn't particularly funny. Judged as a real debate, Pro never fulfilled his BoP. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.