Great Debate to listen too.

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

At 4/8/2014 9:31:00 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

9-3, 'nuff said m8.

At 4/8/2014 9:32:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:31:00 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

9-3, 'nuff said m8.

I don't mind if I lose this, as I said in the comments. I mind what you've said, which none of the other voters agree with.

At 4/8/2014 9:32:50 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:31:00 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

9-3, 'nuff said m8.

I don't mind if I lose this, as I said in the comments. I mind what you've said, which none of the other voters agree with.

They're just too PC to tell you.

At 4/8/2014 9:34:55 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:50 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:31:00 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

9-3, 'nuff said m8.

I don't mind if I lose this, as I said in the comments. I mind what you've said, which none of the other voters agree with.

They're just too PC to tell you.

...Nice bare assertion. Considering I've talked with all three of them about it, I'd find that unlikely.

At 4/8/2014 10:01:07 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:34:55 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:50 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:31:00 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

9-3, 'nuff said m8.

I don't mind if I lose this, as I said in the comments. I mind what you've said, which none of the other voters agree with.

They're just too PC to tell you.

...Nice bare assertion. Considering I've talked with all three of them about it, I'd find that unlikely.

I am not going to take what I said back. Go cry elsewhere.

At 4/8/2014 10:21:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Reasonable people have voted and will continue to vote against me.

At 4/8/2014 10:25:42 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:21:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Reasonable people have voted and will continue to vote against me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

At 4/8/2014 10:31:36 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:25:42 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:21:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Reasonable people have voted and will continue to vote against me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because they're reasonable in their evaluations doesn't make yours reasonable. You agree with the current majority based on a perspective that none of them currently shares. I'll accept a loss without protest, but that's because of their evaluations, not yours.

At 4/8/2014 9:32:50 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:31:00 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

9-3, 'nuff said m8.

I don't mind if I lose this, as I said in the comments. I mind what you've said, which none of the other voters agree with.

They're just too PC to tell you.

At 4/8/2014 1:20:16 PM, Wylted wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:50 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:31:00 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

9-3, 'nuff said m8.

I don't mind if I lose this, as I said in the comments. I mind what you've said, which none of the other voters agree with.

They're just too PC to tell you.

Nobody is too PC to tell him anything. I don't hold back in my criticisms when I vote, unless their irrelevant. I seriously doubt any of those voters give a sh!t about hurting whiteflame's feelings.

As far as the nerd aura is concerned. So what. Most people on this site will probably give that aura.

At 4/8/2014 1:21:25 PM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 1:20:16 PM, Wylted wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:50 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:32:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:31:00 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 9:25:14 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:57:58 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:55:53 AM, kbub wrote:

At 4/8/2014 8:47:12 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 2:43:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
I would advise anyone who has the time to watch and vote on this debate. It was amazing, and def worth the watch

Its larz vs Whiteflame in a debate about legalizing drugs in sports

http://www.debate.org...

The link in the debate was wrong so here is the correct one, in case you choose to vote. I am really advocating for some good votes on this. It was a great debate

Sorry but I find that Pro was a very poor speaker indeed. Never felt his connection with audience, his eloquence or his consistency in his train of thought.

A clear Con win for me.

I didn't think either were poor speakers.

Both gave a 'nerd' aura it's just that the aura of Con connected far more to me and I could empathise with his raw passion whereas Pro simply screamed into my ear with a ton of irrelevant points and he never tore at Pro's arguments, he created straw mans.

I am 100% sure that this is due to a lack of experience in Pro on impromptu debate compared to Con but I could be wrong.

...I'm fine with criticism, but I've got about 8 years of experience in impromptu debate. If you don't think I connected with you well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with a lack of background. And I don't think I spent any time screaming into anyone's ear - I raised my voice a little, but that's pretty harsh, not to mention that I disagree that I "created straw mans."

9-3, 'nuff said m8.

I don't mind if I lose this, as I said in the comments. I mind what you've said, which none of the other voters agree with.

They're just too PC to tell you.

Nobody is too PC to tell him anything. I don't hold back in my criticisms when I vote, unless their irrelevant. I seriously doubt any of those voters give a sh!t about hurting whiteflame's feelings.

As far as the nerd aura is concerned. So what. Most people on this site will probably give that aura.

I just gave honest feedback.

At 4/8/2014 5:12:18 PM, Mikal wrote:

If you could walk me through the debate, and actually proved you listened to it i may buy that. I highly doubt you even went through the entire video.

At 4/8/2014 5:13:14 PM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 5:12:18 PM, Mikal wrote:

If you could walk me through the debate, and actually proved you listened to it i may buy that. I highly doubt you even went through the entire video.

and what exactly is walking through?

At 4/8/2014 5:14:29 PM, Mikal wrote:

At 4/8/2014 5:13:14 PM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 5:12:18 PM, Mikal wrote:

If you could walk me through the debate, and actually proved you listened to it i may buy that. I highly doubt you even went through the entire video.

and what exactly is walking through?

Have some validation that you actually listened to the entire debate. You just said he spoke poorly. Even if that were a fact, it would not effect anything without any viable reason to vote against him. Solidify the stance and at least compare the arguments that were presented.

At 4/8/2014 10:31:36 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:25:42 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:21:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Reasonable people have voted and will continue to vote against me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because they're reasonable in their evaluations doesn't make yours reasonable. You agree with the current majority based on a perspective that none of them currently shares. I'll accept a loss without protest, but that's because of their evaluations, not yours.

At 4/8/2014 5:22:03 PM, bluesteel wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:31:36 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:25:42 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:21:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Reasonable people have voted and will continue to vote against me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because they're reasonable in their evaluations doesn't make yours reasonable. You agree with the current majority based on a perspective that none of them currently shares. I'll accept a loss without protest, but that's because of their evaluations, not yours.

At only 65 comments, Megalo has already established himself -- based on a few threads -- as a proven troll. Just ignore him. He just wants a rise out of you.

At 4/8/2014 5:22:03 PM, bluesteel wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:31:36 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:25:42 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:21:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Reasonable people have voted and will continue to vote against me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because they're reasonable in their evaluations doesn't make yours reasonable. You agree with the current majority based on a perspective that none of them currently shares. I'll accept a loss without protest, but that's because of their evaluations, not yours.

At only 65 comments, Megalo has already established himself -- based on a few threads -- as a proven troll. Just ignore him. He just wants a rise out of you.

At 4/8/2014 5:22:03 PM, bluesteel wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:31:36 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:25:42 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:21:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Reasonable people have voted and will continue to vote against me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because they're reasonable in their evaluations doesn't make yours reasonable. You agree with the current majority based on a perspective that none of them currently shares. I'll accept a loss without protest, but that's because of their evaluations, not yours.

At only 65 comments, Megalo has already established himself -- based on a few threads -- as a proven troll. Just ignore him. He just wants a rise out of you.

At 4/8/2014 10:10:28 PM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 5:22:03 PM, bluesteel wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:31:36 AM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:25:42 AM, Megalobrainiac wrote:

At 4/8/2014 10:21:15 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Reasonable people have voted and will continue to vote against me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because they're reasonable in their evaluations doesn't make yours reasonable. You agree with the current majority based on a perspective that none of them currently shares. I'll accept a loss without protest, but that's because of their evaluations, not yours.

At only 65 comments, Megalo has already established himself -- based on a few threads -- as a proven troll. Just ignore him. He just wants a rise out of you.

And speaking of, his account was closed a short time ago. More reason to ignore.

At 4/9/2014 12:58:25 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Watched the whole debate last night before hitting the hay. I'm not voting because I don't believe I have the experience to pass judgement on two debaters who are both so much more advanced than myself in ability and presentation. I just wanted to say that I appreciate you guys doing this and honestly believe both of you to be extremely well-versed in impromptu debates. Watching debates like this provides members like myself with a good opportunity to see the styles and presentations of more advanced debaters. I learn alot from watching debates like this and plan on utilizing the skills I see in both of you when it comes time for me to ascend to the ranks of video debates :)

Thanks again y'all, and best of luck to both of you during the voting period. I look forward to watching more of these in the future!

At 4/9/2014 6:37:56 PM, whiteflame wrote:

At 4/9/2014 12:58:25 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Watched the whole debate last night before hitting the hay. I'm not voting because I don't believe I have the experience to pass judgement on two debaters who are both so much more advanced than myself in ability and presentation. I just wanted to say that I appreciate you guys doing this and honestly believe both of you to be extremely well-versed in impromptu debates. Watching debates like this provides members like myself with a good opportunity to see the styles and presentations of more advanced debaters. I learn alot from watching debates like this and plan on utilizing the skills I see in both of you when it comes time for me to ascend to the ranks of video debates :)

Thanks again y'all, and best of luck to both of you during the voting period. I look forward to watching more of these in the future!

I appreciate the kind words. Both larz and I are somewhat out of practice, but I think it turned out pretty well regardless. Still hopeful that we'll get at least a couple more votes on the debate, but I understand you're pensive about voting yourself. I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, and that you learned quite a bit from it.