Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

RFD: Hiroshima & Nagasaki

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Resolution: The United States was Justified in Dropping Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Preliminary

Pro unfairly uses far too many characters in their first (and only) argument. This is outside of the rules in the debate, and should be a factor in my decision. Also, though it is a select winner system, Pro undermines the debate by forfeiting all rounds following the 1st. This, too, should be worthy of consideration.

R1:

Pro: Pro's framework is about justice, and all things considered, it's a plausible (and preferable) framework for the topic of discussion. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are events that expose widely varying viewpoints, all centered around justice. This ethical model is a good one for the debate, and Pro does a fair job of explaining how it fits their side. I can buy that it can be viewed as "just" to take revenge, though the argument will need clarification in the future.

The first contention Pro makes is in regards to Pearl Harbor. I don't want to spend much time here, since it's mainly just historical background. Pro does a respectable job of showing how/why Pearl Harbor was bad, and why it was necessary for some action to be taken following the bombing. However, some of the assertions made will need further backing, which should come up later.

The second contention is very similar to the first: a contextual background. I can buy that it was a cynical agreement, and there's really not much else to add here.

The third contention is about the atrocities committed by the Japanese, and the inhumanity of them. It's a good outline of an array of events that were seemingly unjustified and cruel, which allows a set-up for other arguments to come later.
As an addendum to this contention, I'll give some advice to Pro: this argument is all background information, a lot of which is overkill. You don't need to spend so many characters extrapolating on these inhumanities. It's pretty evident from prior knowledge anyways, but even your first couple examples do a sufficient job. This could eliminate the possibility of spilling over on character space, which only exacerbates your position.

Your fourth contention is about utilitarianism. This is an important one (the most important up to this point, in terms of actual response the resolution directly), so I'll spend a bit more time here, too. Your definition of utilitarianism is accurate, but your proliferation of the term and clarification that follows is misapplied. If utilitarianism holds to doing what what is in the best interest of the majority, that doesn't equate to revenge. There is no solidly established correlation between the two. To you, killing an equivalent total (or relatively speaking) may be the greatest thing a government could do for you. But, to me, a pacifist(ish) person, that isn't the case. You did not establish that revenge is equivalent to what the greatest number of people want, and thus this argument is not established correctly. Of course, I"m not using that stance as a bias, but only as a reference point for an example. In short, you haven"t shown how dropping the bombs was in the best interest of most people, so you misapply utilitarianism.

The final contention you make is about the bomb itself, and it"s the most important one. Unfortunately, this comes after the character count expired, so I can"t honestly count it as fair in that regard, either. Regardless, I"ll review it in my decision. This argument has a little bit of background, too, but it also has a precise issue: there is no evidence. All of your claims that it is necessary, that there were no alternatives (explicit or implicit), etc. aren"t really substantiated. You assert the US had the option of either a) dropping the bomb to end the war, or b) invading Japan which would cost millions of lives. However, you never explained why it would be any *better* to choose option (a) than option (b). You must establish the link between justice and dropping the bomb; *why* it is just to drop the bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki rather than fight in conventional means. You also don"t explain how one option would save more lives than the other, or why that"s the only metric by which we should judge the argument.

Con: Con notes the foul play by the Pro team, namely the excessive character count. This is very important and should be a heavy factor. The rules are outlined in the acceptance of the debate, and must not be infringed. It"s unfair, and should be punishable by a disregard for content exceeding that count. I am being generous by giving some credit to the argument.

Con also acknowledges the extensive amount of background information and historical context given by Pro, and gives a similar conclusion: a lot of it is just fluff. It has no meaningful impact to the *justification* of the bombings. I"ll move on to the stuff that actually matters in the decision.

Con cites Pro where they claim the bomb was needed/necessary to stop the war, and attacks this area quite extensively. Con cites multiple examples of literature/evidence that is indicative of Japan being on the verge of surrender, implicit that something drastic was not entirely necessary. He also uses a lot of evidence urging consideration of how badly Japan was being beaten, and how depleted resources and military was. These are convincing because they give light to how feeble Japan was.

Besides this, Con also brings up evidence of potential government foul play; namely not honoring the surrender of the Japanese. Because Pro does not attack this at all, I can"t buy any attack against that (or any of the other arguments) except for what Pro explains. While I"m discussing this, I feel it"s imperative to mention this issue here. It was one that was discussed in the comments section by both sides.

FortisAnimi and Famousdebater argue that, regardless of forfeits, their arguments should hold just as much water as Hayd"s. While this is somewhat true, Hayd argues that they accept his rebuttals since they forfeit all rounds. Fortis and Famous contest that by saying that one side always end, so you can"t base it off of whoever went last. I will attempt to show a clear difference in a situation where a debate was completed and one side ended last, and this debate.

In a debate where both sides argued well, every round, for a complete debate, I am left with a lot of content to review as a voter. I have Pro and Con argumentation, normally evidence for both, and a lot of contention between them. However, I have the ability to analyze both arguments and rebuttals and find which is most convincing and logical. The same is not true with this debate. Pro gave an affirmative case of justification, and Con gave rebuttals specifically tailored to that case. Then, Pro forfeited the rest of the rounds. This means that Con directly responded to the points Pro made, while Pro could never defend those points from possible misinterpretation, or lack of clarification. Because of this (assuming the rebuttals are good), I can much more easily buy the arguments of Con. This is because they haven"t EVER been responded to, they are fresh claims. Once claims have been beaten around for awhile, I have plenty of content from which to decide which side is more persuasive and reasonable. Moreover, there was no contest made to refute the claims made by Con. That, by proxy, accepts those claims as truth. Because of this, Pro does not fulfill the BoP. I don"t know how I can make this any clearer, but of course, if you have any questions about this, definitely feel free to PM me.

Con also notes that Pro"s interpretation, and use of utilitarianism, is misapplied. With no defense, again, I can buy this reasonable argument. Similarly, Con makes the argument that, without an established correlation between ending the war, justice, and

(Con"t.)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 9:34:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
how the death of many Japanese, makes it justified to bomb the Japanese. Also, though hypotheticals are sometimes errant, Con explains that the revenge tactics used by the US aren"t necessarily just, if not adequately explained. In this case, they are not, as I explained in my thorough analysis of Pro"s case.

Conclusion: After thoroughly analyzing the entire debate, I found that much of Pro"s case was background only, which didn"t further their attempt to fulfill their burden, their ethical contention was misapplied, and their final argument (even though it *shouldn"t* count) is also rebutted by Pro"s argument. His explanation of how the bombs were first unecessary exemplified a potential alternative route that would have saved more lives, thus been more just. For these reasons, coupled with Pro"s infringement of character count and forfeits, I vote Con.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

The only thing I would have brought up is that Pro's case was that: the Japanese did atrocious things during the war, thus they deserved to get it back. The only other argument was that they must be stopped, which you covered. I don't feel like you went over my rebuttal of this in enough detail, given my explanation that we wouldn't be punishing the people that commited the atrocity, we are killing innocent civilians. As well as the argument that context doesn't make (e.g.) raping a girl any less immoral. It is still a immoral thing to do.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 10:16:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Thanks. :)

The only thing I would have brought up is that Pro's case was that: the Japanese did atrocious things during the war, thus they deserved to get it back.

I kinda did, I just said they didn't establish how revenge = justice.

The only other argument was that they must be stopped, which you covered. I don't feel like you went over my rebuttal of this in enough detail, given my explanation that we wouldn't be punishing the people that commited the atrocity, we are killing innocent civilians.

I see what you mean, and it makes sense. I should have included more about that. My bad.

As well as the argument that context doesn't make (e.g.) raping a girl any less immoral. It is still a immoral thing to do.

Right.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
FortisAnimi
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How the fvck is complimenting a vote silly
FortisAnimi
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 1:07:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How the fvck is complimenting a vote silly

The fact that I obviously tested the boundaries of the debate by doing things such as forfeiting and going over the character limit and you take it seriously.
FortisAnimi
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 1:07:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:07:04 AM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How the fvck is complimenting a vote silly

The fact that I obviously tested the boundaries of the debate by doing things such as forfeiting and going over the character limit and you take it seriously.

You get a little hostile when you're hungry. *gives snickers*
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 3:25:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:07:04 AM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How the fvck is complimenting a vote silly

The fact that I obviously tested the boundaries of the debate by doing things such as forfeiting and going over the character limit and you take it seriously.

Alright, I don't see how that had any relevance to complimenting ColeTrain's vote. He went above and beyond to deliver a clear and lucid RFD, thus I complimented. I like to show appreciation when someone votes, and especially when they do a good vote. It encourages more voting when voting is a more respected field, as well as basic decency since Cole probably spent a few hours of his time to vote. I was also surprised since I had never read one of his rfd's before, and was surprised that he was a good voter. I don't see any silliness, nor the relevance of "testing boundaries"
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 8:17:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

Thank you for the extensive analysis of the debate. The only thing that I want to bring up is that Con concedes the framework of justice. The framework is supposed to be how the judges are supposed to view the debate. So in this instance you must vote for whoever you think was more compelling in proving that there position was 'just'.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:32:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 8:17:18 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

Thank you for the extensive analysis of the debate. The only thing that I want to bring up is that Con concedes the framework of justice. The framework is supposed to be how the judges are supposed to view the debate. So in this instance you must vote for whoever you think was more compelling in proving that there position was 'just'.

Right. He explained that it wasn't justified for the reasons above, and you never showed the correlation between what is "just" and taking revenge on innocent peoples. I think my decision is fair, and based on the concept of justice.

You're welcome. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:37:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:07:04 AM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How is complimenting a vote silly

The fact that I obviously tested the boundaries of the debate by doing things such as forfeiting and going over the character limit and you take it seriously.

Well, the vote/RFD I gave was serious. Either way, I enjoyed voting. You guys should do a rematch with the suggestions I gave and without forfeits! :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:49:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 2:37:43 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:07:04 AM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How is complimenting a vote silly

The fact that I obviously tested the boundaries of the debate by doing things such as forfeiting and going over the character limit and you take it seriously.

Well, the vote/RFD I gave was serious. Either way, I enjoyed voting. You guys should do a rematch with the suggestions I gave and without forfeits! :)

I think that Fortis is leaving soon (I think, I'm not 100% sure though), and I don't have a good enough understanding of the issue to debate a user as good as Hayd on the topic. I let Fortis pick the topic on this team debate since I the team debates that we usually do are on my account.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:52:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:49:31 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/5/2016 2:37:43 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:07:04 AM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How is complimenting a vote silly

The fact that I obviously tested the boundaries of the debate by doing things such as forfeiting and going over the character limit and you take it seriously.

Well, the vote/RFD I gave was serious. Either way, I enjoyed voting. You guys should do a rematch with the suggestions I gave and without forfeits! :)

I think that Fortis is leaving soon

He better not be leaving.

(I think, I'm not 100% sure though), and I don't have a good enough understanding of the issue to debate a user as good as Hayd on the topic. I let Fortis pick the topic on this team debate since I the team debates that we usually do are on my account.

I see. Well, if you both get the chance, it would be a good matchup!
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:55:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:52:31 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:49:31 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/5/2016 2:37:43 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:07:04 AM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How is complimenting a vote silly

The fact that I obviously tested the boundaries of the debate by doing things such as forfeiting and going over the character limit and you take it seriously.

Well, the vote/RFD I gave was serious. Either way, I enjoyed voting. You guys should do a rematch with the suggestions I gave and without forfeits! :)

I think that Fortis is leaving soon

He better not be leaving.

He's definitely leaving for a while: http://www.debate.org...

Though I think I read him post somewhere that he's going to be leaving for good soon. I'll check to confirm that though because I'm not entirely sure.

(I think, I'm not 100% sure though), and I don't have a good enough understanding of the issue to debate a user as good as Hayd on the topic. I let Fortis pick the topic on this team debate since I the team debates that we usually do are on my account.

I see. Well, if you both get the chance, it would be a good matchup!

Agreed.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:56:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:55:05 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:52:31 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:49:31 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/5/2016 2:37:43 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:07:04 AM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 11:21:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:48:51 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:02:02 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/4/2016 9:34:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

This was a very very very good vote, very clear and demonstrates a good understanding of the debate.

Congrats on the win, but very, very, very, very, very silly comment.

How is complimenting a vote silly

The fact that I obviously tested the boundaries of the debate by doing things such as forfeiting and going over the character limit and you take it seriously.

Well, the vote/RFD I gave was serious. Either way, I enjoyed voting. You guys should do a rematch with the suggestions I gave and without forfeits! :)

I think that Fortis is leaving soon

He better not be leaving.

He's definitely leaving for a while: http://www.debate.org...

How did I miss that?

Though I think I read him post somewhere that he's going to be leaving for good soon. I'll check to confirm that though because I'm not entirely sure.

I talked to him a little while back and he never said anything about leaving permanently...

(I think, I'm not 100% sure though), and I don't have a good enough understanding of the issue to debate a user as good as Hayd on the topic. I let Fortis pick the topic on this team debate since I the team debates that we usually do are on my account.

I see. Well, if you both get the chance, it would be a good matchup!

Agreed.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 8:05:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:56:23 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:55:05 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Though I think I read him post somewhere that he's going to be leaving for good soon. I'll check to confirm that though because I'm not entirely sure.

I talked to him a little while back and he never said anything about leaving permanently...

This isn't exactly saying that he's permanently leaving but it's kind of implied where he says that he's leaving soon. There's a good chance that he's just referring to his hiatus though http://www.debate.org...
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 8:08:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 8:05:20 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:56:23 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:55:05 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Though I think I read him post somewhere that he's going to be leaving for good soon. I'll check to confirm that though because I'm not entirely sure.

I talked to him a little while back and he never said anything about leaving permanently...

This isn't exactly saying that he's permanently leaving but it's kind of implied where he says that he's leaving soon. There's a good chance that he's just referring to his hiatus though http://www.debate.org...

Hm, I see. Thanks.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW