Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

RFD for US ought to contain China

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The debate
http://www.debate.org...

Resolution: the U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China

This is a great debate topic, as are most in this tournament, which makes this tournament freaking awesome. This has been my favorite tournament thus far with my time on DDO; lots of good debaters on great topics with awesome discourse. MrVindication asked me to vote on this, took me a while since I was voting on a couple other debates and got burned out. But I am feeling great today so I decided to do it. Just for reference, I was listening to Santana's 1970 concert in Tanglewood stadium, Lenox, Massachusetts whilst writing this out. So that our soul's can mutually blend into the bliss that is Pan, you ought to give it your ear.
https://www.youtube.com...

I'm posting it in the forums for a couple of reasons. Firstly because it is longer and it would take a multitude of comments on the debate that would be annoying for me to do to get the character count right, and have to constantly copy & paste, and would spam the debaters a bunch and would get lost in all the other comments and it's weird doing the order. Google docs fixes that, but posting it in the forum has added benefits such as advertising the debate thus getting it more readers, encouraging people to vote more, and easier to discuss the RFD if debaters have qualms as they are able to quote the specific portions and I get a notification.

The burden of proof is shared because the resolution is normative. The BoP (or Burden of Proof) is obligation a party holds to warrant their position in a discussion. If we are discussing whether something "ought" to be done, the burdens are by default equal because each party is attempting to convince a neutral "tabula rasa" judge. As long as the judge is truly objective and standing in the middle, the distance each side has to cover to move the judge to the positive or negative side *is* equal. To have anything else would impose an unfair disadvantage to one of the debaters; effectively pissing on the sanctity of debate. The state of the status quo is especially irrelevent to the position of burdens in a debate. Letting the status quo factor into the decided burdens is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. For example, just because everyone believes in Bigfoot doesn't mean that it's any less absurd. Do the people who believe in Bigfoot no longer have to provide any proof of his existence? Do they no longer have a burden of proof? Of course not, and it's absurd to think so.

Pro opens in R1 by establishing the shared burden of proof and the definition of foreign policy. And how the US has to develop our own policy in dealing with China's developing interest abroad, rather than using the same policies as before--as with back in the USSR. [https://www.youtube.com...]

Pro establishes that China's attempts to control commerce in the Asian region threatens the US's ability to be involved in the region, as well as trade amongst the countries. Pro establishes that both of these are extremely important not only the well-being of the US, but also to the Asian region. Pro proves that China is trying to control commerce in the region by citing the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This would result in restricted ability to access developing nations in Asia and danger to the well-being of Asia, and thus the world. Pro access to developing nations is important because it keeps the US relevant in the region.

After this Pro starts off a new argument defensively, by saying that, "One common argument for not containing China is that it is better off for us to invite them to the world community with open arms than to expel them"yet"" So while a defensive argument wouldn't ordinarily have any impact on an RFD, since it's purely defensive impact whilst RFD's only contain offensive impact, the defensive argument contains offensive impact. Which is pretty confusing and misleading. Regardless, Pro argues that we cannot welcome China to the world stage because they have contempt for the US. This can be seen by China spreading their influence in regions that the US has mostly overlooked in our foreign policy. It is essential to free trade that we continue to partner with these regions in the Asian continent. Pro explains that free trade and thus US involvement is extremely important to American interests due to the amount of money that comes in from Asia. If we do not contain China, this income will be threatened.

Pro starts his next argument the same way, making it seem like it is a defensive argument but then bringing in offensive impacts, "A common argument to be made in favor of letting China rise freely is that we can coexist as superpowers and work together to bring about positive change in the world. There are several reasons why we should not coexist with them"" Pro then brings up that China is drawing smaller regions into the circle of China, Russia, and North Korea, which is detrimental to free trade and poses a military threat for the US.

Pro also argues that if China would to become a superpower, they would not cooperate or work together with the United States. This can be shown by the amount of cyber attacks on US corporations by China, even after a mutual agreement to discontinue them was agreed. Thus we must contain China in order to prevent them from becoming a superpower and doing significant harm to the US.

So the key takeaways from Pro's case is that the US ought to contain China in order to preserve free trade policy in the Asian region, maintain beneficial trade between the US and Asian countries, stay relevant in the Asian region (through access to developing countries), and prevent long term superpower conflicts between US and China.

Now on to Con's opening arguments. Con essentially establishes that the US shares huge economic ties to Asia, especially in regards to China, India, and Japan. Thus, if we were to attempt to contain China it would harm our economic relations with Asia, which would harm the US economically, as well as Asia. This is furthered by the fact that China has more influence on Japan than we do, thus if we were to contain China, China could make Japan cut trading to the US as well, which would hurt our automobile industry, and overall economy.

Con also explains that containment of China would lead to military intervention, which might push China to become more aggressive in the dispute, thus escalating the situation; which is bad. Con also explains that all of the United State's past attempts to contain countries failed miserably, as when we attempted to stop the spread of communism. I'd like to note that this argument doesn't actually have any impact because it isn't a reason why the attempt in China will fail. If all of the past attempts failed, then Con could make the argument that the concept of containment is inherently flawed, but he doesn't make that case. But the argument that past attempts failed is not an argument that we shouldn't do it again unless you can show specifically why they failed, and thus why it will fail again. Without that there's no substance, there's no reason to negate the resolution. Thus it can't have an impact on me.

Con also brings up the argument that the more that the US has respected China, the better things have become. For example, when the US invested in the Chinese economy, it sparked an industrial growth in China which led to market reforms, movement policies with Vietnam, and eased relationship with Cuba.

CONTINUED
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 10:23:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
To summarize Con's case: the US ought not contain China in order to protect our economic relations which Asia which are essential to the wellbeing of America's and Asia's economy, escalating the dispute, past attempts at containment failed, and leaving China alone has been shown to produce good results due to trust.

Pro starts in R2 by observing that containment does not necessitate stopping trade or military intervention, it is merely preventing Chinese economic, militaristic, and political expansion. Looking back to R1, the definition was:

"the act of preventing the spread of something; actions that are intended to keep an unfriendly government from getting more power; a comprehensive political, economic, and military strategy to deny an enemy nation freedom of access to the international system."

By definition, Pro is right. Although the definition states that the country will be contained by political, economic, and militaristic strategy, it does not specify cutting trade or military intervention. But this is also partly Pro's fault as Pro never laid out a plan to affirm the resolution. He never specifically stated the way in which he would have the US contain China, as most debaters who are affirming the resolution do in a policy debate. Thus, Con is forced to debate on what the effects of having a contained China would be, rather than what the effects of the methods of containment would be--such as military intervention, embargoes, or whatever. Con made the mistake in assuming the methods for carrying out containment when Pro was the only one who could establish them. Thus both debaters are forced to debate only the effects of containment. Which sucks because Con's mistake lead to the direct negation of almost his entire case.

Regardless, Pro brings up a new argument in R2 that China has plans to end US involvement in Asia, and have China the superpower of the region. This obviously is detrimental to US interests as already established by both debaters, through beneficial trade agreements and such. Thus, the logic follows that if we do not contain China then they will carry out their plan, hurting the US, but if we contain China we are able to continue our beneficial trade agreements. Thus we ought to contain China.

Pro also brings up somewhat of his plan to affirm containment. He plans to "increase involvement with Asian nations to ensure that Chinese influence does not spread to the point that they are able to remove us from the table, which is detrimental to our interests."

Pro also does rebuttals to Con's opening arguments. The only arguments that Con has left that weren't self-negated were: escalating the dispute, and leaving China alone leads to good results due to trust.

Pro focuses on the first, that containing China would escalate the dispute by arguing that China is the one that is escalating the dispute. This is shown by them constantly encroaching upon US, and ally owned waters. The logic is that China shouldn't feel threatened if they are the aggressors. This isn't a good rebuttal because whether China *should* feel one way or another is not what the argument is about, or where the impact is. The argument was that China *would* feel threatened, regardless of whether it was justified or not. Pro needed to show me that China would not feel that way, but instead he showed me how they ought to feel, which is irrelevant.

Pro then goes on to contest Con's point about the US mostly friending South American countries. This wasn't really an argument that Con made, more of a side-point, thus a rebuttal isn't really needed. Regardless, Pro uses it to boost his already established point that China is looking to rival the US as a superpower.

Pro then responds to Con's argument that all previous attempts of containment to other countries failed. This already didn't have topical impact to the debate before, but Con negates it none the less by explaining that each different scenario is unique, thus judging one situation based on a past situation is illogical.

Pro fails to respond to Con's argument that leaving China alone in the past led to good results, "What is most interesting to note is that the more peaceful the West has been toward China, the more open they have been to trade and friendship with the West, primarily the United States." Con's argument was backed up well with evidence documenting exactly how peace resulted in benefits. It is worrisome for Pro that this was dropped.

Con starts off R3 by taking a new angle and arguing that the US is unable to contain China. This is because China has huge economic influence, as well as formidable military and technology. Now, the argument that it is impossible for the US to contain China thus the US ought not contain China doesn't work because the resolution is *should* the US implement a policy of containment in regards to China. And I have to quote whiteflame again as he explains it perfectly; should in debating, "simply designates that we are engaged in a policy debate, and therefore what should happen. This is distinguished from 'could,' as what we are discussing is whether abolition should or should not happen, rather than whether it could given current impediments in Congress and elsewhere. This also implies a net benefits framework, where we'll be debating the merits of our respective cases." Arguing that the US could not implement a policy of containment in regards to China is irrelevant, and thus doesn"t work.

Luckily Con switches his approach halfway through the argument and claims that, "It is illogical to state that the United States, *without incurring great financial burdens*, could contain a regional superpower" This doesn't follow the initial claim of the argument that the US is unable to contain China, but that's not a big deal. Con explains that any sort of containment by method of economics would hurt our economy as well due to our 5:2 ratio in regards to exports with China.

Con then addresses the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank point that Pro brought up. Pro brought it up to demonstrate the point that China is *attempting* to control commerce in the Asian region, but Con's attacks don't seek to disprove this. I'm actually not even sure what they are supposed to disprove. I'm not shown how the amount of countries that joined it and such affects anything, or how it has relevance to whether we should contain China that China is not actually trying to expand.

Con continues by attacking Pro's argument that containing China will lead to the preservation of free trade in the region by arguing that China would not threaten free trade because it is extremely beneficial to their economy. Thus, containing China in order to preserve free trade isn't relevant, because free trade will be preserved regardless. Although, this point is merely asserted and has no material backing. There's no evidence, and no warrant to show that China benefits from free trade, it's just claimed.

Con then responds to Pro's plan for affirming the resolution: that the US increases involvement with Asian nations in order to stop the spread of Chinese influence, by arguing that our involvement with Asian nations such as India will not result in them cutting economic ties to China. For some reason Con assumes that containment necessitates ending trade deals, which Pro had specifically said would not happen the previous round. Con continues on the straw man by saying that it will cause investment companies in China to invest in developing countries, mostly in the Middle East which would lead to a higher standard of living and decreased terrorism. But Con also explains that it would be impossible for the US to stop Chinese investment because it would violate sovereignty of nations, and China has better connections with the Middle East than the US does.

CONTINUED
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 10:26:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
This argument plays back to the earlier one made this round by Con, and as explained earlier, these arguments are a waste of time.

Con then argues that Pro's statistics about bilateral trade with Japan is wrong, as we actually exported $62 billion worth of goods, and imported $160 billion. Thus I guess the combined worth of goods in the bilateral trade would be $222 billion instead of was Pro said, which was $77 billion. Con explains that this is important because our trading relationship with Japan is very important, and thus any aggressions towards China would harm us since China has more influence over the Japanese economy than we do--due to them being the largest trading partner, larger than the US. But this argument again assumes that containment would necessitate cutting economic trade, which Pro already established would not happen.

Con then attacks Pro's argument that the US ought to contain China in order to, "maintain beneficial trade between the US and Asian countries" by arguing that China *is already* the superpower in Asia, but has not threatened US trade. Thus the need to protect US trade by containing China is false. Although Con doesn't bring up any research, Con does argue that this evidenced by the fact that China allowed Western products to drop in price. But this is directly negated by Pro's evidence about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Con's attacks didn't disprove that the AIIB wasn't trying to control commerce, and this is concrete evidence which outweighs Con's lack of evidence. Thus I prefer Pro's side on this.

Con continues by arguing that Pro's statement that the US ought to militarily intervene in Asia is wrong because it would be impossible to stop Chinese alliances to Russia and North Korea, thus it logically follows that putting military there would be a waste of time. The problem with this is that Con *again* assumes that we would use the military intervention to stop Chinese alliances to Russia and North Korea, when Pro never suggested such thing at any time during the debate. These repeated straw men don't have any bearing on the debate.

Con then asserts that diplomacy rather than aggression towards China has led to many benefits, but this goes without any evidence of any times the US was diplomatic towards China or how this directly resulted in specific benefits for both the US and China. This is very similar to the argument that Con brought up in R2 that, "the more peaceful the West has been toward China, the more open they have been to trade and friendship with the West, primarily the United States." Thus resulting in industrial growth, market reforms (although Con doesn't explain these at all, thus just a useless term), trade and movement policies with Vietnam, and eased tensions with Cuba. These two arguments differ in that the previous argument was entirely economic related, whilst this had to do with diplomacy.

Con then responds to Pro's argument regarding the Chinese cyberattacks on US corporations. Although, in Con's rebuttal he completely misunderstands the content of Pro's argument. Pro's argument was that if we allow China to continue their plans unchecked, they will become a world superpower on par with the US. If this happens, it will spawn long-term disputes between the two countries, as can be evidenced by the cyberattacks on US corporations even after an agreement was reached. Con misunderstands and thinks that the argument was that we ought to contain China in order to stop Chinese cyberattacks. He misses the bigger picture, which was preventing more issues from occurring in the future. Regardless, Con argues that a lack of American investment and innovation will result in China doing more cyberattacks. But as Pro already pointed out last round, the containment will not incur a ceased investment and trade between China and the US. So even then, Con's rebuttal doesn't work.

Onto Pro's R3 response: Pro's observation and first argument are already stuff that I went over and only solidifies what was already said, whether the US *can* contain China isn't an argument.

Pro then expounds on his plan for affirming the resolution, "make ourselves a spot at the table in trade negotiations and develop extensive diplomatic relations with the countries in Asia subject to increasing Chinese influence, which effectively negates their influence"

The rest of Pro's R3 response is mostly restating what he said before or summarizing what was already said, none of it really has to be gone over.

The same can be said for Con's R4 response, in rehashing the impossibility of containment and such, or just unimportant things such as South America and whether we currently have a containment policy. Nothing *new* is said except that trade agreements are an expansion of influence, thus containment would necessitate them. But expansion inherently means expanding beyond what is already, thus if there are already trade agreements this would not be expanding. Cutting them would be shrinking the influence, which isn't within the scope of the burden of proof. The resolution is merely contain. Con's arguments that cutting ties with China still don't work, and that it would be impossible is irrelevant.

At the end of the debate, Pro's argument of preventing long-term disputes if China is allowed to become a superpower on par with the US was not defeated because Con misunderstood the argument. This is impactful because Pro proved that China has plans to become a world superpower through their policy plans he cited, and Pro proved that harmful disputes are likely to occur, giving the example of cyberattacks that China has not stopped. Pro's argument that we must contain China in order to preserve free trade was defeated by Con because Con explained that China would maintain free trade regardless of whether we contained them or not because free trade is extremely helpful to their economy. Thus this isn't a reason to contain China. Pro never responded to this afterwards so the rebuttal works. Pro's argument that we ought to contain China in order to remain relevant in the region is especially impactful because Pro explains that remaining relevant in the region is important to staying involved with developing countries which leads to "mutually beneficial alliance in trade, and perhaps technologically/militarily." Pro's argument that we need to contain China in order to preserve our beneficial trade deals works because Con's evidence for his rebuttal that China was already a superpower and was letting prices fall was outweighed by Pro's evidence of China creating the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Con's argument that containing China would be impossible for the US unless we incurred upon ourselves large financial burdens was defeated by Pro saying that the containment would merely entail increased involvement in surrounding Asian countries, and negotiate trade deals for the countries. Con doesn't show how increased diplomatic involvement will create large financial burdens, thus the argument is defeated. Con's argument that containing China would end trade deals which would harm both Asia and the US was negated by the fact that Pro's plans would not entail cutting trade deals. And Con in turn proved this true by explaining that China's free trade deals were too valuable to them to cut. Con's argument that containing China would escalate the dispute worked because Pro's rebuttal failed due to him proving that China shouldn't be angered, and not proving that they wouldn't be angered. Con's argument that past attempts at containment fails because it isn't a reason that we should do it again, as each case is unique and Con doesn't prove that there is something inherently flawed in the concept of containment. Lastly Con's argument that respecting China has led to good results in the past due to trust.

Since both debaters still have impacts leftover, it's necessary to

CONTINUED
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 10:28:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
do weighing analysis to decide the winner. Con's argument that respecting China in the past led to good results fails in the face of Pro proving that China plans to restrict US involvement in the region. So although respecting China might have worked in the past, evidence shows that it will not work in the future now due to that evidence. Con's arguments that containing China might escalate the dispute has little impact because Con isn't specific about what impact it will have. Con mainly just says that containment would add to the, "*possible* military altercation". The impact is purely speculative, and that's the most Con really says on the point. Regardless, considering that Japan would be on our side due to the standoff just makes the encounter even more unlikely. The possibility of actual violence is not really present, but the possibility of increased escalation in the dispute is still there. Although Con does not expand on what this means at all. Will this result in more drafted policies that hurt the US? Will it make issues like cyber attacks and nuclear disarmament less likely to be resolved? I'm not told the results of any of this, thus I can't give it much impact. That's all the impact that is on Con's side at the end of the debate, while Pro still has the argument that long term disputes will occur if China becomes a superpower on par with the US, as evidenced by already harmful disputes that have significant impact on US corporations as conceded by Con. This alone outweighs Con's entire case for me, but Pro still has contact with developing nations to sway me further. Thus I give Pro the win.

Pro obviously had the best debating skills, but could improve on formatting more. The spacing and titles were off, especially when Pro had multiple arguments under one title it got confusing. Many of the links were broken, which could obviously be fixed by just deleting the character at the end of the URL, but its still something that ought to be fixed. Just scroll through the debate before you post in the review tab. The introductions were confusing, especially introducing arguments as defensive arguments.

Con acted really silly by trying to do some insults to his opponent by calling him, inane, asinine, idiotic, and foolish. Didn't sound clever...Con also had a lot of fluff and unimportant stuff, and almost half of his arguments were just quoted from other sources. Debaters should never quote things that are longer than a couple of sentences, and should only be used as evidence, NEVER for argumentation. Con was using quotes to argue for him so much that it was more than half of his entire argument sometimes.

The setup for the debate was also weird, especially the round setup. It was too moderated. Just say, "start argumentation in R1 and waive R4. No new arguments in the final round." The rules aren't needed unless you are sending an open challenge to someone you don't know.

That's it. Peace and Love. Heil bladerunner
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 10:51:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Pro starts in R2 by observing that containment does not necessitate stopping trade or military intervention, it is merely preventing Chinese economic, militaristic, and political expansion. Looking back to R1, the definition was:

"the act of preventing the spread of something; actions that are intended to keep an unfriendly government from getting more power; a comprehensive political, economic, and military strategy to deny an enemy nation freedom of access to the international system."

By definition, Pro is right. Although the definition states that the country will be contained by political, economic, and militaristic strategy, it does not specify cutting trade or military intervention. But this is also partly Pro's fault as Pro never laid out a plan to affirm the resolution. He never specifically stated the way in which he would have the US contain China, as most debaters who are affirming the resolution do in a policy debate. Thus, Con is forced to debate on what the effects of having a contained China would be, rather than what the effects of the methods of containment would be--such as military intervention, embargoes, or whatever. Con made the mistake in assuming the methods for carrying out containment when Pro was the only one who could establish them. Thus both debaters are forced to debate only the effects of containment. Which sucks because Con's mistake lead to the direct negation of almost his entire case.

This is incorrect. The definition clearly states that we must deny them access to the international system, meaning the access they currently have will be denied as well. You overlooked that fact and decided to deduct points from my argument, which was a foolish thing to do.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 11:16:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 10:28:16 PM, Hayd wrote:
do weighing analysis to decide the winner. Con's argument that respecting China in the past led to good results fails in the face of Pro proving that China plans to restrict US involvement in the region. So although respecting China might have worked in the past, evidence shows that it will not work in the future now due to that evidence. Con's arguments that containing China might escalate the dispute has little impact because Con isn't specific about what impact it will have. Con mainly just says that containment would add to the, "*possible* military altercation". The impact is purely speculative, and that's the most Con really says on the point. Regardless, considering that Japan would be on our side due to the standoff just makes the encounter even more unlikely. The possibility of actual violence is not really present, but the possibility of increased escalation in the dispute is still there. Although Con does not expand on what this means at all. Will this result in more drafted policies that hurt the US? Will it make issues like cyber attacks and nuclear disarmament less likely to be resolved? I'm not told the results of any of this, thus I can't give it much impact. That's all the impact that is on Con's side at the end of the debate, while Pro still has the argument that long term disputes will occur if China becomes a superpower on par with the US, as evidenced by already harmful disputes that have significant impact on US corporations as conceded by Con. This alone outweighs Con's entire case for me, but Pro still has contact with developing nations to sway me further. Thus I give Pro the win.

Terrible reason to award a win. My economic analysis was far superior to my opponent's, and yet you simply skipped over it and went straight to espionage, while I stated that, as per the definition, if we were to put damages on China for these acts, then we would suffer significant damage as well.

I don't think you grasped the weight of the economic argument at all. In fact, it seems like you didn't even bother to read the argument, let alone evaluate it.


Pro obviously had the best debating skills, but could improve on formatting more. The spacing and titles were off, especially when Pro had multiple arguments under one title it got confusing. Many of the links were broken, which could obviously be fixed by just deleting the character at the end of the URL, but its still something that ought to be fixed. Just scroll through the debate before you post in the review tab. The introductions were confusing, especially introducing arguments as defensive arguments.

Con acted really silly by trying to do some insults to his opponent by calling him, inane, asinine, idiotic, and foolish. Didn't sound clever...Con also had a lot of fluff and unimportant stuff, and almost half of his arguments were just quoted from other sources. Debaters should never quote things that are longer than a couple of sentences, and should only be used as evidence, NEVER for argumentation. Con was using quotes to argue for him so much that it was more than half of his entire argument sometimes.

The setup for the debate was also weird, especially the round setup. It was too moderated. Just say, "start argumentation in R1 and waive R4. No new arguments in the final round." The rules aren't needed unless you are sending an open challenge to someone you don't know.

That's it. Peace and Love. Heil bladerunner
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.

Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 1:45:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

His RDF was very detailed and more than adequate. It must of taken him hours to write up. Even though you lost, be thankful for the time he put into it. Votes for long and complex debates are very tough to come by. The majority of DDO would have not bothered at all.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 4:50:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

It doesn't matter anymore, the debate has ended.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 4:52:09 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 4:50:56 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

It doesn't matter anymore, the debate has ended.

You just don't care at all about the debate as long as you win? Whether the respective impacts, and structure of debates, the analyzing of arguments, none of it matters as long as you get those wins. lmao
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 5:03:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 4:52:09 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:56 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

It doesn't matter anymore, the debate has ended.

You just don't care at all about the debate as long as you win? Whether the respective impacts, and structure of debates, the analyzing of arguments, none of it matters as long as you get those wins. lmao

No, the debate has ended. There's no point in trying to appeal a vote that cannot be changed.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

School started for you??
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 5:00:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

School started for you??

Yeah, Wednesday
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 5:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 5:00:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

School started for you??

Yeah, Wednesday

Damn that's early. I bet schools ends in mid May for you right?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 5:02:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 5:01:32 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:00:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

School started for you??

Yeah, Wednesday

Damn that's early. I bet schools ends in mid May for you right?

Yeah, most schools around started last week though
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 5:03:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 5:02:20 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:01:32 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:00:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

School started for you??

Yeah, Wednesday

Damn that's early. I bet schools ends in mid May for you right?

Yeah, most schools around started last week though

Must be state thing I suppose. My school starts in September
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 5:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

Guys, Hayd is right.

Also Hayd, why are you still in school?
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 10:01:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 5:03:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:02:20 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:01:32 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:00:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

School started for you??

Yeah, Wednesday

Damn that's early. I bet schools ends in mid May for you right?

Yeah, most schools around started last week though

Must be state thing I suppose. My school starts in September

When does your summer start??
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 10:02:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 5:06:32 PM, missmozart wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

Guys, Hayd is right.

Also Hayd, why are you still in school?

Because I'm 15 years old
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 12:46:32 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 10:01:55 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:03:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:02:20 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:01:32 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:00:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

School started for you??

Yeah, Wednesday

Damn that's early. I bet schools ends in mid May for you right?

Yeah, most schools around started last week though

Must be state thing I suppose. My school starts in September

When does your summer start??

My last exam was on the 23rd of June, but my summer officially started on the June 29th.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:38:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:46:32 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 10:01:55 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:03:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:02:20 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:01:32 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:00:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

School started for you??

Yeah, Wednesday

Damn that's early. I bet schools ends in mid May for you right?

Yeah, most schools around started last week though

Must be state thing I suppose. My school starts in September

When does your summer start??

My last exam was on the 23rd of June, but my summer officially started on the June 29th.

OH lol, that's why then. I had half the month of August and then all of June
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 7:27:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 10:02:34 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:06:32 PM, missmozart wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

Guys, Hayd is right.

Also Hayd, why are you still in school?

Because I'm 15 years old

Yeah same but it's the start of August. We're still on holidays until the end of the month. Is it different in the US?
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 7:29:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 5:00:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:37:02 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
School started for you??

Yeah, Wednesday

That's...really early. My old high school started right after Labor Day and got out before Memorial Day.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 3:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 10:28:16 PM, Hayd wrote:
Heil bladerunner

lol perfect
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 6:39:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 7:27:15 AM, missmozart wrote:
At 8/5/2016 10:02:34 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:06:32 PM, missmozart wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

Guys, Hayd is right.

Also Hayd, why are you still in school?

Because I'm 15 years old

Yeah same but it's the start of August. We're still on holidays until the end of the month. Is it different in the US?

AFAIK, the US starts school in mid-/late August. Their holidays both start and end earlier.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 8:01:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/7/2016 6:39:27 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:27:15 AM, missmozart wrote:
At 8/5/2016 10:02:34 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 5:06:32 PM, missmozart wrote:
At 8/5/2016 4:50:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:38:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:36:06 AM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:47:28 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:19:53 PM, Hayd wrote:

There's an hour left before the voting ends. I've given you various grievances, and you haven't addressed them at all, while you've been posting vociferously in other forum threads.

I would like to remove your vote completely, as you've yet to address the points that I made about the holes in your RFD. I can attest that the sole reason you voted for Vindication is because he asked you to do so.



Hayd has been more than consistent in maintaining voting standards and impartiality.

Your credulous accusation upon Hayd is ill placed. It is known who the people are who vote bomb for friends upon request. I don't see this as the case here. I've read the debate and agree with Hayd's assessment. With this aside, this was a good debate. Both participants did a fine job and hit a standard for debate quality.

He didn't vote bomb. That's not my accusation.

My accusation is that he had 2 days to discuss the vote with me, which I happily evaluated, as I have the right to. He didn't do this, and thus my opponent has a vote that he has yet to prove as objective.

Granted, it doesn't matter anymore, since the debate is about to end.

When I posted my RFD I had soccer practice immediately after. I went to that and then played soccer tennis with some friends til around 10. I slept and then went to my first day of school. I had friends over after school til about 6 and then I had to get all of my syllabuses signed and homework. Got done at about 8 and then hung out with my family the rest of the night. I went to school for the second day, got home and caught up on some reading. I then did homework, and then went to soccer practice. I just got back. I've basically just been answering PMs on DDO, and spent about 5 min making various forum posts. But my first priority is writing up my debate argument for my current debate, of which I haven't started yet. I simply have more important things to do than discuss the RFD, and I haven't had time to do that yet. So while its weird that youve been stalking my activity, I just havent had time and its frankly not my fault

Guys, Hayd is right.

Also Hayd, why are you still in school?

Because I'm 15 years old

Yeah same but it's the start of August. We're still on holidays until the end of the month. Is it different in the US?

AFAIK, the US starts school in mid-/late August. Their holidays both start and end earlier.

Here the schools finished around 3rd June. The thing is that I had state exams till the end of June, also our school begins at the end of August.
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome