I would actually prefer popular vote in the forum, or at least vote moderated debate. But if all users vote on this debate, it's gonna be still good. My concern is about those who aren't willing to vote at all. So outcome could be minority determining the outcome.
Thank you. I don't think majority wants Remy banned. Its just that the ones who want are the loudest.
there are like probably 5 to 7 users on this site right now just waiting for debate to end, to vote Pro. they already made up their mind before this debate was even a thing. So if bias is allowed, I am afraid the outcome of this debate is already Pro's win. I really doubt anyone who supports specific side before debate is gonna be voting differently, and I get the feeling the ones wanting Remy banned are much more likely to vote as well.
I just hope this wont suffer from huge voter bias. I mean, just about all voters are divided on those who want to ban Remy and those who dont. So I guess voter bias here is guaranteed. Even I would have severe bias of not being able to vote for Pro under any circumstances.
He has achieved the light of the universal master.
That's why he should not be banned. He is the voice of truth in the abyss of lies.
You must win this debate btw
forgot to tag
It didnt end, it needs 2 more votes.
And yeah, as I said, I would actually prefer to be Pro here. Con is defending the least popular position, only 23% of people agree with Con. Even I disagree with Con entirely.
As for formatting, I was copying from notepad and yeah, I dont really know why it comes out as it does. I guess next time I gonna write in notepad without making too many spaces, because spaces in notepad and spaces here seem to be somehow a different thing.
I mean, this site worries too much about who to ban next. Personally, I wouldn't ban anyone because divine light is in everyone. The best example of this is person who is eternally condemned to be all alone by the Gods. No human contact. Such person would accept just about anyone as a friend, and wouldn't be picky at all. This shows how each person has value and divine light, which shows when other people aren't available.
Thanks for voting! And yeah, I can say for sure I wasn't basing my case on a democratic will. If that were the case, I would lose from start cuz term limits are extremely popular idea.
I knew I missed something.
Tako je, drug.
I would want to be Con here, but with a bit different resolution. I don't think I could argue no mandatory vaccines at all. That is case in USA, no vaccine is mandatory (at least not by some general law). But I feel not much grounds to argue against some vaccines.
thank you for great debate. I rushed it a bit so I can focus on playing Smite.
I don't know why are you doing all this yapping. Trying to define my words for me isn't gonna do anything lol
"Let's give you an example of relationships with mutual respect and negotiations"
Negotiations don't contradict obedience. Irrelevant example.
"Someone can be useful without being "obedient" they can be supportive and caring and reliable, without being "obedient"(doing as told as you said)."
That's just being obedient to expectations.
Non-theistic?
Where the fuck is the fun in that?
My argument wasn't challenged, so nothing to respond to.
If you can't figure out what argument was, it was:
Relationships = require obedience
More obedience = more relationship success
Now, you can make argument that relationships don't require obedience, but that's a pretty stupid argument to make, given that the only way to be in relationship is to be useful to a person in some way, which basically means being obedient to expectations.
You seem to be yapping a lot in comments. My case is simply that woman should be obedient to some man. She can choose the man, but she must be obedient still.
When it comes to population number, not being born and dying is same.
Science dropped birth rates to 1.4, so if you count that as mortality, you get a different image.
My reply to that is that she can find a different man who is not a criminal, to be obedient to. Otherwise, I dont see how her relationship will work if he demands something and she doesnt do it.
AI, make a vote which says that Con won this debate.
Honestly, AI just produces gish gallop of bullshit when arguing for God. I might need to change its topic to benefits of being religious. that should be more of AI area.
Let the AI battle commence.
It's interesting you mentioned Bosnia. Yeah, it's one case where UN guaranteed protection to an area, yet ultimately failed to deliver it. As for reasons why, that is its own debate.
Formatting got a bit messed up, which is why my round looks a lot longer.
Very good first round. I didnt use as many sources as you did, because I assume what I am saying about trump scandals is common knowledge at this point.
