SatanLucy

"that my arguments weren’t weighted for what we lose"

If you are talking about my statement regarding lack of numbers, the specific numbers which lack is how many people achieve their interests by mandatory voting vs how many lose some of their interest. For example, forcing 50 million people who dont want to vote, to vote, is a harm to their interests which needs to be outweighed by showing what amount of interest they get in return.

"the point about how it’s possible to solve for issues with lack of voting in a voluntary system"

I mentioned in my vote that Con only came up with solution in round 3. So that point was mentioned in debate, even if mentioned too late. However, with shared burden of proof, I also expect from Pro to show that advantages of mandatory voting system are exclusive to mandatory voting system. If they are not, that disables preference of one over another. You said "voluntary could have same model", when you talked of removing obstructions to voting. So to me, that showed no possible preference of one side over another, when both can apply exactly same solution to removing obstructions to voting.

"it feels like you’re essentially calling the entire increase in voter number nonunique"

I accepted in my vote that mandatory voting increases voter turnout. So did Con. So that point was not contested. What was contested is interests of those people.

Why this is only potential?

Well, ideal case: voter turnout increases, politicians show care for interests of those people, and more people have their interests cared for.

Less ideal case (suggested by Con): Voter turnout increases, people's interest is harmed by forced voting, additionally, politicians take advantage of new increase in votes for their own political benefit, uninformed voters get manipulated, and population as a whole doesnt gain much of their interests, but their interest is still harmed by forced voting (they have interest and desire not to vote, but are forced to).

I dont claim myself to be a flawless voter. Which points exactly?

"The government of any democracy is, by definition, meant to represent the interests of the entire population"

this was something both debaters seemed to agree on, so I evaluated arguments by what interests points in them satisfy and of whom among entire population.

So I worked with:

Satisfying interests = good

the main question which was bothering me is: Should I punish Con's accidental forfeit (and reject his round 3 innovation), or reward his last round innovation?

In the end, I chose to do neither and just leave it as a tie.

If it was intentional forfeit, I would vote Pro. But due to short time for arguments (3 days), I am somewhat convinced forfeit was an accident.

I might vote on this, but from what I see so far, my vote is likely going to be a tie, so I am not sure if there is a point in casting it other than stealing one of 3 valuable vote slots.

"If every definition falls into my point there's no point giving any"


No definition = No definition falls into your point

"I didn't need to provide a proper definition"


No definition = No deductive logic possible.

If you want to know why your argument fails, it's this:

My structure was:

Best friend = X
Cigarette = X
Best friend = cigarette.

Your structure, at the very minimum, should have been:

Best friend = Y
Cigarette =\= Y
Best friend =\= cigarette.

But with no definition of best friend provided anywhere in your one round, thus no "Best friend = Y", the deductive structure in your argument is non-existent.

So yeah, if you plan to convince me, you at very least need to provide definition of "best friend", which you didn't do.

"It doesn't matter if you are convinced or not. It is factual to say cigarettes are not your best friend, regardless on how you see things."

Incorrect again.

thats okay, I read your argument. I am not convinced.

Mal accepted this because he sees a flaw in topic. But I really wonder if we see the same flaw or maybe he spotted a different one.

I dont need to defend anything. I merely need to state my position and ignore all counter arguments.

Trump is best example of failed democracy. Because masses of people are not smart enough to even detect most obvious lies, such as "I will end all wars in 24 hours". They only detect them after the said politician already won, and at that point, it's too late.

Democracy is the best system of government, when we exclude all others.

What is "Jihadist violence"?

If it merely means fighting in war, then this debate is essentially "Muslims are allowed to fight in wars".

Try accepting the debate.

"looks like I scared Pro away with my awesome logic."

Why does this sound like sarcasm?

Your opponent isnt a serious debater.

As I said, you follow your programming. Your suffering doesnt exist for me. Its just your programmed goals, not mine, which you fail to achieve. And what your programming tells you that "suffering" is, is irrelevant. I wont accept your programming, because I am not NPC (Non-player character). So just because you subjectively think that suffering exists because your goals arent achieved, to me, that is irrelevant. All my goals are achieved always.

Draconian religion is about becoming God yourself.


What is God? God is supreme being and everything happens as God wants.


But becoming a God yourself is about overcoming duality.


Most people have duality: their goals, and reality.


their goals rarely match reality, which causes reality to not be according to their will.



Draconian God solves duality in one of 4 ways:


One, he makes reality bow to his goals. (alter reality)


two, he adjusts his goals, so whatever reality exists, it matches his goals and thus his will. (alter goals)


three, he has no goals, so naturally he cannot have any goal not matching reality. (abandon goals)


four, he abandons belief in reality as a whole, thus his goals become fulfilled in other worlds created by his mind (abandon reality).


these are 4 ways of the true Dragon God, 4 ways which any individual can practice, and any individual can be made successful with them.



And becoming a living God is irrelevant to belief in other Gods. Even if other Gods exist, person can still be a living God. And even if no Gods exist, person can still become a living God.


taoism teaches something similar, and taoism is truly one of greatest religions as well.


Once you learn how to discipline your mind and hack reality, you become someone so powerful, so unaffected by anything.


You become a living God.

If you change goals, then whatever made you sad now makes you happy. this is objectively true. Of course, maybe you personally cant do it due to being NPC (Non-player character, programmed bot who cant change programmed goals), but it doesnt really change the fact that suffering is entirely voluntary product of mind, and whatever you see as "suffering", I see as the world as it should be, so no suffering exists. Of course, in order to reach the level I talk about, you must be well familiar with Draconian religion and becoming a living God yourself who cannot suffer because whatever happens is his realized will. But judging by your so far debates, I really doubt you will ever reach the status of anything close to "living God". this isnt any insult. this is reality which you are enslaved by.

Any situation is victory when one changes his goals.

I dont need to join anything.

I don't need to respond to your arguments, tho next time better bring them in debate instead of trying to do whatever you are doing here.

Agree to disagree.

those are just more assumptions. Heh I can do this all day.

So you don't know how likelihood works. Alright.

Now, that seems like a very long response, which ignores that it's just bunch of assumptions.

And likeliness is determined by repetition. If we see something benefiting adults, and no proved reason to think it wont benefit children as well, the likeliness moves in favor.

Your arguments are basically unproved assumptions and irrelevant things which have no relations to benefits. My arguments are about benefits of cursing. I always used curse words when I was a kid, and the benefits of them are same as in adults, if not even better. Of course, I could have made more effort in a debate and expand it to personal freedoms as well, but what is repeatedly true is that making effort in debates doesnt matter much because most people are NPC (non-player characters). I am basically wasting my time explaining things to people who are programmed not to understand, instead of doing more important things in my life, such as research.

Suffering doesnt exist.