Lame. 200-300 word posts? That's a conversation, not a debate.
Moreno wrote:LIke humans are sheep, shifted up in abstraction to the broader category that no longer has the connotations of the more specific species chosen?
Ecmandu wrote:We already know humans are slaves, to cats and dogs, who actually run the world ...
Outsider wrote:If HaHaHa knows what he's doing, he should be able to easily exploit this, especially the idea that humans are agents acting out of free-will despite the very apparent social conditioning going on.
Ecmandu wrote:??? I thought comments to debates weren't allowed to discuss the strategies of the debate until it was done, only in retrospect ... Or just in very vague terms.
Ecmandu wrote:Hahaha, is well known for this technique as are many others on this board ... If I argue every side at once, I can't lose the side I was arguing!
Carleas wrote:I've got three days bruh, I'll meet the deadline.
Outsider wrote:Also, Carleas's opening post is weak. It implies that, somehow, animals are determined in entirety while humans posses free-will, despite the numerous biological similarities, real life examples, and everything in the universe being governed by the same natural laws, making claims of free will absurd and Carleas's position that both free-will and determinism are at work inconsistent.
Moreno wrote:Livestock is to wild ancestor
as
Citizen in Western society is to _______________
Carleas wrote:Thorough and informative, WW_III. I agree with both you and Hahaha that having the opening and closing was a significant advantage, and it turned out to be a greater advantage than I expected due to overly-constrained post length. I also benefited from the short post length because of the style of Hahaha's responses: I ended up ignoring all his requests for additional proof, but not before trying to squeeze proof into the 300 word cap. If I'd had the space to answer Hahaha's requests, I may have had enough rope to hang myself. Longer posts would make more sense.
And, as I've said before, I think Hahaha should have opened, I was arguing the negative which is already the easier side in a debate.
One thing that surprised me was that you didn't find Hahaha's sarcasm effective. It probably has to do with a difference of perspective, but as the recipient of it, I found it among the more threatening points he made. While the rest of his points only provoked an intellectual response, sarcasm is aimed at provoking an emotional response, and again, given enough rope I may have fallen for it. As a rhetorical device, though, I can see it being not so persuasive as it is dismissive.
Thanks for the opportunity, Hahaha. Sorry that the format ended up putting you at a disadvantage; the character limit was too low to really get things going.
Carleas wrote:Thorough and informative, WW_III. I agree with both you and Hahaha that having the opening and closing was a significant advantage, and it turned out to be a greater advantage than I expected due to overly-constrained post length. I also benefited from the short post length because of the style of Hahaha's responses: I ended up ignoring all his requests for additional proof, but not before trying to squeeze proof into the 300 word cap. If I'd had the space to answer Hahaha's requests, I may have had enough rope to hang myself. Longer posts would make more sense.
And, as I've said before, I think Hahaha should have opened, I was arguing the negative which is already the easier side in a debate.
One thing that surprised me was that you didn't find Hahaha's sarcasm effective. It probably has to do with a difference of perspective, but as the recipient of it, I found it among the more threatening points he made. While the rest of his points only provoked an intellectual response, sarcasm is aimed at provoking an emotional response, and again, given enough rope I may have fallen for it. As a rhetorical device, though, I can see it being not so persuasive as it is dismissive.
Thanks for the opportunity, Hahaha. Sorry that the format ended up putting you at a disadvantage; the character limit was too low to really get things going.
HaHaHa wrote:I think the limitations of this debate is why you would favor Carleas over me. His four posts against my three. Had I been allowed one more post I could of totally blown Carleas out of the water with what I view as ridiculous assertions by him.
This is my first confined internet philosophical debate with somebody one on one where it should be publicly noted for the record.
Next time I debate publicly I will not agree to such egregious limitations and confines of such a debate giving the opposition free reign or favorability. If Carleas is indeed the winner I view it as nothing more than a win by default and certainly not that by wit or reasoning.
Carleas wrote:I accept your rematch, though not on the same topic and not for a few weeks. Maybe towards the end of April?
And definitely with different constraints.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users