Open debate

"You would not see anything wrong with a liberal because you are one." ---That logic does not work. Just because I am something does not mean I do not see nothing wrong with it: I think humans are generally sh*tty at practicing what they preach. I am human. Therefore, you are wrong. As for the liberal part: I am a liberal, but only if you looked at the original french senate system. I believe in rapid change, not slow change. There are VERY few 'liberals' today - And I am happy that one of them is from my own community (Pete Stark). "You believe opposite on every one of these issues, and if implemented, that would be disastrous for this country." ---Wrong on multiple levels. 1) You have no proof that I oppose you on every one of those issues. 2) I have proof that I don't oppose you on every one of those issues. -corporate taxes: I hate corporations. They should be taxed. A lot. -deregulation: I don't know dereg this is talking about -2ndamrights: What about them? -traditional marriage: I am against arranged marriage -strong military: I see nothing wrong with it -well funded intelligence: I do not like secret societies. I would get rid of the CIA FBI and those other things if I could. -domestic oil: I think that would be beneficial; we wouldn't have to kill people. -ethanol: I agree with you. Good game. Moving on... "Winning debates is not a priority for me. Being right is. And I'm right. You're wrong." ---Uh huh.... and why are you winning again? "See? Self-absorbed. Worst things by better people? So that means my insults were not worthy enough to describe you? A better person would have more accurately nailed you with more harsh insults? You confuse yourself when you attempt to mock me." ---If anything, you're self-absorbed. All you've been saying thats relevant to this debate is IM WINNING YOURE LOSING while giving absolutely no reason to why that is true. I have actually provided some substance that's adherent to the topic (the first five lines of my R1), and conveniently enough, it's the part you chose not to respond to. As for the rest of your comment: Yes, a better person would more accurately nail it. You are not one of them. I believe I am not confusing myself when I say that; I believe you are trying to trick yourself to keep believing that you are some sort of god. Sorry for all those that are reading this debate. I can't keep a straight face or a set of polite fingers in front of such bigotry. "Are you representing the audience? Who elected you to speak for the audience? Was there an election I'm not aware of? Arrogant comes to mind again. Listen, you can't continue to self-analyze yourself and substitute your opinion for others." ---Under this line of reasoning, debate and the search for truth through discussion is completely fallacious. Regardless, I can accurately say for many of the people that are going to be reading this debate: What the hell are you talking about? If this is an arrogant act to you, fine. Call me arrogant. I just believe that clearing things up and making it easier for voters to make their decision is a good thing. "If you want me to clarify something I've written, just ask. " ---I have. What is my burden and what is your burden? Again, you fail to respond to relevant things. "Ditto. You have not given me such a burden either." ---You started this debate. You're supposed to set it up. You did not. "I've never said I oppose open debate. I'm debating you, and I'll debate anyone. You seem to think I'm afraid to debate. Who might that be?" ---Then what in f*cking hell are we talking about? You set up a debate under the name "OPEN DEBATE" and then you take the position CON, saying that people should bring their DEBATE POINTS instead of TECHINICALITIES. I assumed that you meant open debate is bad because many people use technicalities instead of real arguments, and created a case out of that. However, all you did was take parts out of my rounds and attack each individual part of it: Attacking the claim of an argument, asking "wheres your reasoning for this", when the warrant came only several words later. However, you chose to not clarify this; chose to work under the whole "you have to ask me first" mindset, and now you... "You are anything but clear. Your arguments run together, are contradictory at times, and poorly written. You can do better." ...blame me for your actions. I don't think that works. Clearness - I am clearer than you. I give the audience a clear way to vote PRO since R1: "Some of us call our arguments against our opponents "refutations". Some of us call out opponents refutations "technicalities". There is no difference between a "technicality" and a "refutation". Therefore, I affirm." It is the clearest thing in this round, even if we accept your argument. You have never responded to that part of this debate and it is my THESIS, my SOLE ARGUMENT, therefore I WIN THE ROUND. Contradictory - Where? You don't show why. Oh, did I have to ask? No, debate does not work that way. If you make a claim, you must support it. If you say something, you have the burden of proof to give warrants and evidence for it. Poorly written - I don't need to respond to this. Since I have given a clear argument since R1 and my opponent has not responded to it, you go PRO.