1 month ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
13 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a month ago

    Very sloppy debate. Audio terrible. Con did not light himself adequately enough. Pro should have had all his information prepared in advance. Making the audience sit through you guys googling stuff and having to hear your keystrokes as you do is absurd. You must realize that a video is for an audience, so it should not be a headache to watch.

    Con lets pro present some simple statistical data that anyone could summarize in three minutes for 25 minutes. I blame both for that.

    The debate did not really begin until 35 minutes in.

    Saying that Pro is wrong because he never met a jew or lived in america is ad hominem. You can bring it up as a point about experiencing the personhood of jews or the pulse of america as being more important than statistics, but just saying "you don't know shit," is not a point. He may not know shit, but that wouldn't make him wrong.

    There are plenty of good arguments against pros position, but saying jews controlled banks because there were no other jobs is rather silly.

    i voted draw. Neither of them deserved to win.

    • a month ago

      @duncan_king Fair enough, as Ive said, im pretty sure it was using my webcam mic, but I didnt bother changing it because my opponent said it was fine. It was my first debate, and I certainly hope to be better in my subsequent debates, and have all my points ready to go. Thanks for watching.

    • a month ago

      @duncan_king There was a second part to the debate. Ik I could have brought up stats and proved him wrong. It was beyond obvious. He's just going to end up with stats of his own though with opinions of his own no matter how wrong or biased they may be. In his view, it'd be a stalemate, it wouldn't convince of anything. Likely, he's heard the same arguments before, so the effect would have little effect. If you can ignore bad lighting and a bit of bad audio, which isn't hard, you can see that, though we have different views, and hell, he may have even disliked Jews before, I think I may have had an effect cause of my curve ball approach which lacked seriousness on purpose. The title itself may have been written with intention to discriminate, so I discriminated back as part of a curve ball tactic. Look at the end though, and you'll see him talk about wanting to maybe visit me and stuff. That means he likely wants to hear more of what I to say likely, which if I would have gone the tried stats, seriousness, etc. route as you likely would have, wouldn't happen again, resulting in his view, a worthless stalemate, therefore, a loss. But ya know, I can see that you're one of those "libertarian" sorta people, so argument isn't exactly worth much as you are likely always going to find something ya don't like even if not a big deal, and even get really nasty even at the slightest annoyance. I'd adjust your profile though, as I doubt a "humanist" would care much about perfect equipment on a site that only gets so many visitors, and even less likely, a comment that is actually worth anything besides snobbery as you presented, or trolling. You legit commented here just to say how much you hated everything. Nothing good to add. Seriously, take off the humanist part. There's a reason I and many others consider libertarians using that name to hide what they really are, selfish, egotistical anarchists that'd be better off away from human society to fight to the death amongst themselves in the wild. But I digress, I think I proved my point. Now I sit back and wait to hear some sort of condescending comment trying to make me scared, calling me cute, etc. Try me m8. I've been on the net quite a while. Not scared.

    • a month ago

      @frosty10000 Dude he's being a complete snob about this. You don't have to bow over to it. Not everyone invests 100s of dollars in equipment for a barely used website. He can suck it up. Don't apoligize for anything. He's looking for reasons to complain. Thats the reason he commented. It's a worthless comment. Part of the reason the site is so dead.

    • a month ago

      @ewatemberg the site is dead because it doesn’t have funding. The founders keep it alive because they have a personal attachment to it (and us) but it’s not supposed to be a huge site. Early on they were hoping it would be an eventual moneymaker, but it didn’t work out that way. Even so, the people who joined the site didn’t want to see it die so we’ve stuck around because we like it :).

    • a month ago

      @sharkb8 And that's why I am still around sometimes. It's not the site's fault per say that trolls and snobs took over, but filtering out goods and bad relies on modding power. I think the trolling is less so on this site compared to others, but it exists. I wish YouTube would maybe invest in a sort of debate hype. Maybe even buy this platform and integrate it. People out there would love to speak up on things. Then again, youtube debates technically exist. The low hype around the debate itself but more so the fact somebody people like it doing it is sad.

    • a month ago

      @sharkb8 Also, this guy that did nothing except whine about our lesser equipment never even answered. He's a coward. That was my focus. I may try to challenge him on a debate somehow, but libertarians are quite hard to actually have speaking room without constant insult and condescending remarks. It's like talking to hyenas. It's the way of the anarchist idiot. Am I stereotyping them? Yes. I have right to judge people as harshly as they judge me, or more so because I didn't initiate it.

    • a month ago

      @ewatemberg you realize that “civil libertarian progressive” means “I’m a liberal democrat who doesn’t want government to spy on civilians” right? I feel like you saw the word libertarian in his profile and just tuned out everything else.

      Also it’s quite ironic that you say libertarians automatically resort to “constant insult and condescending remarks”... in the same paragraph where you were making constant insults and condescending remarks :P

    • a month ago

      @ewatemberg The video is hard to watch. Pretty sure I am not the only person who thinks this. But I am the only person who watched the entire thing and took the time to give you an honest opinion.

      I watch and have commented on several debates in this site. This is the only one thus far that I have complained about the audio and video. The video is a small problem but the audio is nails on a chalkboard.

      If you can't take criticism you shouldn't do anything for an audience.

    • a month ago

      @duncan_king If I could rewatch and hear a decent amount of points A ok, you can to. You can always ask to clarify arguments if actually really interested. I am taking criticism, but I have a right to, to criticize criticism and put on a defense. If I couldn't take criticism, wouldn't you get blocked?

    • a month ago

      @sharkb8 Yes, I am generalizing libertarians on purpose cause it breaks down ego, which he seems to have plenty of. It's manipulation tactic. I know full well he could be completely different person I put him as, chill, cool, and even agreeing with me on many things. But I'm taking the approach at him that I take for narcissists, which HAS to be VERY harsh in order to perceive me as a more equal threat, and not just easy food. M8, he legit wrote the first and only comment literally to demean both of us, didn't even try to attempt to point out ANY good things at all. He's takes all this WAY too seriously. It was a comment to make him feel better about his over sized ego in reality, little else. Or else, he'd have likely responded to me by now. If he wants to go around criticizing videos, why not start with the ones where, LITERALLY, BOTH SIDES AGREE ON EVERYTHING! Unless he shows proof of doing that quite often, which i have doubt, than why should I be nice? Not being nice would be blocking him for criticism wouldn't it? Did I do that? No? Ok then. He was awful with the way he communicated criticism and came out to sound very snobby even if he didn't mean to, so yes, I am going to be mean, or even meaner right back to him. If somebody punches me for no good reason, wouldn't it make sense to get his ass sued hard for every little spec of damage I receive, as well as him owing me extra for wasting my time, and maybe a few days in jail for causing general issues in the first place? That'd make sense wouldn't it? Ok then, I apply the same principle here. Don't punch if you don't want a punch back 5x harder. Simple. But egoists only want to be the one to punch, not be punched back, even when the world doesn't work that way. I challenged him to a debate to really see what he thinks and open him a bit to see if my theories about him are confirmed or not.

  • a month ago

    No way am I watching another part of this. Improve your equipment.

    • a month ago

      @duncan_king Boo hoo. Congrats on being part of the reason this site gets less visitors everyday. Have fun when this site, like every other debate site, turns into an echo chamber m8. Jeez. Typical rude libertarian.