@hope_w: read the debate and say that again. People may see you as a wanker or whatever but you are still an intellectual.Read the debate and analyze it. I'll respect your vote no matter what it is, just read the debate. That's all i ask for
@thepurifier: @ryokuma100: @alextheboss: @crimson_lord: @xdragon2002: @vngryvfrican: @fullmetalemprah: @nelomaxwell: @leothegreatest: @pmcinelly784: @raw_ability: @kratosx64x: @wyldsong: @kevd4wg: @hittheassasin: @great_black_star: @hope_w: @vsw:@bdelloidgrain2: @theemperor95: @bdelloidgrain2: @galan_destroyer: @_kingoflatveria: @supergoku17: @the_stern_ritter: @santinia1: @haoalchemist:@kingzod: @oceanmaster21: @sivil-law: @lan_fan: @godren: @b_r023:@chronicplane: @tomtheawesome123::@ancient_0f_days: @azureus: @hope_w@cromulor:@darthjhawk@emperorthanos-@death2heretics: @lvenger:@sladerulez::@darthjhawk
Note if you weren't tagged it was probably on purpose.
Try and take personal thoughts out of this and vote for who debater better
Please give a couple of reasons why you think a certain debater one
It would be greatly appreciated
Both of you guys did a fairly decent job of doing some much needed catching up in this debate and made good on SOME of the claims you made. Though I still have massive problems with both sides of the arguments; DH61 did a slightly better job on his closer however new guys did effectively pushback on the potency of the attacks and it didn't help that DH practically partly conceded there. I just feel like DH61 addressed more of his points effectively here.
The second phase of debating was crap, it was more or less petty strawmans over things neither had proven and began to get a little hilarious tbh. Granted this was moreso on newguys I hold DH to a higher standard therefore will place all the blame on him cos' reasons. Also the lack of scans and wonky arguments thereof just made that phase a complete and total L. However if you wanna hand a technical win, I'd soundly give it to newguys.
*walks in Bar, tosses money on counter, and immediately sips drink before pinching the bridge of my nose with a sigh*
Firstly this debate was incredibly boring. It had no real energy, no flare, no pizzaz to it that makes you just want to read it. Starting off with the openers which had so many blatant ass pulls it was ridiculous along with the general lack of effort in actually presenting the character just gives you the idea from the jump what type of debate this was going to be. The opening statement is the most important IMO and they both missed the mark though as far as overall quality it shouldn't even be in question whose was superior.
However even then you can't give anyone props because of the mess that transpired in the second round, it shouldn't even have to be discussed that EVERYTHING needs to be proven here, you both practically wanted the viewers to go off your word here.
Finally overall the amount of parodies this thread has numbers near the thousands. Dh61, firstly to end any and every debate regarding cutting damage against frieza ESPECIALLY when you had Mecha was to simply outline that frieza was specifically Atomized by trunks ki then it would be up to NG to provide evidence that he could be put down by less or otherwise.
NG, yes split durability exists How ever the extreme you took it to are in all cases absurd. YES, I agree poison would work on Freeza but the simple fact that he can fly in space meaning he most likely doesn't have to breathe negates practically every argument surrounding it. Also the fact that you tried to argue soul steal when again DH showed an entire bit on Existence erasing is in itself just wow......
This entire debate was bound to crash and burn anyways as it was infested with trolls, instigators, and accumulated salt from elsewhere. Throw lazy debating and Naruto and DBZ fanboys on top and you've got a fire that'll last about a couple weeks......like this did. Anyways IMHO this is like a 51/49 pick but technically DH61 put up the better argument so he gets my vote.
In summary, that was honestly underwhelming, no intended slight to you both.
I was already very indifferent after the 1st phase of arguments, both of you failed to really give us readers solid ground to support either of you as both sides of the argument where lacking in concreteness.
DH61 stomped that round imo.
The second phase, yikes.
I mean, for real? I was somehow even more lukewarm about the debate after this round. Lack of scans, almost purposeful faulty logic and arguments that quite honestly derogated both of your debating standards as you're two debaters I've come to acknowledge. In this round I give to DH again warranted by his superior array and structure.
You both performed sufficiently in the third round.
Overall, I didn't particularly enjoy this debate, you both offered...nothing to root for. I held a founded perspective of who would be the winner of this debate after the first round only to get completely disoriented by the second. It felt like I was reading the same thing repeatedly.
There were arguments on both sides that were treated with such laxity, that it made it toilsome to remain invested.
This is disappointing as I have to vote based on the debater with the firmer hold on the element of involvement rather than superior debating prowess. Which I hand to @Deathhero61 soundly.
Rather, average. You both are capable of MUCH better.
Newguy asides, I have to say this was really underwhelming from your side DH, with all due to respect to you (and you only). I was planning to include that in my vote but I dropped seeing as how I'm banned.
You won ofc, but it wasn't nearly as solidly as I anticipated or expected, for all the myriad of glaringly visible fallacies that Newguy abused in practically all his arguments, I felt you could have done a much better job ripping them apart for the trash they were, but nevertheless, I'll just chalk it up to a bad day, happens to all of us.
@ourmanuel: i believe that was the one where i
1. Despite having composite skill and experience feats went with a stretch of an argument
2. Where we couldn't agree on common sense rules.He had Frieza start off in his first form despite every CAV involving him starts him in his final form.
Among other things like a lack of research.
I guess I am voting for @deathhero61:, freiza was heavily downplayed by @thenewguysnm1: and didn't seem to have nearly as many options for victory as he claimed he did. That said I didn't like several of the arguments DH61 used here. He kept bringing up feats that Broly and Goku from Cooler's revenge have which has no relevance here since the OP didn't say movie feats were allowed. For some reason deathhero61 kept bringing up how resistant saiyans are to disease as a counter for cellular attacks which is honestly just dumb(no offense), viruses aren't comparable to attacks that cut on a cellular level for reasons that should be blatently obvious. I also don't see the point in bringing up Dyspo, like I get that he was arguing that people in DB can achieve light speed(and surpass it) but that considering the massive difference in power between pre RoF freiza and Dyspo it hardly proves freiza was faster than light.
I don't have as much to say @thenewguysnm1 but he lowballed freiza's speed heavily(hypersonic freiza?seriously?) As well as overestimating the difference between piercing and blunt force attacks. Nothing here suggested Freiza would get cut by Naruto's attacks regardless of if they hit on a cellular level or not.
Overall DH61 did a better job of convincing me Freiza would win despite not arguing with several of his arguments.
I will go with @deathhero61 Overall it had some pretty bad arguments on both sides but he had the better arguments and counters overall. I think the biggest issue was that the rules were forgotten a lot during the debate and it turned out pretty chaotic because of it.
Please Log In to post.