5229 pts ยท June 12, 2016
Yodalorian
fAiRiEs!
You take that back!
You throw out dead bodies on the regular?
In that case I too would like to be whipped.
I like the fact that it's just generic "Welsh Church".
Pretty much. She shot her Endgame scenes before CMarvel.
I think the girl power scene in Infinity War was spot on.
But it's not the same food, it's now poop food.
No it is not. Again, that is not the purpose of a formal debate. Doing so nullifies the contest.
Magnets
Technically you can only eat any food once.
It's like in maths exams where the objective is to show your working out, rather than getting the correct answer.
no answers because a particular law says so. Debate isn't about the answer, it's about the discussion. <2>
The assumption is that laws are only writing down what is already true. Regardless, you can't answer a debate question with Yes / No, <1>
And that is exactly the sort of answer that should have been provided during the debate.
I'm just going to block you now before you embarrass yourself any further.
Debate is about philosophy, not fact. You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. <1>
Unless another standard is assigned, the UN is THE standard used. Debate cannot happen without a baseline standard being established.
High places aren't an option due to safety nets / barriers / police.
Legal drugs are legal because suicide with them is insanely difficult, and if successful, incredibly painful. <2>
Ropes, belts, and slashing are unlikely to succeed (it's damn near impossible to slit your wrists and die). <1>
Are you a girl?
Except for the law, 'safety' nets, imprisonment, denial of access to tools (e.g. drugs / guns), lack of access to knowledge. Yeah, nothing..
Right?
Yeah, because it's such a choice. Just like being poor right? Why can't people just decide to be rich / happy.
That depends. Did those two actively abuse their authority? Did they ignore others doing so? Did they oppose it or report it?
Debate is about philosophy and argumentative ability. Not being a lawyer.
The foundation is the question presented. If you could factor in education law, that question wouldn't have been asked. <1>
Laws regarding the 'right' are outside the scope of the debate. If they weren't, there would not be a debate.
Yodalorian
fAiRiEs!
You take that back!
You throw out dead bodies on the regular?
In that case I too would like to be whipped.
I like the fact that it's just generic "Welsh Church".
Pretty much. She shot her Endgame scenes before CMarvel.
I think the girl power scene in Infinity War was spot on.
But it's not the same food, it's now poop food.
No it is not. Again, that is not the purpose of a formal debate. Doing so nullifies the contest.
Magnets
Technically you can only eat any food once.
It's like in maths exams where the objective is to show your working out, rather than getting the correct answer.
no answers because a particular law says so. Debate isn't about the answer, it's about the discussion. <2>
The assumption is that laws are only writing down what is already true. Regardless, you can't answer a debate question with Yes / No, <1>
And that is exactly the sort of answer that should have been provided during the debate.
I'm just going to block you now before you embarrass yourself any further.
Debate is about philosophy, not fact. You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. <1>
Unless another standard is assigned, the UN is THE standard used. Debate cannot happen without a baseline standard being established.
High places aren't an option due to safety nets / barriers / police.
Legal drugs are legal because suicide with them is insanely difficult, and if successful, incredibly painful. <2>
Ropes, belts, and slashing are unlikely to succeed (it's damn near impossible to slit your wrists and die). <1>
Are you a girl?
Except for the law, 'safety' nets, imprisonment, denial of access to tools (e.g. drugs / guns), lack of access to knowledge. Yeah, nothing..
Right?
Yeah, because it's such a choice. Just like being poor right? Why can't people just decide to be rich / happy.
That depends. Did those two actively abuse their authority? Did they ignore others doing so? Did they oppose it or report it?
Debate is about philosophy and argumentative ability. Not being a lawyer.
The foundation is the question presented. If you could factor in education law, that question wouldn't have been asked. <1>
Laws regarding the 'right' are outside the scope of the debate. If they weren't, there would not be a debate.