Angles and upper eyelid exposure

[Deleted member 6723]

give me reacts

 

[MisterMercedes]

That's not dodging. Dodging implies a deceitful connotation. If you don't believe me, look it up.

And because arguments are too broad to establish all encompassing rules. Who wins in court is different than who wins at a Model United Nations conference, or who wins a presidential debate.

Dodging: deliberately avoiding.

Exactly what you did. Intentionally gave responses that didn’t answer (Avoided) the question because you didn’t see the merit of the question.

The examples you gave describe other people deciding who they preferred. People vote for the president they think did better, judges decide whose case was more convincing, etc.

What I’m talking about is what criteria you would have that would decide which argument is stronger. Is it other people who watch saying who they preferred (like those examples)?

 

[MisterMercedes]

When I look up the word "dodge" in the context we're speaking of, it says: " avoid (something) in a cunning or dishonest way. " So that's not what I did.

I'm simply not prepared to come up with winning criteria that will encompass all future debates. Sorry. We can establish them case-by-case.

That’s not the standard or only definition, so my use of the word “dodge” was correct. You deliberately avoided the question.

Why does the criteria have to be case by case?

 

[MisterMercedes]

I disagree. You were using that word in a different context.

Because, as I said before, I'm not prepared to establish rules that might apply to wildly different situations and debates, Are you?

No, I was using it by the definition I cited: intentionally dodging. I elaborated on what I meant by dodging before I cited the definition, so its verifiable that I was using it by that definition.

I know you said you’re not prepared to establish it as a consistent rule applying to all debates. Why not?

And the answer to your question is yes: the argument that is strongest or “wins” is the one that isn’t refuted.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Well my definition was different from yours, and it's in the same context as well, so I disagree with your assertion there.

Refutation is subjective. By your logic, refutation is simply when the opponent stops addressing the argument? because that's what I did, and you claimed I was conceding.

But I need only continue to reply in order for it to be not conceding, even if the argument is weak?

You're going to have to be more specific.

Both definitions can be used, so saying that your definition was the one I was using when that’s verifiably false is incorrect. I elaborated on what I meant by dodging before citing the definition that matched what I previously described.

Replying on its own doesn’t constitute rebutting. You replied to my counter with “didn’t read”, but that doesn’t mean you rebutted it, so my argument still wasn’t refuted.

If you presented a response to my counter that refuted the content of my counter, that would constitute a successful rebuttal.

 

[wasted]

@abmonger @MisterMercedes Jfl @ both of you fuck tards

 

[ImpressionableYouth]

This whole thread reads like a "Ben Shapiro WRECKS Liberal Snowflake in Epic Debate Compilation Part 47" Youtube video

 

[bobsmith03]

I wouldn’t waste money on it as you have decent fat pads, it’s just your high set brow ridge gives you UEE. You could get “hooded” eyes with more fat pads, but it doesn’t look as aesthetic/aggressive as hooded eyes that come from a low brow ridge.

Hooding from prominent fat pads:

View attachment 697586
Hooding from low brow ridge:

View attachment 697587View attachment 697588

My brow ridge is literally about to touch my eye. How low do they have to be