The thread gazes back.
B-but... I did a good job, right?
Can't change after it's given. Better luck next time! Still open.
( ⌣́,⌣̀)\(^◡^ ) - Saxima and I: I like petting her and she likes to be pet. (っ-●益●)っ ,︵‿ - Nova: He often gets angry at me and flips things over. Truth or dare?
You asking me that question?
I went through a phase where I told tall tales to make myself sound cool. I can't help but get embarrassed when I think about it. What is your most embarrassing secret? Truth. Truth or dare?
I rest my case.
Who does it help convince? The courts? The fanbase? The whole race?
O Valencia! by The Decemberists
Don't get ahead of yourself. Who said it was about the ability to convince people? No one did, until you did just now. The number of people convinced is irrelevant unless specified; winning is defined by the context of the debate. In Jiku's example, the context is clear: you win if you convince the official judge. In your example, the context is not clear. I asked for context because context is necessary and you failed to deliver. Necessary context: Why does what bystanders think decide victory if I lose in court (as Beiber did)?[DOUBLEPOST=1405996717][/DOUBLEPOST] Let's assume that majority opinion is the specified criteria. Beiber still loses. A small percentage of the population supports him. The vast majority are against him. Your loss. Even Hitler, who had a huge following and changed the world with it, was hated by a vast majority. He could have 'won' or 'lost' a debate about the Holocaust depending on which group you specify as the judges. Suppose, for the sake or argument, that you rebut with something like 'but those people who dislike Beiber don't know enough to count'. Neither do most of his fans; that criteria—which would only be added just now—cuts your own argument in half. How much knowledge of the situation is enough to be a judge? Which particular group is fit to judge? This all ties back to one common question. Who does he need to convince in order to win? Jiku recognized that this matters. She made the party you need to convince clear. She also explained the entire judging party's bias with little room for doubt. The victor is obvious.
Trap tripped. The judge of the debate is not the fanbase In your example. Take one of the biggest examples. Justin Beiber was deported and did time for his crimes no matter what his fans thought. Case disproves point. Jiku demonstrated a context where your point would be valid by specifying a biased official authority. You lose this one.
Jerusalem Boys by The World/Inferno Friendship Society
Nothing a few paperclips won't fix.
Close enough.
Jiku wins.
What do you think about the afterlife? Truth. Truth or dare?
Under what context?
Hughhughhugh.
Why, thank you.
Compared to when I left, most of the people I knew are much less active. The site is experiencing a major lull. The people are lazy and disinterested. I don't remember you before I was banned. Truth or dare?
