SHIN RHETORICALLY CASTRATES LEBO JARGON OGRE CALLED DIVINITY IN ONE SIDED SLAUGHTER XDDDD

[00:00:05]Um, yeah, we're just waiting for Ru know.

[00:00:09]>> I mean, outside of my recording, if you want to like begin with the topic and we can judge on the recording, that's fine as well.

[00:00:16]>> If you do, I'm going to start the introduction then.

[00:00:19]>> Do you agree with that?

[00:00:20]>> Sure. Sure.

[00:00:21]>> All right. So, uh, I'm going to need you to mute yourself while I do this intro.

[00:00:28]All right. Thank you.

[00:00:29]So the debate is between me, Divinity, and Shin. The topic is going to be whether his uh verdict he gave for my debate with your Miguna is going to be valid or not. I'm going to be taking the position that it is not valid, and he's going to be taking the position that it is valid. We haven't agreed to a moderator as of this point as it's in a GC with basically him not agreeing to a neutral server, but our judge is going to be Riru agreed upon on both sides.

[00:00:53]Now, there are stipulations as to the start of this topic. We'll be Oh, thank God. We'll be doing talking sick. All right. We haven't decided on any time limit. But if he cuts me off or if I cut him off, there will naturally be a sort of violation of that stipulation. Do you agree with that stipulation? First of all, Shin.

[00:01:16]>> Sure. And also our preconditions of your preconditions that um if you're somehow in any way, shape or form, that would be an concession on my part.

[00:01:25]>> Agreed. Right. Thank you. So that was the second stipulation. He said it for me. If I'm kicked in any way, naturally, he's going to be conceding. Now, because we haven't agreed on any time limit, I believe I can read out your verdict and I'm going to be starting with my contentions on it. Is that fine with you?

[00:01:42]>> Absolutely.

[00:01:43]>> All right.

[00:01:44]>> So, I'm not really going to go into the actual formalities of the verdict. We could just go into the reasoning directly. He said Divinity went red herring and posited fallacies such as hollow man fallacy in the debate. He thought he was cooking when he thought arguing for an irrelevant point that Rio Mcuno's definition is in is inherently incoherent. An informal definition still counts as a definition. Therefore, he provided a definition which fulfills his position. Divinity not realizing this made a dumb fuck blunder tedious debate.

[00:02:14]Rio Mcuna badly slammed. Also, those voice messages are genuinely gross. And how did this even get to 20ish? Three verdicts. 30 verdicts for your account.

[00:02:24]But all right. Well, the formality uh I mean I would have done this in VC but like naturally the guy really have a mind. Uh score literally what he said by the way. The premise is also subjectivism based off of Rio Mcuna's perception. Therefore if any sorry if he posits any informal definition divinity cannot contend to this. The premise from the get-go is in no difficulty quite literally once he mentions any sort of definition inside that corresponds to the word position. who thought debating a subjectivism premise uh just quick correction here would be a subjectivist premise is a good idea and how the fuck are their judges saying otherwise despite this fair enough I guess you would think that other judges are retarded because you believe in your position holy shit are any of you even tracking I'm not I'm not going to like respond to any of this to be honest incredibly disgusting bias of stupid judges blah blah blah blah blah I think we've read enough here now to start my contentions Chin, the fundamental problem with your verdict is that it just genuinely mistakes the object of my challenge. You do understand that I was never actually challenging whether your Muna produced a sentence that resembled a definition at the most superficial level. Right. I just went against whether the alleged definition he'd given had the right sort of semantic content to count as a definition of the term position in the sense that was relative to our topic.

[00:03:45]Naturally having a position isn't going to be exhausted by just uttering a candidate definition because a person can offer a string of words as a definition while that string would fail to perform the function of definition.

[00:03:55]Like the entire debate at least from my side was about that failure of function.

[00:04:00]A definition isn't just any explanatory phrase attached to a word. I hope you do understand that a definition is supposed to fix or clarify the intention of a term meaning the conditions and virtue of which the term would apply. Like naturally from that intention we can determine the extension you know the con the class of things that fall under the concept like if somebody claims to define a position the question I would ask them wouldn't really be whether he used the phrase a position is or whether he gave some informal paraphrase naturally it's going to be trivial but I would ask him did his definition give us application conditions for the definition like that is the disagreement you do know that Your verdict doesn't answer what I put at the question at all and you're actively presupposing that my contention on the adequacy of the definition means that I'd gone off topic when the adequacy of the definition was the exact topic. If the topic concerns whether a person has a definition then the coherence determinacy and say boundary setting power of that definition aren't going to be off topic. They're core evaluative criterions. As for your point about informality, because you loved mentioning that like that is certainly not the same as adequacy. An informal definition can be perfectly acceptable if it succeeds in fixing the relevant concept. I'm going to give you an example so you understand what I mean.

[00:05:22]Say we have the definition a bachelor is an unmarried man. We're going to say that this is going to be an informal definition. It would still be doing real definitional work because it gives us a stable criterion. But again, a bachelor is a guy with relationship separated stuff is also just as informal. But it's useless because it doesn't distinguish bachelors from husbands or boyfriends or widowers of fucking single men, etc., etc. Like, does this wording delimit the concept? Your verdict seems to say that informality is just going to immunize the definition from scrutiny, but it most definitely and certainly doesn't, as an informal definition still has to define. Also, I want to clarify on one thing here. My contentions on that topic were on the metal level because Rio Mcuno's alleged definition made a first order claim about what a position is.

[00:06:12]But my response was a metal level critique of the conditions under which that first order claim could count as a definition. And now obviously that's not a red herring. That's something we would call metal linguistic analysis. Like I I wasn't really changing the topic to something irrelevant. I was only asked to name what semantic role the word position was actually supposed to play.

[00:06:32]What kind of object it refers to? And honestly, most importantly, what distinguishes its correct application from its incorrect application? Because a position isn't obviously a simple object. It's going to be a term that is very conceptually loaded. We can say uh as a position may involve a certain proposition all while not being identical to set proposition. It may be expressed by man fuck it an assertion but it still isn't going to be identical to that assertion. It may correspond to a belief but it's not going to be identical to the belief. It may involve a claim and not every claim is a position naturally. A position may give you some sort of dialectical commitment and then then you would need to know what sort of commitment and in what context. And then there's even more that fucking talk about. We call these things individuation problems and they concern what kind of thing a position is and how we count one position as the same as or different from another. Like suppose someone says some people believe X.

[00:07:27]Obviously that's going to be a claim.

[00:07:28]It's true fact related to X but it isn't going to be necessarily the speaker's position on X as it's more so a report about other people's beliefs. So let's suppose assume X for the sake of the argument. I think you understand what that means. It's obviously invoking X and may involve some sort of propositional content, but it isn't necessarily the speaker's position as it's going to be a hypothetical assumption. My opponent claims X, etc., etc., it's all the same thing. Now, obviously, there are counter examples testing the extension of the proposed definition that's going to be giving, which is what I just told you. Like, I'm unsure you're used to these sorts of topics, man. But you do know that that is a very standard sort of conceptual pressure, right? Like when someone gives a definition, you'd usually test whether it overgenerates or undergenerates. Like where if it includes things it should exclude, it would be overgenerating naturally. And if it exclude things it should include, it would be undergenerating. If they like his definition of a fucking position is something like a claim towards a topic, then it naturally would be overgenerating very massively as it would capture reports and hypotheticals and quotations and even fucking self-reports, etc. Steve, obviously these are all claims towards a topic in some loose sense. I think you can agree with that. But they aren't automatically positions in the dialectical sense, are they? Like it just seems to me that either his definition includes too much or he has to add further conditions as I said in the actual fucking topic. But you do understand Shin that once he adds those further contentions, sorry, conditions, he's actively admitting the original definition was incomplete, right? Like you do know that, right?

[00:09:05]That's pretty much the right reputation of his proposed definition. are like n since you want to contend with my way and I think I'm going to go a little deeper with that as well. Even towards a topic isn't actually a real semantic relation you know that right it's more so a vague metaphor as a statement can be towards a topic by mentioning it or endorsing it or denying it or questioning it etc. And those are very different relations with very different pramatic forces, pragmatic forces. A definition can actually rely on toward unless it specifies which relation is relevant like does a position require some sort of endorsement, maybe an assertion. Hell, I don't know belief maybe on a rum dashi. There are many such questions other that I won't really be mentioning due to our lack of time.

[00:09:44]But they certainly aren't going to be decorative. They the conditions that determine whether the concept is actually defined. Like a more serious account would have to say something like uh say that a position is a proposition or a set of propositions that a subject would endorse or is going to be dialectically committed to in context as an answer to a disputed question like that. That sort of account at least starts to distinguish a position from a sentence or a proposition among other shit of the sword. It introduces a subject and the content as well as the context the endorsement and the dialectical role of that position. His account didn't really do that. It actively left the entire concept afloat between arbitrary semantics as well as pragmatics and for the bridge between them. Honestly, I want to see uh I want to see something that's good pay fucking bullshit. It was out of bullshit, man.

[00:10:32]Like that is exactly why I pressed the distinction between first order claims and meta definitional adequacy. when he's saying when he just seemed to act as though once he made a first order definitional claim his question was somehow sorry the question I asked him was somehow like answered in some way that he fulfilled something like the existence of a first order claim isn't the same as its validity naturally if someone says that knowledge is when you feel certain he's going to be making a first order definitional claim but we can still ask whether that definition fails because certainty is neither necessary nor sufficient for knowledge likewise if someone says a position is a claim towards a topic as is as is Our example here we can ask whether that account is necessary or sufficient or maybe too broad etc etc etc as what I did now you simply say in the verdict that he had an informal definition and so he satisfied the burden but that presupposes the very point being disputed man it assumes that the candidate definition already qualifies as a definition and that's incredibly circular and now I begs the fucking question like the debate wasn't about whether the words existed it was about whether the words successfully fixed the concept and you cannot answer that by pointing to existence of the words.

[00:11:38]Also, the concession point you had is utterly pathetic, man. Like genuinely utterly fucking pathetic. Like you treat it to like you treated my reference to his definition as if I conceded he had a successful one. That's a confusion between, you know, referring to your proposed object and endorsing its validity. Like if I say your proof is invalid, I'm not going to be conceding that it proves the theorem. Like I think that's very clear. No shit. No. Like I'm just going to be referring to the attempted proof as the object of criticism. If I say your argument is circular, I am not conceding that it is sound. I am more so identifying the argument being attacked. Likewise, if I say some shit like your definition doesn't clarify, I'm not going to be conceding any definitional adequacy. I'm simply saying his attempted definition fails to perform his clarificatory function. Naturally, that's not fucking pedantry. That's the whole point.

[00:12:30]Because a proposed definition can be the target of critique. Exactly. Because it's only proposed. Calling it your definition is the ordinary shorthand for your attempted definition or your candidate definition. That was what I was saying. You can't turn that into concession without collapsing the difference between a proposal and its success. Also, just a question here.

[00:12:52]Like genuinely, what the fuck do you mean by subjectivism? If the premise is supposed to be sorry it just supposed to mean does Rio Mcuna subjectively feel like he has a definition then the topic just becomes fucking meaningless naturally it would just become a question about his internal mental state instead of the actual adequacy of his account but yes sadly for your so for your definition for everything you're fucking saying sadly for you as a person especially in this topic that isn't just a private sensation of meaning it's a semantic rule and it has to be intelligible enough for others to apply.

[00:13:30]That's what a definition is. Like even stipulative definitions aren't free from standards. Hell, a stipulative definition can choose its meaning, but it still has to fix a meaning. Like if I stipulate that a triangle is just going to be something that has some shapeish thing. Basically, that's not really a good stipulation because it doesn't actually establish a stable rule of use.

[00:13:50]It is far too indeterminate. That claim to subjectivism outright shows why your verdict is so honestly fucking retarded because you're treating private intention as those it gives you some sort of semantic validity. That that's just fucking textbook retardation. Like meaning in a debate isn't actually exhausted by private intention as a speaker's intended use has to be articulated in a way that fixes criteria. Otherwise there is no shared object for adjunction. Now, you probably won't track jack shit of this, but like a position actually has a pragmatic dimension as well. Like, it's not only about propositional content as a position, something one can defend or abandon or modify or fucking concede or be held to and etc, etc. And that just means that position invokes some sort of normative commitment within the discourse. Naturally, a proposition becomes someone's position not just because it exists, nor just because it's related to a topic, but because the speaker stands in the right relation to it. That relation isn't actually captured by a claim toward a topic.

[00:14:56]Without some sort of endorsement or commitment, the definition cannot separate my position from a view I mention or quote or summarize or assume temporarily, etc., etc., all of those other cases. That's why uh somewhat retarded accusations of me red herring are very fucking displaced. Like I was just asking him for what relation would convert the simplest of content into a position and that's the central explanatory burden though like if that uh retard fucking obnoxious cunt Charles real muna can't answer whether the relevant relations believe for an assertion or endorsement and you know etc. He hasn't defined jack shit. And I'm not done just yet as I have a few categorical issues as well. See, a claim would belong primarily to the level of assertion or content while a position belongs more naturally to the level of stance or commitment. And trivially these can overlap. But it's just as trivial that they aren't identical.

[00:15:55]Treating every claim as a position would collapse a lot of distinctions. Say between saying X and entertaining X, reporting X, for example. That collapse is exactly what my critique initially targeted and your verdict never even begins to address it. A better judge I would say would have had to construct the definition and endgest it. Like you could have said he defines the position as an endorsed claim answering a disputed question and then the actual topic would just become whether he established some sort of endorsement or answerhood. Or you could have said, you know, the stances of the topic only required a candidate definition, not an adequate one. But then you'd have to admit my arguments were revealed in any way and they were just ruled out because you seem to misinterpret the positions.

[00:16:38]What you cannot do in fact is treat an adequacy critique as a red herring while actively backing up the adequacy of the definition. Like also in fact I'm going to be a bit pity here. You gave that verdict a fucking notif. And that makes it so much worse cuz I just believe it implies that the verdict thinks my objections were obviously irrelevant and they were very obviously not. They were direct attacks on the semantic and pragmatic conditions of the concept.

[00:17:03]Like let's go back for a second. I challenge definitions intention. It's extension. It's sufficient conditions.

[00:17:08]It's fucking individuation criteria. It treatment of endorsement is category placement and it's over generation. And naturally those are all exactly the deep points a definitional debate would turn on. If anything like the verdict's the one operating on the wrong level here as it stays at the surface level the fucking bare bones bullshit at this topic that informal bullshit was uttered and never actually descend into whether it was defined like you did have a the definition no shit I can grer but I just challenge whether the amount to a definition as a definition must apply a rule of application it must tell us what counts as an instance and what doesn't it must ex dist distinguish the target concept from its neighboring concept. It doesn't have like it must not overgenerate into cases that clearly are not positions and damn well must leave the relevant relation unspecified. His accounts fail with all of these stats.

[00:18:05]I'm not not even one did he fucking do right, man. And your verdict does not show otherwise in any way. You called it also you said something about the fucking hollow man, whatever the hell that means. But like I didn't attack anything that was weaker than his claim.

[00:18:18]you do not all right like as his own wording as if he says a position is a claim towards a topic then I'm very much entitled to ask whether reports or hypotheticals or quotations or fucking self-reports and attribute all of those shit like all that shit I said earlier would count in that and if they do then the definition will be too broad if they don't then it's just being a claim towards the topic and it's not going to be sufficient at all also that's just going to be a dilemma generated by his account and any sort of distortion of it that I made you call it a red herring But I didn't introduce a different issue. I stayed on what it means to have a definition of the term. Naturally, right now, I'm just only recapping for the judge. The question of whether the alleged definition defies is an external to debate. It is the fucking debate. You invoked informality, but informality doesn't actually erase the need for criteria. You invoked subjectivism, but private perception doesn't give you the meaning you need. And you treated my reference to his definition as a concession, but reference isn't at all endorsement. You treated a counterary definition as a successful one. But that's the exact distinction on the dispute. And your verdict answers the weakest possible version of the issue whether he said anything shaped like a definition. But I was never contesting that. I was contesting whether he what he said at definition of force. I was contesting whether it could serve as a criterion for positionhood. I was contesting whether it separated positions from mere claims or propositions or assertions and reports etc etc etc. I've said that shit like 20 times now. your verdict isn't intellectually serious and honestly neither are you if you think it like it's any way valid like any definition conceptual position isn't going to be irrelevant naturally that's near fucking philosoph philosophical blasphemy like godamn nigga anyways you treat it my critique of the definitions failure if it were off topic but naturally as I said blah blah blah blah blah all of that shit I think the judge can decide on that shit that is exactly why your verdict idiotic and why you're a fucking retard you fucking I'm going to say this shit three times. Fuck retita. And just to point out for me, when you want to make such an absurd claim in your verdict, please at least realize your own faults and fix them. Like, this is a fucking joke. Anyways, man, you can go ahead and speak. I'm going to mute myself.

[00:20:28]All right. Thank god. What the fuck?

[00:20:30][laughter] I I already wanted to speak like many times, dude, because of the rules that um talk stick rule set. But can you just clarify this one point for me please in like question questioning and sort of but you did see that it was a definition yes or no and like informality and like when you specified in your talking point right now >> you can speak to all right so you asked me if I if I saw it as a definition I already said that I saw as a candidate definition I made the I I made the distinction between that and actual definition I was asking him for that is the answer to your question now do you want to uh add anything or do you want to like say something else?

[00:21:14]>> All right, that's fine. You clarified anyways. Anyways, I'll start. I'll start. Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. We really talked a lot. Like a lot like Okay.

[00:21:22]Okay. [laughter] Okay. First one of your >> Wait, what are you speaking?

[00:21:29]>> 20 minutes. I'm not cutting you off. I spoke a lot. You can go ahead.

[00:21:33]>> All right.

[00:21:34]>> Okay. [laughter] All right, man. Come on.

[00:21:40]As fuck. Okay, that's a concession here.

[00:21:42]Anyways, uh anyways, since I already won at this point, can we um actually I'm still going to elaborate on my point.

[00:21:49]>> I just want to clarify one thing. You said you would start hold since you said it's a concession.

[00:21:55]>> No, no, no. You already finished.

[00:21:58]of the topic and the stipulation of the actual topic and something to me cutting you off you in the verdict. If you want to say something right now, you can go ahead, >> but if you want to argue, you can go right. I didn't cut you off. I said one thing not in reference to your argument.

[00:22:15]I just made a fucking like claim about I never said anything about your position.

[00:22:21]That's not cutting you off as I waited until you answer my question and you haven't really started arguing until then.

[00:22:29]If you want to argue now in good faith and go ahead I'm going to remind you of the on recording >> I only consequences of arguing. You want to back the fuck off.

[00:22:43]Like the fact you said we're arguing how you are order that lowers your voice right now. So everything you scream Yeah. You're cook son.

[00:22:54]>> All right. I'm speaking. You can shut the fuck up.

[00:22:57]>> What?

[00:22:58]>> Okay. One of your points is that your criticisms is pointless essentially and your examples you stated in here quite really really repetitive. I'm surpris uh the premise is still met by true the premise application is still met by true web start actually which I I'll clarify right now hold on I did prepare something here and also one of your points is conceptually it wasn't met by right that you it wasn't met by but this is wrong because the premise again you did not track the premise that he it's whether he had a definition for it it's whether he had a definition for it it's not whether it's the correct definition for You're a fucking dumb fuck. And I'll just clarify why exactly.

[00:23:40]Hold on.

[00:23:42]Just a lot to clarify actually. So, I'm just going to send this. Okay.

[00:23:53][laughter] Should be screenshots.

[00:24:01]Yep. Okay. Already got got copied.

[00:24:05]Okay.

[00:24:07]I'm just going to speak well.

[00:24:11]All right.

[00:24:15]All right. Should be there sent. I'm going to talk about it of course like in the VC itself. So a lot of guys would have a point for it.

[00:24:25]But all the screenshots will be sent that's relevant to it.

[00:24:32]Mhm. Okay.

[00:24:34]I send it. Can you see it? Okay.

[00:24:39]All right. [clears throat] All right.

[00:24:40]Source. Okay. Formal definitions.

[00:24:44]I'm sure you were aware what the definition were, whether it had a definition for it. I mean, that's exactly what the premise is all about.

[00:24:50]Whether you arguing that he had a definition for it, but you literally just mistracted this and track and didn't track the premise itself. Like, you do realize that, right? But you didn't realize that because the formal definition you tried to argue in the entire debate is fucking diabolically incoherent to the fucking premise itself. Like you do realize that, right?

[00:25:13]It was irrelevant to the point itself because the premise again, I'm going to clarify it again for you since you failed to track it since you're a fucking retard. That whether he had a definition for it, it isn't how the definition was formed. You do realize it, right? It isn't how correct the definition was. He h all he had to do is provide a definition for it. You do realize that right? I mean all I could read you because for our audience of course for a definition a formal definition consists of three parts. The term the part of speech to which it belongs such as the non or the verb and all the traits or characteristics that are specific to the term. The dictionary is filled with formal definition but it is not the only place where you will find them. Writers writers often include formal definitions when when they are writing about something that may be unfamiliar to their readers in textbooks. You may find a formal definition of terms listed at the beginning at the end of a chapter or the glossaryy or which is in many dictionary terms relevant to the text blah blah blah. Formal definition example freedom part of freedom none the power or right to speak speak or think as one one without hindrance or restraint and for the premise number two informal definitions which I'm arguing the case that for um Roman naguna which I'll clarify first for the main front later that um in an example informal definition the writer uses known words or examples to explain an unknown term this definition may be synonymous or autonomous introduced by or in other words or like informal definition example freedom also refer to as a liberty or independence. Independence is a state where people reach their free to think and do whatever they please. Also again this is my main focal point which you failed to track. Gun's definition was supported by infirm definition two section that he used in the debate website specifically validating his claim. Drop the s below. You can read that all you want which is exactly what he said anyways in the debate and his position a point viewpoint adapted and held to you. And if you're so lazy to that to the point you're not checking all the sources, you know, you can check the screenshots if you want. And I clarify this. Okay, I'm going to read his response to it. What site did you use for your definition? And he said, and quote, Mirror Webster or at which step it's two. Okay, we be in that case.

[00:27:26]Wait, I sent some irrelevant screenshots to it.

[00:27:30][laughter] Yo, sorry, dude. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[00:27:33]Uh [snorts] all right. [laughter] Yeah, I apologize for that.

[00:27:42]Yeah. Anyways, anyways, uh the point was that uh we're good definition in which one of your which you considered to it anyways that you misunderstood his um premise to begin with.

[00:27:54]Okay. And for the premise itself which he had a definition for it anyways objective entirely because it is whether he had a definition for it had a definition for it you do understand it right this is why you're going on a hollow man fallacy which I mentioned by by the way before that um you tried to explain what um hollow man fallacy is exactly but I don't know why you're exactly questioning this because this is one of the main focal points of strawman fallacy uh type of fallacy where argue positive point that a rendering entirely, albeit creating a new point.

[00:28:27]Like it's entirely just a red herring, but a better word for it essentially.

[00:28:33]And um wait, I'm actually going to start deleting this one. They already saw it, dude. Fuck. You can't even delete it.

[00:28:41]Holy shit.

[00:28:44]This is why I like deleting all the screenshots before. Like, all right, that's fine.

[00:28:51]uh form definitions good definitioned with this this I'm going to send a scan for that first okay thank you for providing that so his definition is supported by some viewpoint of a certain topic which is exactly corresponding to the topic um to the definition that I said before um the informal definition that he said in this case is the position uh point of viewpoint adapted and held to you can check the sources by the way for and which validates his point entirely to the fucking debate. So for your information also the subject of this and premise is the f um also one of my key points exactly what I keep um corresponding to the verdict itself since you did not understand exactly what I exactly meant by that the fucking entire debate is based on a fucking subjective premise dude did you not understand that like I'm going to read this right right now right now is subjectivism premise is the philosophical the position that our mental activity and individual perception are the fundamental basis of our real reality knowledge and value. It asserts that the truth is not an object objective independent absolute but rather something created was heavily shaped by the conscious mind and which is exactly what I said he had a definition for it whether he had a definition for it that's exactly what I'm exactly intelling in this case like you do not understand that like it's the most simplest thing this is what you failed to track in your fucking ver uh I mean debate like everything you said in the fucking debate is so fucking relevant dude it's so fucking relevant like come on all you've been doing is arguing for irrelevant point that the forward definition is consisting of the you know the term the part of the speech to where it belongs such as noun which is exactly what you considered to this entire um our um your talking point uh talking point earlier which is exactly what you're presupposing a formal definition which is exactly what is exactly relevant to the informal definition that he postited you did not attack his definition at all you did not disprove his definition being false at all in fact you even agreed that he had a definition for it and which exactly I'm going to um I'm going to repeat this point again like you're fucking stupid and that's exactly clear as fuck like here your definition I'm going to quote I'm going to quote you by the way your definition don't give a shit as far as determined condition for position dude your definition you exactly you know corresponding to this definition you viewed it as a definition and that's what exactly matters in this case you tribed yourself exactly in this case in this debate you're a fucking dumb fuck you might have to you know just retry again the premise exactly but you did not exactly do that you didn't specify exactly the exact premise you didn't say whether he had a connect correct definition that works or I'm the application and even then it's still applicable to begin with because you know why because there's a still site that supports his definition to begin with which is exactly what I am trying to argue for you like come on okay >> [snorts] >> um I think we're done anyways yeah I'm done here speak whatever Right. Ignoring the uh 300 million dumb fucks you just dropped. I'm just going to say one thing, man.

[00:32:04]All of that I'll just say. You really track jack shit of it cuz like you just went and said that he made an informal definition. Yes, I'm aware of that. I already addressed it. I'm going to remind you what I said. No, no, I believe I can recreate the wording of what I say. Hold on, let me just think about it one second. Now, regardless, I already talked about an informal definition here. I think you can track that, right? It's on recording. I already talked about why it being an informal definition wouldn't do jack shit. Quote unquote. I said that an informal definition would like just not be any issue here if it actually succeeded in fixing the relevant concept. Correct? You can track that on recording. I already gave you two examples of why an informal definition that is not actually qualifying as the definition by explaining the concept around it. It's not fixing the relevant concept in any way. It's not really like fucking going through with the tests are different. I already gave you six of these tests. You fucking retard and all that shit you just said is a first order claim about if he had a subjective definition. That's fine with me. That's not what I was asking him. You know what a second order claim is a meta claim regardless of what all that shit. Now I will not really be talking anymore. You can go ahead drop your response. We're concluding after that. I think this debate is meaningless.

[00:33:17]Reined to this anyways because you um you tal in when I was talking like okay anyways.

[00:33:28]Yeah. Okay. I can agree with the verdict I guess and ru being the judge but I'll rtoate and again my point that uh you considered to it and you didn't you misunderstood exactly the premise exactly which is exactly what I tried to posit here in this debate and try to argue again in this case and every judges that you posited or whatever the fuck I'm going to start debating all of them because all of their fucking verdicts seemingly has the same verdicts like they're fucking so similar dude they're so similar dude and so So many way it's as if someone told to have the same verdict. Like come on, dude. Like make it not obvious, bro. Like you trapped yourself in this case, bro. You trapped yourself in this case whether he had a definition for it. It's not whether he had a correct definition for it. Also, just to clarify, just to clarify, it doesn't matter if his definition is also incorrect or correct.

[00:34:20]Like he just he just didn't understand what subjectivism is to begin with. Like it's whether he had a definition for it, dude. And I'll keep repeating to this.

[00:34:29]You failed to track the fucking premise, dude. Like, holy shit. [laughter] Like, this is an easy piece of cake debate ever. And I doubt Ru would fucking let you win in this, dude.

[00:34:40]You're so fucking embarrassing. You're such a fucking retard, dude. Like, I am so sorry [cough] that you had to fucking, you know, had to debate this. Like, it's so simple, dude. We're done here.

[00:34:57]I agree. We are done here. Regardless, I won't really be taking uh any sort of position on what you just said based on the insults and such. As we're mid topic, I really give flying fuck about random insults. But you just said that you don't think we is going to be giving me verdict. That's very fine. You can ask. I have the recording right now. Got a recording.

[00:35:17]You can unmute yourself now. The debate is over. We can just speak normally without talking sick. Have you recording?

[00:35:22]>> All right. Like Okay. I'm also gonna send him like the recording that uh Carl the key did.

[00:35:28]>> So you have you have your recording.

[00:35:30]Yeah.

[00:35:31]>> Yeah. Yeah. Like and when you started screaming of you broking the rule that was that you considered to it, you know, at a concession.

[00:35:39]>> No, actually I mean I can I can I can slowly show the entire verdict. The only reason I was speaking back then and quote unquote is because you said it's a concession. So I just went in formal naturally because you said I was breaking the rules. I already want to clarify that.

[00:35:55]when I was speaking and I already asked you the question and you're and you >> don't be fucking dishonest, bro.

[00:36:02]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:36:04]Come on. Yeah, I did. I did. I already said that. Explained that.

[00:36:09]>> Yeah.

[00:36:11]You talked for a lot of your mic.

[00:36:17]I said yeah.

[00:36:25]>> Hold on. You want to disappear directly?

[00:36:28]>> All right.

[00:36:30]>> Fucking idiot.

[00:36:34]Oh my fucking god. This nigga looking.

[00:36:36][laughter] Oh my god, nigga. Get get in here. Get in here. Hold on a second. Yo, rhetorically, you got that recording on floor?

[00:36:48]All right, you can send it here then. I go get my