#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
The election protests happening all across America is nothing more than mass therapy.
True.
Side Score: 82
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 88
|
|
1
point
These are Bernie's Basement Brigade, BLM crowd and the miscellaneous & sundry assortment of ne'er do wells who were hoping for the continuation of gov't largess protesting the end of the gravy train. Well, boo hoo, babies; time to move out of mommy's basement and get a job. Side: True.
|
1
point
1
point
Doesn't seem worth causing the pain. But still, that'd be assuming that people are filled with a very limited amount of violence, and that thus no issue can ever escalate. In that case, when they're empty of further violence, things will get good again. I don't think so. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Doesn't seem worth causing the pain. You don't think the election of the most powerful person is worth it? Why not? But still, that'd be assuming that people are filled with a very limited amount of violence, and that thus no issue can ever escalate. There is no reason to assume that at all. A lot can happen in 4 years. A decision that will be in affect for 4 years is a highly escalated situation. In that case, when they're empty of further violence, things will get good again. That's not how therapy works. Therapy doesn't make things good again. Therapy makes the bad feelings go away. I don't think so. You can't even figure out why people are out in the streets. Why would we care you think something isn't so? Side: True.
1
point
So, you claim that if bad feelings go away, things won't get good? It seems like you're contradicting yourself. A decision that will be in affect for 4 years is a highly escalated situation. Therapy makes the bad feelings go away. You can't even figure out why people are out in the streets. What about it sounds like a therapy to you? An escalated situation, protests going on and There is no reason to assume that at all. No reason to assume that it won't escalate further. The only other assumption that can be made in support of your claim is that a dead population is an obedient population. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
So, you claim that if bad feelings go away, things won't get good? It seems like you're contradicting yourself. Your statement only made sense in the context that the therapy only works if the bad thing that happened was undone. When people lash out in anger they end up feeling better. Was that not well known to you? What about it sounds like a therapy to you? An escalated situation, protests going on and Your response was in response to my answer for what they wanted therapy for. In that context, you are arguing that they don't need therapy, not that it isn't therapy. We established in your first argument that you didn't even know why they want therapy. Did you transition to knowing what they needed therapy for and not tell anyone? In any event, telling someone what you are unhappy about is what psychiatry is. Protests are people telling you what they are unhappy about. Sounds like therapy. No reason to assume that it won't escalate further. This is what happens when you don't transition to knowing what they need therapy for. There was no way I could get that you were afraid the riots would get worse. Either way, how did the level of anger involved show that it isn't therapy? The more important the loss is, the more anger is involved, and the more therapy you need. The only other assumption that can be made in support of your claim is that a dead population is an obedient population. Holy fuck you are bad at assumptions. There are a shit ton more assumptions that can be made and none of them come close to that. Side: True.
1
point
Not that. I'm assuming that it might be a therapy, and then saying how it can't be. It's about taking the worst possible situation to begin and eliminating from there up. Are you sure that the people are very peace-loving? (Which would be a restatement of the first assumption I wrote.) As to my assumptions, I expect them to be exhaustive. But I might be interpreting things as worse than they are. Try finding an example of something that fails to be classified. (Except government falling; I haven't made that assumption in this thread.) Also, that's a rather biased picture of how anger works. We aren't taking about lashing out in empty air; I hope you understand that. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Not that. Your 2 word sentences do not help anyone figure out what you are thinking. I'm assuming that it might be a therapy, and then saying how it can't be. It didn't sound like it from your responses. It's about taking the worst possible situation to begin and eliminating from there up. If it is about that, what situation did you take as the worst possible? Are you sure that the people are very peace-loving? (Which would be a restatement of the first assumption I wrote.) It sounds like you skipped a step from starting with the worst situation. As to my assumptions, I expect them to be exhaustive. That completely defeats the purpose of assumptions. Assumptions are used to eliminate possibilities, which would be the opposite of exhaustive. I might be interpreting things as worse than they are. You also might be interpreting things add something they aren't at all. Try finding an example of something that fails to be classified. (Except government falling; I haven't made that assumption in this thread.) Why would I do that? Also, that's a rather biased picture of how anger works. I am not sure you understand how bias works. Or how anger works. Or how argumentation works. aren't taking about lashing out in empty air; Who the fuck gets angry at air? Side: True.
1
point
It didn't sound like it from your responses. It did. Try reading them again with this in mind - I've been ruling out cases rather than supporting them. So there is no transition between agreeing and disagreeing, and thus it is rather consistent so far. If it is about that, what situation did you take as the worst possible? A war that ends in a totalitarian regime stretching till the destruction of your country. Though I doubt it to be nearly relevant here. It sounds like you skipped a step from starting with the worst situation. I didn't. That wasn't an assumption, in case you didn't notice, but reasoning for eliminating cases. That completely defeats the purpose of assumptions. Assumptions are used to eliminate possibilities, which would be the opposite of exhaustive. And how do you think possibilities can be eliminated? By random guessing? Why would I do that? Because you said that the things I assumed are a miniscule part of things that are significantly probable. I am not sure you understand how bias works. Or how anger works. Or how argumentation works. Okay, ask which part you can't understand. Even though it should have been obvious that the analogy was a terrible one, from this I doubt you can guess that. Who the fuck gets angry at air? That's why prepositions are an important part of language. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
We'll be getting there soon. First I have to see whether you are coherent. Something seems confusing about you. Okay, so anything that doesn't pass this is not an assumption? Say, something that wasn't assumed true for the aim of evaluating a situation? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
So, you can't stand it if I ask you grounds behind your claims? (Not even like I asked it directly. I rather put it in easier questions.) Or you couldn't expect such a thing happening? The question I put was whether you understand what you are talking. You're trying to avoid answering that. What can be reasonably deduced from it, peasant? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You won't discuss the claims of the debate because you refuse to acknowledge that you aren't using assumptions. The question I put was whether you understand what you are talking. You don't understand what you are talking about, so it is ridiculous for you to question others. You're trying to avoid answering that. Does answering your stupid question pertain to the debate? What can be reasonably deduced from it, peasant? Stupid fucks shouldn't call people peasants. Side: True.
1
point
Every thread you are in moves no where. You understand that, right? Probably I shouldn't have scared you by telling that I'll be checking whether you are coherent enough to understand things. Probably you should have made a fucking argument I a debate website. Don't forget, you are the only one on the website who is too fucking stupid to know the democrats didn't vote for Trump. Side: True.
1
point
Even if, say, I couldn't understand that, it doesn't matter. I guess we're too different from each other - so much that all these 3 threads are simultaneously stagnant. That is, in the case that you are remotely as correct in calling me irrational as I am in calling you so. If that's the case, for which I can't be sure (unless I were to scan your brain with some post-singularity technology) (although I have sufficient reason to doubt it), then we won't be coming to any conclusions like that. But if you are desperate enough to want to resort to insults rather than arguments, then you can have it. Trying to defeat dogmatists on online boards isn't a specific goal to me right now. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Also, there's my first argument that it can actually be called a therapy, in that case, under extremely loose criteria for language. But I wonder what we are arguing about at all. Instead of completely dismantling the entirety of each other's replies and criticising them, we could stick to the topic - whether it would be comparable to a therapy in its effects. In other words, what leads you to believe that things will not get worse? It could be that it all might lead to a revolution soon. Or we still could criticise individual points. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Well, if it gets too boring to stay oppressed, like it has under various religions, then recoil is inevitable. I've a theory that all history is made due to boredom. All I now need is to twist the reality in a way that it supports my claim (which shouldn't be a difficult task). Because that 'class struggle' thing of Marx is a bit boring. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
As I've shown, you are committed to meanings on your words that you don't understand yourself. Those were arguments. All of these are, except when the topic gets stagnant. Always the best thing can be assumed. But I'm not too overly optimistic to do that. It can be assumed that something great will happen and you all will live happily ever after. Or, perhaps... I'm not good at reasoning down to it. Those potential assumptions don't come randomly. But I doubt that we need to argue about what methods I use to reason. As long as other cases aren't eliminated, one thing can not be taken as truth. Probable explanations would be good enough for such topics. But, now that you've deduced what I meant (though this time, you've been suspiciously quick compared to what I might have expected), you must have understood how it simply doesn't follow that they won't revolt. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
As I've shown, you are committed to meanings on your words that you don't understand yourself. You haven't even attempted to show I don't understand something. Those were arguments We are supposed to be discussing therapy, not your incorrect use of words. They aren't arguments. ll of these are, except when the topic gets stagnant. Starting with argument number 1 where you didn't even know that Democrats didn't vote for Trump. But I doubt that we need to argue about what methods I use to reason Good fucking point. Maybe you should start talking about your fucking reasoning. you must have understood how it simply doesn't follow that they won't revolt. You already fucking decided your stance on them revolting you stupid shit. There is no reason to keep saying that they might revolt. You claimed you would use assumptions to eliminate possibilities, but you keep coming back to this one scenario. Use your assumptions and discuss what happens if they don't revolt. Make an assumption that they won't revolt and discuss the therapy possibility. Side: True.
1
point
P : They aren't revolting. P : Democrats didn't vote for Trump. C : Therefore, no one will ever revolt. That's all you're repeating and expecting me to believe it with you. You're annoying. Dogmatists like you ought to be treated. Okay, they won't be probably revolting now. I don't care about that. Revolutions rarely happen. And you are terrible at arguing for your claim - I could have argued for both sides with myself rather than explaining little things to you on how your arguments are terrible; not to add that you are unable to understand any of it. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate question: "Are the protests therapy? " Your conclusion: They may revolt. How do you not see the disconnect here? That's all you're repeating and expecting me to believe it with you. No, you fucking retard. I am talking about therapy, you stupid fuck. No one is trying to convince you that they won't ever revolt. No one is trying to discuss revolting but you. I even fucking explained it to you. You lied. Okay, they won't be probably revolting now. You are such a fucking dumb shit. We know they aren't revolting right now. There is no probably about it. . I don't care about that. Revolutions rarely happen. Then it becomes incredibly fucking stupid for you to keep bringing up revolutions when no one else is discussing revolutions. And, you are a fucking liar when you say you don't care. You keep bringing it up, you must care. And you are terrible at arguing for your claim You don't have any fucking clue what my claim is because you keep talking about evolution like a dumb fuck. My claim is the protests are therapy. Did you know that was my claim? I could have argued for both sides You haven't even argued one fucking side of the argument, dipshit. how your arguments are terrible; You haven't given me a chance to make an argument because you keep talking about revolution. Side: True.
1
point
And that's when I'm not deviating at all from dictionary definitions. You've probably damaged some parts of your brain due to which you are unable to understand anything. We did agree, didn't we, that it surely won't be a therapy if they revolt? Your stupidity bores me. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
And that's when I'm not deviating at all from dictionary definitions. Um, ok. We weren't discussing dictionary definitions here. There is no way you can demonstrate anything about your use of words from what I said. Thanks for the dumb comment. You've probably damaged some parts of your brain due to which you are unable to understand anything. Interesting. You can't respond to anything I wrote, so I must be the one with brain damage. Excellent conclusion. Excellent and stupid. We did agree, didn't we, that it surely won't be a therapy if they revolt? If it wasn't clear before. Yes, we agree. It isn't therapy if they revolt. Will you be able to join the discussion now, or will you just ask dumb questions about revolution even though the debate is talking about protests? Your stupidity bores me. Something that doesn't exist tends to be boring. Your stupidity on the other hand is very entertaining. Side: True.
1
point
Make your claim on how it is therapy. I'm too bored of explaining little things to you. Instead of trying to understand even them, you seem to believe that your insults make for perfectly valid excuses. Say directly that you can't understand things due to your worthlessness - and that'd be a better excuse. But, WHAT ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT? If you think that we could simply insult each other to win, say it. Even though I have already told it (but I guess you can't understand), winning here isn't a motivation to me. As bored as I am, I won't be replying if all you do is say these stupid things again. Even if you have to go ahead and reply right now under your oversized stupidity, I'd rather wait for you to deduce the obvious. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Make your claim on how it is therapy. I just did. What kind of clarification do you want? My claim is as detailed as your claim is. You have to tell me what you want to know. I'm too bored of explaining little things to you. Move on to the big things then, dipshit. Present something someone else can understand. Instead of trying to understand even them, you seem to believe that your insults make for perfectly valid excuses. You don't have complete thoughts. When someone asks you to complete a thought you avoid the subject. Say directly that you can't understand things due to your worthlessness - and that'd be a better excuse. It is true. I can't understand things because of your worthlessness. But, WHAT ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT? The debate topic, fuck head. If you think that we could simply insult each other to win, I am not trying to win. I am trying to discuss the fucking topic. it. Even though I have already told it (but I guess you can't understand), winning here isn't a motivation to me. Everything you say is a fucking lie. I have told you multiple times that you haven't made an argument and your response had been that you beat me. Your only motivation is to win. You're so motivated to win you don't even know the claims of your opponent. As bored as I am, I won't be replying if all you do is say these stupid things again. The bold stupid text is me quoting you. Even if you have to go ahead and reply right now under your oversized stupidity, I'd rather wait for you to deduce the obvious. I think it is hilarious that you are too dumb for this conversation. Deducing that was pretty easy. In your first argument you didn't even know why people were protesting. I knew talking to you would be a waste of time from the beginning. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Then why the fuck did you ask what they needed therapy for? My entire conversation with you started with the fact that you had to ask that stupid fucking question. At least in my version of the story you are just too dumb to know Democrats didn't vote for Trump. In your version, which is apparently reality, you are too fucking dumb to avoid asking stupid fucking questions that demonstrate that you should not be part of the discussion since you didn't understand the debate description. In your version of reality you try answering questions that you can't even begin to comprehend. In my reality you were missing one fact. You insult yourself far more than I can. Side: True.
1
point
Yes...that question. Because I find it too absurd to think of that it'd be a therapy for that thing. You continued to debate for your topic, and you even seem to be a good sport from what I've seen. But well... I can take the blame for asking that question and starting this debate. Unconditionally. Side: True.
Because I find it too absurd to think of that it'd be a therapy for that thing. That's not true though. You admitted that it can be therapy. Do you ever tell the truth? If that were true you would have said "how are protests therapy for losing the election? " You continued to debate for your topic, and you even seem to be a good sport from what I've seen. And you never addressed a single thing I said. All you kept doing was talking about revolution, which you admit is unlikely. But well... I can take the blame for asking that question and starting this debate. Unconditionally. Except that you added a condition to it. You added the condition that it isn't what you meant. You just can't stop lying. Side: True.
1
point
As I said, I didn't add any condition. What I explained was why I asked it and why the debate continued. Too absurd to think that means that I didn't even consider that it would be an answer to that question. It can be therapy - or anything can be anything for that matter. You can be just a figment of my imagination in the dream of someone else who is being shown things by a deceitful demon. So what? Is that something worth taking into consideration every time, along with all other possibilities? Side: True.
As I said, I didn't add any condition. The condition that you added was that you misspoke and not that you are stupid. Too absurd to think that means that I didn't even consider that it would be an answer to that question. Was the question supposed to make people think? If it wasn't a rhetorical question, it was fucking stupid. It wasn't a rhetorical question. You knew the answer to the stupid fucking question you asked and you asked it any way. I provided with the correct question that you should have asked. can be therapy - or anything can be anything for that matter. No shit asshole. That's why the debate exists in the first place. You can be just a figment of my imagination in the dream of someone else who is being shown things by a deceitful demon. And that would be therapy for you since you would have only had your arguments destroyed in your imagination. Is that something worth taking into consideration every time, along with all other possibilities? If you don't think bringing up worthless possibilities is good stop fucking doing it. You kept bringing up revolution, not me. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
At least now you seem to be understanding things, though you still seem too arrogant. You just had to show that how any case in which it can't be therapy is unlikely, and that under the circumstances, it ought to be a therapy. Which, though, you'd never be able to assert easily, since I don't think it can be a therapy at all. But I wonder what we've been talking about all these messages after I'd done explaining my claims to what you asked. Even though you seem convinced beyond doubt that we were still debating about the topic, I doubt that. Side: True.
You just had to show that how any case in which it can't be therapy is unlikely Why? That had nothing to do with what I am talking about. and that under the circumstances, it ought to be a therapy. This was implicit in the debate title. How am I supposed to get you to understand if the debate title couldn't? Which, though, you'd never be able to assert easily, since I don't think it can be a therapy at all. Where the fuck did this come from? You have said over and over again that it could be therapy. Now you want to make the assertion that it isn't therapy? Why did you wait so long? But I wonder what we've been talking about all these messages after I'd done explaining my claims to what you asked. I have been talking about getting you to discuss whether it is therapy if there isn't a revolution, and you insist on discussing revolution. Now you know. though you seem convinced beyond doubt that we were still debating about the topic, I doubt that. I have told you over and over again that you were off topic. Repeated and repeated that you aren't discussing the topic. The fact that you came to the conclusion that I think we were talking about the topic shows that you are in the wrong in this debate. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
This was implicit in the debate title. How am I supposed to get you to understand if the debate title couldn't? Yeah, I've been arguing against the topic because the debate title had convinced me of its validity all along. Your answer to what the topic meant was planned to trap you in the debate. (sarcasm, in case you don't understand [highly probable]) I have been talking about getting you to discuss whether it is therapy if there isn't a revolution, and you insist on discussing revolution. Now you know. Yes, it was your assertion, something along "They aren't revolting right now, therefore it must be a therapy because they won't ever revolt.", that led me to criticise it and started this off topic, boring, exchange because you couldn't understand how terrible it was. Where the fuck did this come from? You have said over and over again that it could be therapy. Now you want to make the assertion that it isn't therapy? Why did you wait so long? I did already explain the nature of my assertion that it can be therapy, didn't you understand that? I have told you over and over again that you were off topic. Repeated and repeated that you aren't discussing the topic. The fact that you came to the conclusion that I think we were talking about the topic shows that you are in the wrong in this debate. I tried having it back to the topic rather than wasting time, but you had to go on discussing that. Side: True.
Yeah, I've been arguing against the topic because the debate title had convinced me of its validity all along. You have said multiple times that the debate was a valid one to have. Why would anyone think you were trying to fight the validity of the debate? Your answer to what the topic meant was planned to trap you in the debate. (sarcasm, in case you don't understand [highly probable]) I don't understand your sarcasm, that's true. But, that's because what you write want sarcasm, it was just stupid. Yes, it was your assertion, something along "They aren't revolting right now, therefore it must be a therapy because they won't ever revolt." Except I said, they aren't revolting right now, so let's discuss if it is therapy to protest. I never once concluded that it is therapy because they aren't revolting. You said it was therapy if they aren't revolting and I agreed with you. that led me to criticise it and started this off topic Discussing a revolt is off topic, you stupid shit. You don't even know when we went off topic. exchange because you couldn't understand how terrible it was. I told you over and over again you weren't discussing the topic. Clearly I did understand how terrible it was. I did already explain the nature of my assertion that it can be therapy, didn't you understand that? I did understand that, dipshit. You said something different just now though, asshole. You said it can't be therapy. You now hold the position that it can and can't be therapy and are accusing me of not understanding. Fuck you. I tried having it back to the topic rather than wasting time, but you had to go on discussing that. Bullshit. I said that you should work off the assumption that they aren't revolting and discuss the topic of therapy and your response involved revolt. You have only taken the discussion off topic. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I want you to write what you think. If you write that something is possible it should actually be your opinion that it is possible. We already know that anything is possible. When you say something is possible (under the premise that anything is possible) but you don't any qualifier to it (that anything is possible) you are representing your opinion. If you say the statement "it is possible for it to be therapy" you can't claim it is because you think anything is possible layer on. It is dishonest debating. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
So you do have the skill of understanding some things. I wonder why you didn't use it any earlier. Yes, I said that it might be therapy, and I said that I don't think it can be therapy. I hope that you can understand the difference this time. Between acknowledging the debate and expressing disagreement. Side: True.
What kind of asshole is such a piece of shit that he would feel the need to acknowledge the debate that he is in? You must think you are the biggest asshole on the planet if showing up to the debate wasn't enough to demonstrate that you acknowledge the debate. Why would you have such a low opinion of yourself? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Not even acknowledging. I wrote that in case you might actually try to understand it by reading it again, and then you read that I said it can be therapy, then as smart as you are, you think, "I've found a CONTRADICTION!". Already it's hard to explain little things to you, and then I'd have to explain another thing. Though yes, simply being here does show that I already acknowledge the debate to exist. But I didn't expect you to have deduced that. Side: True.
You have 2 options. Either you contradicted yourself, or you are the kind of person that needed to acknowledge a debate you were in. Already it's hard to explain little things to you, and then I'd have to explain another thing. Though yes, simply being here does show that I already acknowledge the debate to exist. But I didn't expect you to have deduced that. No. You being here was supposed to show that you acknowledge the debate to exist, but you decided that you needed to explain that it existed as well. Why would you feel the need to explain that the debate exists? The only reason why someone would feel the need to explain the debate exists when they are in the debate is that they don't plan on discussing the debate topic. What do you call someone who comes to debate topics to discuss issues that aren't part of the debate topic? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You fucking retard. You gave no detail at all. That's e why I had to keep asking what you think. If you explained everything in minute detail you would have been able to form a complete thought in this debate which you already conceded you didn't do. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
It took forever to get it out of you that you disagreed with the debate topic. I asked you over and over again to give me your opinion on the topic and you couldn't do it. Why couldn't you just say you disagreed with the debate topic in the beginning? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I don't remember you asking. It is the debate title you stupid fuck. The fact that you couldn't figure out what I was saying is proof that you are the one without the understanding. It isn't that you don't remember, ity is that you were took fucking stupid to listen to what I was saying. It began with me saying that it can't be a therapy for that thing (and that first question). You never fucking said it wasn't therapy. You are a fucking liar. That's the whole fucking point. You began by saying that it depends on the definition of therapy. And it isn't an extreme "can't". Does that mean you are too much of a fucking pussy to make a real argument? What us an extreme can't? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
An extreme can't would be a dogmatic one, in which case the debate can't exist (even that one qualifies, as it can't be false (even this one)). So, these are the 2 types of extreme can't. It also answers any other queries in the message (in the likely case you can't notice). The other parts of your message seem redundant. You can read the conversation again and see that I was bored in your stupid off topic endeavours. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Though I don't think I made a off topic like that - you seemed to use rather shitty meaning of 'assumption' that you weren't willing to explain. Why would I play along with your claims, then, unless you could eliminate the other probabilities? Also, that was a necessary step either way. When I said that revolutions are unlikely, it was for demonstrating that I could argue with myself rather than delving off topic (AND meaningless) exchange of words. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
Is this a contradiction? Why would your dogmatism cause me to stay in my bubble? You think I am a dogmatist and it doesn't seem to keep you in a bubble. Are you saying that you actually are staying in your bubble or are you suggesting that I do something you wouldn't do yourself? Sorry about the first question, I just asked because I know certain words fuck with you. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You are the definition of a dogmatist to the letter. There isn't a thing about the definition of dogmatist that doesn't fit you. Your definition of dogmatic (which is delusional) or the actual definition in the dictionary. It's fantastic. Your level of projection is fascinating. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
"No, I'm just saying that it would be true for you that I'm a dogmatist, because it is useful for you to believe as it won't pain you by bursting your bubble of ignorance." You stated this in response to me asking why my bubble would burst. Good job, dogmatist. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
Typing the obvious explanations is rather inconvenient. I've already made my claim completely against your questions by a few days ago. Now, we're just wasting time because you can't understand things that should be apparent. Even if I do explain them, you begin complaining. Not like I will be doing the obvious explanations again either way. Side: True.
1
point
How childish your humour is! I'd rather laugh at you than those poor attempts of yours. I've already typed the things days ago (very consistent of you to not notice that I said it just now). I hope you have understood well the side I've taken. They're crafted in ways that render most objections senseless - in the obvious case that you didn't notice. So, if I don't handle your ignorance gently, I don't think it can make me a terrible debater. But I'm bored now of my old stance - I hadn't expected it'd take days in the most little of things. It now seems rather stale for my liking. What about, if we aren't going to argue either way and you'd keep boring me otherwise, I can agree with what you are saying about the topic? Say, you actually (and impossibly) convinced me of your stance. Or, if you prefer, that I resigned (and deserted). Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Did you know that almost decomposed lizard tails can instantaneously form chameleons? That's how many chameleons are born. It is a complex process called lizard-tail-transformation-instantaneou Go with something to see infrared light near almost decomposed lizard tails, and you'd be surprised. Moral - If you wish to explain nonsense, then you'd better not limit your explanations. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You didn't think while asking that, did you? Both. If you are to claim that it can't ever be both simultaneously, then we have an argument here, rather than me holding your finger. If you say that it needs to be neither, then I shall agree with you if you could reasonably claim that. (That includes demonstrating how.) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You didn't. You aren't preaching dogma to me, and if you are trying for that, you'll never succeed. But now that you've made an impossible claim, I will be asking you to prove it. Demonstrate that you demonstrated it well and that it was rather my claim that was illogical because the argument was already perfect. With that, you're probably crushed under the absurdities of your claims. But winning against blind claims is simply boring. Go, take another chance if you can use it and have deduced that resigning like that was a mistake. We'll have it as if you didn't add this impossible claim to your already absurd claims. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I do understand what the words mean, and am committing to the definitions that I've used - try to make me contradict myself if you're worth it, and take this debate as a bonus if you prefer and are worth it. Or you can try ignoring my words and save your dogmatic slumber from being broken. I won't be staying for long, probably. It doesn't really matter if a semi-worthy peasant refuses to convert. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
Considering that you couldn't have understood things by yourself, not only are they complete, but easy to understand for even a dogmatist who won't believe it. But, even if, none of them is complete by itself, I've pretty much said everything I needed to counter your claims. Now it's just your incompetence due to which we're at the same point as when we began. It's all basically been explaining things to you. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I won't be playing along with you. I hope you understand that I'm not enjoying insulting you. I find it as boring as explaining all those little things to you. And those two combined have been about all we've done here. Also, I've made my claim completely - as much as it needed to be against you (I'd say 'your arguments', but you seem to employ a redundant set of criteria to classify things), so I won't be favouring any one thought over the other. I could prove that your game is terrible if you seemed to understand things. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
hope you understand that I'm not enjoying insulting you. Of course not. Insulting someone smarter than you is not enjoyable at all. I find it as boring as explaining all those little things to you. What I don't understand is how you can explain absolutely nothing to me and think that you explained something. Also, I've made my claim completely No you haven't. We have yet to discuss the therapeutic effects of protest. as much as it needed to be against you You aren't just supposed to be beating me in the debate, you are supposed to be presenting complete thoughts that others can discuss with you. The fact that I have proven you can't make a complete thought shows that you have not presented the needed arguments. so I won't be favouring any one thought over the other. I You don't have 2 thoughts to rub together. I could prove that your game is terrible if you seemed to understand things. If you could, you would. But, you didn't because you can't. You are all talk. Side: True.
1
point
I wonder what has happened to me. I shouldn't generally be worried about insulting you - especially when you have done so much to deserve it. Nothing specific happened these days worthy enough to turn me weak. Nothing can happen worthy enough to turn me weak. Probably I doubt that anything now could change your ability to understand things. Everything I say to try making you think would be as worthless as the things you're saying - that's evident. I've explained my claim, and demonstrated how your doubts are unsubstantiated and fallacious. But you bore me. Go, enjoy your dogmatic life. You'd make for a good natural servant, though. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I wonder what has happened to me Well, if your parents are stupid too, then it is generic. Otherwise, you probably fell on your head at some point in your life. especially when you have done so much to deserve it. Yeah, I totally deserved to be insulted for helping you figure out why the protesters might need therapy. I am such a bad guy. Nothing specific happened these days worthy enough to turn me weak. But, you started weak. Nothing happens to return you strong. Probably I doubt that anything now could change your ability to understand things. Well, yeah, that would require you to magically be able to complete a thought. Everything I say to try making you think You mean like calling me a dogmatist when I asked you to discuss the debate topic? Or was it all the lying? I've explained my claim, Yes, that if they revolt it won't be therapy. But, we are talking about protesters, not revolutionaries, so your claim doesn't belong in this debate. and demonstrated how your doubts are unsubstantiated and fallacious. I did not mention any doubts you stupid fuck. I agreed with your one claim. The only thing that can be considered a doubt by me is me doubting that they will revolt which you also doubt. But you bore me. If you're bored then you're buying. -Harvey Danger Go, enjoy your dogmatic life. Let's play another game. It's called spot the dogma. Copy and paste what text of mine contains any dogmatic thinking. Can you do it? You'd make for a good natural servant, though What? You are the punk bitch who hates protesters. You accept everything. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Okay, that doesn't really matter, even if your memory is at par with your skill in understanding. But I don't generally get this much soft and patient for your understanding. I'd be more sensitive to my boredom than to whether you can understand things by yourself after I've said what was needed. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Maybe, and people have the right to do so as long as it stays completely peaceful, but it doesn't change the fact that they're a total waste of time. Violence towards Trump supporters, though, is despicable and should be thoroughly condemned, by everyone. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
If it's a peaceful protest, yes I can see it being therapeutic in a sense however there comes a time when you have to pull your big boy/girl pants up, say "ok I don't like this but I'll work with it" and move on. When there is rioting....well that's just plain stupid, attacking people for simply voting for a different candidate? Also...ridiculously stupid and they should be in jail for a while. We need to unite, not further separate. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
|
