I don't remember anything about you. You aren't a memorable opponent.

Don't have children. It's probably genetic.

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.

Now I really need to know. Are your parents stupid, too, or are you the result of a brain injury?

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.

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.

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.

Well technically, that is an answer to the question I asked. You finally answered a question. Good job, sort of.

If I am the one avoiding questions, why do my arguments have questions in them and yours don't?

That's isn't true. When we began you were too fucking dumb to know the Democrats didn't vote for Trump. I fixed that. You're welcome.

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.

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.

And, that's why I invented this game. I knew you wouldn't be able to do it. Do you know how hard it is for me to debate someone when they never have a complete thought?

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.

Let's play a game. It's called the complete thought game. Copy and paste a portion of your text in this debate that could be considered a complete thought. Can you do it?

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.

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.

If you are committing to the definitions that you use and not the definitions in a dictionary then you don't actually know what the words mean.

Even if, say, I couldn't understand that, it doesn't matter.

Of course it fucking matters. You don't know the situation that you are commenting on.

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.

They are called adjectives. Look them up. Look up adjectives and assumptions. If you had a real argument you wouldn't have to play word games.

Why can't you discuss if it is therapy when they don't revolt? Make an assumption that it won't get worse and create a thought process about it being therapy.

Note: There is no argument from you in this thread.

I understood perfectly. You were saying that you were too dumb to understand that they aren't revolting.

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.

I already demonstrated how it doesn't have to be a noun you stupid fuck.

Make up your fucking mind. Does it have to be distinctive or a noun?

You don't understand what assumptions are. You need to go figure it out.

You don't like pointing out childish things and then you revert to being childish. I don't understand you.

That's probably just because you have an old weak stomach.

No, we aren't back to the question. You already settled the question. They aren't revolting right now, so you think what they are doing is therapy.

An assumption is information you consider true in order to evaluate a situation. You are inventing a situation that doesn't exist. Describing a situation that doesn't exist is imagination.

A label needs to be descriptive. A word that describes another word is an adjective. Your objection to the label is even shittier than the worthless argument to begin with. Congratulations.

You seem like the kind of person that points to your soul a lot.

Who pays more in taxes? Making sure the rural vote counts for more disenfranchises the bigger tax payers. The revolutionary war was about taxation without representation.

There. We agree. What these people are doing is therapy since they aren't revolting.

Those aren't assumptions. That's just using your imagination.

I prefer we label it as worthless.

If you assume every possible scenario you can't eliminate any possibility.

For instance, if you assume a man killed someone, you eliminate half the possible suspects. If you also assume a woman killed the person you can't eliminate anyone.

Also, there's my first argument that it can actually be called a therapy, in that case, under extremely loose criteria for language.

That's not an argument. That is just acknowledging that this debate exists.

If they end up revolting it won't be therapy, but if they don't end up revolting it will be therapy?

Obviously not, but it is close. It is conservative and it is a group getting together. But it isn't unlawful.

Strangely enough the plot by liberals to vote in Hillary through the electoral college might technically be a conservative conspiracy. They want to keep to the traditions of Democrats and do something unlawful. They want to use the traditional electoral college to do it. So, it is conservative in a sense. And, it is definitely a conspiracy. Weird.

How is that an inconvenience to you? That just sounds like it would be painful to the porcupine.

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?

The only objection I have to his claim is that he is saying people shouldn't complain about the president not being the one you chose. That's the American way. Complain, complain, complain. If you aren't protesting and you are just complaining, you aren't doing anything hypocritical. The next election is always around the corner. You have to convince people to vote for your beliefs.

Who was asking for change 12 years ago? I remember the Democrats asking for it 8 years ago.

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.

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?

The popular vote is defined by the votes that were cast, not by the possible eligible votes.

Illegible means can't be read by the way.

You guys didn't protest either. That must mean you liked him.

Congress has had the worst approval rating for almost 2 decades. Trump needs to keep them in check.

Not having their candidate win the election.

Yes. People don't know about joecavalry.

He thinks that one is your main account.

You are bettyjoe are you not?

You seriously need to see a psychiatrist. You are so fucking crazy.

Maybe you really are a woman. You managed to make Ghostbusters unfunny.

It sounds like you are saying the Republicans treated the election like a game to simulate WWIII.

People voted for someone who was different than every other politician. How is that not change?

And while Hill's around, Bill gets around. He doesn't need her to go to jail.

Don't forget Cleveland won a championship earlier this year, too.

You are right. No data shows the anthropic principle to be true. There is no fine tuning.

And, how many experiments have been done to prove these statements?

If we only provided $1.40 per meal to wildlife would we avoid having the wildlife become dependent on it?

Eldrick Tont Woods

Curly hair follicles are oval, while straight hair follicles are round.

I have a question. Where can we get the drugs you are on?

Your stuff from 3 years ago. ;)

You might want to spend time looking at how people treat others when they actually have hate.

The internet is in dire need of a sarcasm font.

You're a troll. You are supposed to want hate. How do you not know your role as troll yet?

Same problem as you.

Was that too harsh of a question for you? I guess I can tone it down for you. Does baby want a rattle? There, toned down to your level.

Do you think your remarks being sarcastic wouldn't get you hate?

I hate you so much right now.

Is this what you call debating?

Sadly, yes, that is his idea of debating.

What about the Jews?

-Bernie Sanders

Fact: you just called yourself an idiot.

You aren't here to argue anything.

Now we can stop debating that issue and move on with our lives ;)

Prove it.

So, you aren't even smart enough to deny or scoff. Got it.

Most of us scoffed and denied also,

Denying and scoffing science and reality doesn't count.

"I like being a pain in the ass." - God

How about this

This is you consenting to being tested on, just to let you know. ;)

Maybe she is sick all the time because she is away from her natural habitat.

*too ;)

I got a hold of someone who is going to email her for you. Don't worry, there is no way she will lose that email.

I came here to yell about people abusing animals. Thanks for ruining that plan.

So, I guess that would be a no then. You don't understand. You could have just said no. Why exactly are you happy with what you just wrote but not happy being called an animal?

Every animal on the planet is food for me if I'm hungry enough.

Sounds like something a wild animal would think.

Do you really not see how ridiculous it is to be against being called nothing but animals, but ok with being called nothing but sinners?

You should cheer for the Browns going to the Superbowl.

We have never been able to create something, therefore that thing must be created. Do you really not see how illogical that argument is?

No wonder you are so unfunny, you watch Friends. That explains so much.

That is a personal attack

No it isn't.

My "so called" debates are for fun and entertainment.

This one was devoid of fun or entertainment.

You are not meant to believe that I do not know how evolution works.

Your troll account doesn't understand evolution, so you shouldn't be offended.

To tell me that my "so called" debates are not funny, is another personal attack.

A true personal attack though.

I hope that clarifies any mixed messages I may have sent.

Not at all, which is why you aren't getting responses from a "friend".

Now, why don't you go back and find where I attacked you personally.

This is America pal. We fight bad behavior with personal attacks.

Then come back here and take a second chance at explaining to me how it is that it is I who is being a prick here.

Technically you just called me a prick by saying that anyone who uses personal attacks must be a prick.

No, I want you to explain to me how it is that I am being a prick when it is you who is telling me that:

You are sending mixed messages. You are saying "No I don't mean that I am being serious this time", and "I want you to explain". If you aren't being serious, why do you keep asking for explanations?

It's like I'm in some weird alternate reality where you bash me and I'm the prick?

I am sorry that you are a liberal and don't understand the concept of being told you are doing something wrong.

If I don't accept your bashing, I'm the prick.

You are a prick for assuming the answer to the question you are asking me to answer.