We don't address any of the issues with abortion in America.

The religious right is not affected at all.

Then why does God not see in 3D when you talk about Him?

I do see Christians constantly talking about Allah and they think he is fictional. If Christians couldn't get married because of the Easter Bunny they would definitely start talking about him.

I got a newsflash for you: a debate website might not be the right thing for you. ;)

What would a proper disagreement look like?

Inspiring things = making sure you are wrong?

Your case is probably a hopeless one.

Disagreeing with me = making sure you are wrong. It is getting pretty hopeless trying to get you to understand anything.

If such are your claims, then I'm not surprised to see nothing that could be called as reasoning

Someone saying they give their reasoning causes you to be less surprised that there is no reasoning given. Why? Are you that untrusting?

Though I didn't need an example, thanks anyway.

You don't understand the difference between facts and opinions.

I don't think I agreed to any such thing.

So you are trying to make sure you are wrong.

I wonder why you do.

Then read my posts. I actually give my reasoning, unlike yourself.

But then again, you like to cling

To opinions that aren't true.

But then again, you like to accuse me of the things you are guilty of.

Thanks man. I am glad you could agree that you don't inspire anything in anyone.

Only in your Hitler loving world would you be so determined to make sure you are wrong about everything.

Ha, you are so fucking dumb. The only thing that you could even remotely claim you inspire is my anger and you are too dumb to even take credit for it.

You don't inspire anything in anyone.

Congratulations. Your joke image proves there is more than 1 answer.

That's not really a great idea in your case.

You can try to sound like a conservative all you want, but it is too late for you.

How very liberal of you to propose laws for things that are already illegal.

Well, let me know when you detect what that theoretical limit is. I see no end to it.

Are you retarded? FromWithin is an admitted progressive just like you. Of course it is the progressives that are insane.

Don't you read the crazy stuff FromWithin accuse people of?

It was bad enough when you were treating gays like special sinners. Now you want to treat them like criminals. You are a truly evil person. No wonder you are a baby murderer.

Hahahaha. Good one.

Fair enough. Good point.

If it doesn't refute Darwinian evolution, it does support it in some way.

Are you hitting on me? That's fucking creepy.

Gave what away? Trump gives away that he doesn't have an IQ over 150 every time he speaks.

You just responded to yourself to ask the person you responded to if they voted for Trump. Your insanity is running wild.

Actually, the reason why liberals don't understand Trump is because every single thing out of his mouth is a lie.

Wow, you think Trump has an IQ of 156? Damn, Trump supporters are super gullible. He won because he can get idiots to believe anything.

Its easy to take things out of context and stitch together nonsense surrounding the falicies promoted regarding God's word.

It must be easy if you have mastered it. :)

Oh man, you are fucked then. Sorry to hear that.

How do you objectively show someone is offensive?

You just admitted Hillary was correct when she called half of Trumps supporters deplorable. Good job

Your statement is useless unless you believe in every situation you can be right and inoffensive. Do you believe that? Because you aren't saying that.

You want us to look at a fake argument that the person made up?

Wow. You contradicted your first sentence with your second sentence. That's amazing.

"Liberal" is a simple, one word, label.

Kind of like using everything against liberals. That's a pretty simple view of the world.

Nothing else was actually an insult.

You call people dogmatist. That's your go to insult. If that's your idea of skillful at insults you have a lot to learn.

Captain obvious knows everything, but he never figured out my stance. How interesting. How can you claim that you tried to have a debate?

Just agree that it is always therapy even in the case of revolt.

You are a dogmatist that hates dogmatists. That's hypocrisy.

Your insult skills are awful in this debate.

Wow. What a strong insult. Too bad your insult skills aren't on par with your hypocrisy skills.

Admit that you agree with what I have said about the topic. I take that option.

And not typing the "obvious" explanations is dogmatic. Also, claiming that the answer is obvious is fallacious. So, you are objectively a bad debater, and you are a hypocrite. Congratulations.

Yes. Continue to provide no explanation. Continue to claim that your statements are true without justification. Continue to fit the definition of dogmatist perfectly.

"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.

I did. You state things as fact without providing any reasons for it.

Look at the difference between you and me. You claim I didn't say something and I repeat what I said for you. You (a dogmatist) just go on saying your "facts".

The other parts of your message seem redundant.

It seems redundant because you still haven't addressed the fact that you didn't give your opinion from the beginning.

Wow. You just repeated your claim without any explanation. I asked you why and you just stated the same statement as if it were a fact. Just like a dogmatist would.

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.

Excellent. You have lost 3 challenges. This is great. Your games are fun. I really like how you just dogmatically say things are true and never have any evidence to support them, all while hating dogmatists. It is fantastic.

I have repeatedly told you that you haven't explained anything.

But Trump's hair is fake.

1. Trump is the emperor, not the death star.

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.

You are going to have a hard time showing my contradictions with your incomplete thoughts. Go ahead. Show me my contradictions. You have already failed the other 2 challenges I presented. If you failed your own that works for me.

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.

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?

You have made it overwhelmingly clear that you don't want to discuss the debate topic.

You also tend to assert these facts without any reasoning. Wait. Your a dogmatist.

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?

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?

Wow, you have a high opinion of yourself. Thinking that finding you stupid is big things. Kind of arrogant really.

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?

That sounds more like a delusion, right?

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.

Though I don't think I made a off topic like that -

We already established that you are stupid. There is no need to continue proving it.

Me ignoring what you wrote makes me a dogmatist? What is your definition of dogmatism?

It's definitely genetic. Seriously. Do. Not. Have. Children.

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.

Everything you said proves you are an idiot. Did you really think that needed to be said?

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.

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.