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.