#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.
|
4 years from now we will have to re-elect Trump in order to fix whatever Kamala breaks.
True.
Side Score: 40
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 51
|
|
1
point
1
point
The poor delusional liberal progressives are going to be left shell shocked when they view the post kamla economic landscape of the United States. Awwww, is somebody mad that the liberals want to regulate his rape of the economy? There there. Go and say mean things to your butler. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
|
Trump is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. If you vote for him you have never cared about another person in your life. The rights of humans are being stripped away and you want to sit and watch. Maybe its because you aren't affected by that, and the fact that you are voting for the "economy" or for your own personal gain is disgusting and I have no respect for you. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You do realize that when the economy sucks, it is the poor people who suffer most. I mean..., you do know that..., right? What do you think about the black people that have supported Trump ;)
Supporting Evidence:
https://nypost.com/2020/02/29/
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Yes. But, the country has, historically, always had a FAR better economy under Democratic control. What do I think about the black people that supported Trump?? Well, I hate to admit it but that means Wayne LaPierre was right .... there IS more mental derangement in the U.S. than any other country in the world! Add that to the TDS and CRBS pandemics and we are one sick puppy (no pun intended), of a country! Side: True.
1
point
OMG, my head just spun around so fast I think I got whiplash. The only time I think the economy was doing good under Democratic control was under Clinton. Under Obama..., tepid. The economy was doing good under Trump until COVID. Either way. It's a moo point because it doesn't look like Trump is going to win and neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
OK..., how ever you want to define it. The bottom line is that I make a comfortable living Which is exactly why you don't want to change anything. It isn't affecting you as much as others. You should have read that poem I linked for you earlier. Here it is again. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Yeah, yeah, they come and they get everyone and then they finally get you in the end..., I get it Clearly, you don't "get it". In context it means that when you are content you have no incentive to rock the boat and will generally keep your mouth shut while others are being mistreated. Side: True.
0
points
Yeah, yeah, I got all that. They're coming to take me away. I know. Did you hear the one about the little boy who thought is father knew everything. Then he became a teen and he thought his dad (and everyone else for that matter) was an idiot. Then some time after college he was amazed at how much his father (and every one else) had learned in such a short period of time. ;) Side: True.
1
point
Yeah, yeah, I got all that. They're coming to take me away. I know. Joe, you are beginning to behave just like FactMachine. You obviously aren't reading what I'm writing so why are you even replying to it? Did you hear the one about the little boy who thought is father knew everything. Then he became a teen and he thought his dad (and everyone else for that matter) was an idiot. Nope. But I heard the one about the country full of brainwashed idiots who were too emotionally fragile and weak to process criticism. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Well..., you are not reading what I'm writing and you are replying so Ah, tit for tat time is it Joe? Thanks for the supporting evidence that your ego is unable to handle any type of criticism. You're literally a child Joe. You have the mental attitude of a seven year old. Side: True.
1
point
Dude! You are insane! Think about it logically for a second. I mean, I'm sure they did not teach you critical thinking in history class at that university of yours but still... The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over (again and again) and expecting a different result. Now let's look at the evidence: On multiple occasions, in multiple debates, with the same person and with different people, you have come to the conclusion that they are brainwashed. Now, let's step back for a moment because I have something to disclose. Disclaimer: I am not an expert on deprogramming anyone that has been brainwashed. However, I am sure the process does not involve calling the brainwashed person an idiot and telling them that they are brainwashed. Having said that, calling a brainwashed person an idiot and telling them that they are brainwashed does not necessarily make BurritoLunch insane. What makes BurritoLunch insane is the fact that he expects the brainwashed person to go, "Oh. Ooooh! Yeah, wow..., thanks mate!" What makes him insane is the fact he expects a different result than what he's been getting (over and over, again and again). Q.E.D. ;) Side: True.
1
point
Dude! You are insane! Think about it logically for a second. Joe, if I'm insane then obviously I'm not going to be able to think logically, am I? Christ dude. You're just so stupid. Now let's look at the evidence By that exact same categorisation you are more insane than I am!!! You come here every single day with the sole intent to -- in your own words -- "trigger the libs". You're stupid Joe. But it's OK. I'm no longer offended by it. Side: True.
1
point
If you are truly NOT offended, then my job here is done. America needs to heal. We cannot afford to stand divided. We cannot let extremist put a wedge between us. The best defense against extremist is to tweak them a little and try to get them to temper their views. ;) Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
LoL If you don't want to hear about America, may I suggest you: 1. Don't come to an American site. LOL. If you don't want me to keep pointing out that you're an idiot, might I suggest you:- 1) Stop confusing America, an actual physical place, with digital cyberspace. There is no such thing as an "American site", and especially no such thing as an "American site" which is freely and equally accessible to the rest of the entire world. Idiot. 2) Stop confusing me stating my opinion about something with me running for the US senate. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
What makes you think I care what you think I think the complete opposite Joe. My opinion is that you are part of a culture which is pathologically narcissistic, and that you personally do not care in the slightest who gets hurt by your stupidity and greed. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
You want to talk childishness and age? Let's talk childishness and age... You are a young person at an impressionable age. You take anything someone with scholastic authority tells you as the truth. Maybe you have done some research but, since you have already been biased, you discard the opposing view. Then you go out into the world thinking you know it all because you lack the years of experience. You see the world as black and white and you are blind to the nuanced shades of gray that make up the world. Then, when someone tries to point out a specific hue of gray, you throw a temper tantrum, like a 2 year old, and start calling people an "idiot." How childish is that? You need to temper your emotions mate. You come across sounding like a raving lunatic at best and a Trump clone at worst. Maybe read some of Hitler's speeches and learn from his tactics how to persuade people. The tactics, in and of themselves, are not inherently evil if used for good. I don't know if you aspire to be a leader someday but at this point in time the highest level you'll achieve with your current attitude is as a follower. Anyway..., I honestly meant those words as constructive criticism. Except the Trump comparison and the Hitler speeches. Those were meant as a slap to make sure you are woke. I mean, you think you're woke but you have a ways to go before you are fully woke. Cheers, mate! Chin up! Keep a stiff upper lip and all that British stuff you Brits say ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You want to talk childishness and age? No Joe. I want you to take a deep breath and realise that you don't have to react to criticism by attacking whoever criticised you. That's what is childish. You are a young person at an impressionable age. I'm in my 40s mate. You take anything someone with scholastic authority tells you as the truth. As opposed to taking anything Donald Trump tells you as the truth? Yes, you have a point there Joe. If I'm going to blindly believe someone without doing my own research, I might as well make it a pathological liar with a worse fact check record than Adolf Hitler. I honestly don't know why you bother writing so much utterly stupid fucking nonsense mate. Nonsense doesn't get less nonsensical the more of it there is. Quite the opposite in fact. Side: True.
1
point
Hmmm..., actually, those words were not an attack and they were not meant as such. They were meant as an observation (right or wrong) and as an explanation of what led to that observation. The intent is to show you how you are coming across so that you can tailor your approach to suit your goals. For comparison, here is an attack meant to illustrate the difference (NOTE: the following is for illustration purposes only): You probably did not amount to much in your 40 years of life and you are probably a bitter alcoholic with nothing better to do than spend time on a debate site after being laid off due to the COVID pandemic. Before the pandemic you were probably not able to get a job that pays on the higher end of a 5 digit income due to your liberal arts degree in the history of media. See? That's an attack. And that is not quite what I wrote. BTW, I don't listen to Trump. I don't care what he says nor what he tweets. All I care about is how I am doing. And until the pandemic, I was doing fine. Now, I'm doing OK. As far as your poem. I did read what you said. "People are being mistreated." But that is an emotional argument meant to tug at one's heart strings and that type of argument does not resonate with me. Here is what I mean. Which of the following argument do you think is more effective 1. The Jews were mistreated during WWII 2. During WWII, the Jews were sent to concentration camps, starved, put in gas chambers and buried in (unmarked) mass graves. See? You need to provide specifics. The word "mistreated" is too broad and general to relay any meaningful piece of information. Anyway, I hope that helps you improve oratory skills ;) Side: True.
1
point
Hmmm..., actually, those words were not an attack and they were not meant as such. Oh, OK Joe. So the bunch of patronising lies you made up about me (like being young and impressionable etc...) as a means to avoid even acknowledging the valid criticism you replied to weren't meant as an attack??? LMFAO. You're stupid as fuck Joe. I'm not even reading the stuff you type because the more I read the more stupid you get. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
You probably did not amount to much in your 40 years of life Interesting how you just switch from one attack to another without even acknowledging how wrong you were the first time. That's a sure sign that you are a narcissist Joe, and it's one of the many reasons you are such an idiot. Narcissists don't have the emotional maturity to hold themselves responsible for their own mistakes, so they tend to both blame other people and repeat them indefinitely. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
0
points
You wan to talk ego? Let's talk ego... You are so insecure that you need constant affirmation that your view of the world is the only one that is correct. This evidenced by the fact that you constantly need to call people an idiot in order to prop up your bruised ego whenever anyone challenges your view of the world. Every little criticism of your view of the world threatens your fragile ego. ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You wan to talk ego? Let's talk ego. Have fun with that Joe. You are so insecure that you need constant affirmation that your view of the world is the only one that is correct. I haven't even told you what my view of the world is, you poor stupid child. What I literally did is criticise YOUR view of the world. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
Look, I already took the time to show you how you go around calling people "idiots." I don't have time (nor do I care) to go through all those arguments again just to prove anything else to you. I'm tired and I have a job to do. My last piece of advice (for now)... You do you. But mainly because everyone else is taken ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Look, I already took the time to show you how you go around calling people "idiots." No you didn't Joe. You failed to link any of the thousands of posts I have made in which I have not called anybody an idiot. You picked out only the posts where I did call somebody an idiot, and most of those posts are directed at the exact same people: You and Dana. Your massive confirmation bias is part of your brainwashing, as I keep patiently explaining to you, as is your inability to tackle criticism of self or country, and your psychological need to metamorphose personal criticism into a sweeping attack against "people". Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Here is the original allegation that I wrote: "...I am sure the process does not involve calling the brainwashed person an idiot..." And here is where you state that a group of people have been brain washed: https://www.createdebate. and at the bottom of the description, here's where you call them idiots: Americans: TAKING TWEETS LIKE THIS AT FACE VALUE IS WHY YOU ARE ALL SUCH IDIOTS.
Supporting Evidence:
https://www.createdebate.
Side: True.
1
point
Here is the original allegation that I wrote That isn't the allegation I responded to, so you're a liar Joe. And here is where you state that a group of people have been brain washed Yes, brainwashing generally affects groups because otherwise it isn't cost effective to whoever is doing the brainwashing. Why are you arguing with what is simple common sense? Are you saying groups of people do not get brainwashed? I'm getting confused and I suspect it is because you have no actual point to make. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
This evidenced by the fact that you constantly need to call people an idiot I'm not calling people an idiot Joe. I'm calling YOU an idiot. If I am wrong and you are not an idiot, then why are you incapable of accepting that I am calling you an idiot without trying to drag the rest of the world into it???? Side: True.
1
point
Proof that you are delusional if you believe that you do not call people idiots: https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. https://www.createdebate. ;) Side: True.
1
point
Proof that you are delusional if you believe that you do not call people idiots Joe, you are an idiot who responds to all criticism directed at you personally by pretending I have criticised the entire world. Your assertion that I call "people" idiots is nonsensical. I call SOME people idiots. In a curious twist of fate: the ones who are idiots. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
The only time I think the economy was doing good under Democratic control was under Clinton. Lol. Economy. Another word you've been brainwashed with. The last two Republican presidents have both caused deep recessions by the way. Bush Junior in 2007 and Trump in 2020. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Well, Florida is pretty much red and if he goes back to NY, he's RED MEAT. :-) Did you hear all the accusations he's been making about an election fix? He says stuff without even thinking and his supporters just believe it, no questions asked. I mean, Americans have a reputation for being gullible generally, but these guys are taking it to the next level. Side: True.
1
point
0
points
2
points
You are saying that Trump will be tried and jailed if he does not win. But Killery was never president and she's still running around Hillary Clinton didn't commit any crimes you infuriatingly stupid retard. You're literally an idiot Joe. You would believe anything you were told. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
Hillary has been investigated, and investigated, and investigated, etc.,etc.. I will remind you that almost ALL of those investigations have been BY CONSERVATIVE GROUPS. After $7,000,000 on Benghazi alone, NOTHING WAS FOUND! Nothing awry on ANY of them. Now, let's look at the John. HE has been impeached. The Mueller Report said any other person would be found guilty of crimes and imprisoned. Trump's personal AG AND his personal Senate majority covered up his "discretions" but, he IS STILL IMPEACHED. HIS discretions are NATIONAL discretions where Bill C's were personal other than lying to Congress, Trump lies to Congress AND the American people (and the WORLD) EVERY DAY. Conspiracy theorists accuse Hillary with NO evidence. The WORLD accuses the John with LIKELY conspiracies AND OBVIOUS conspiracies every day. Here there is PROOF galore as well as "Pussy Galore", ya might say. ;-) Side: True.
2
points
Hillary has been investigated, and investigated, and investigated, etc.,etc.. I will remind you that almost ALL of those investigations have been BY CONSERVATIVE GROUPS. After $7,000,000 on Benghazi alone, NOTHING WAS FOUND! Nothing awry on ANY of them. That's why fascism is so destructive. It follows the chain of reasoning that whatever the Fuhrer alleges is true and damn the evidence. Side: True.
2
points
1
point
"After weeks of discussions among legislators, the House of Representatives voted to impeach the 45th President, Donald Trump, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on December 18, 2019. The vote fell largely along party lines: 230 in favor, 197 against and 1 present." Now, as soon as Trump became president the Dems stated that hey were going to impeach him (which they did in 2019). The vote fell along party lines. Basically the Dems had the votes and they were going to impeach him whether he was guilty or not. It was a lynch mob. Simple as that. ;) "Two Democratic congressmen filed the first article of impeachment against Trump back in July 2017." "When Democrats won a majority in the House after the 2018 elections, impeachment talk grew louder and more, well, colorful. Sherman and Green reintroduced their article of impeachment on Jan. 3, and that same day, freshman Democrat Rashida Tlaib, at a MoveOn reception on Capitol Hill, proclaimed Democrats would "impeach the motherf*."" Rabid liberal ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Now, as soon as Trump became president (2016) the Dems stated that hey were going to impeach him All of the Dems stated this? Very interesting. Tell us more Joe... The vote fell along party lines. Which, when you think about it, is really the litmus test for whether your entire political system is corrupt. Basically the Dems had the votes and they were going to impeach him whether he was guilty or not. Absolutely. And the sneaky bastards planned to impeach him for something he hadn't even done yet!!!!! Those darned Democrats and their crystal balls. 😆 Side: True.
1
point
0
points
1
point
The impeachment of Trump was either politically motivated And your evidence for this is what? Why is it his impeachment which was politically motivated and not his acquittal? You are just like him Joe. You spit out random combinations of words and baseless accusations in place of reliable evidence. or the entire Republican party are accomplices in Trump's abuse of power and obstruction. That seems significantly more likely to me, but hey. Maybe both are true. And not all of them were prepared to turn a blind eye. One Republican has a conscience. We established that. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Well..., if that's what you believe..., that's what you believe. Actually, I was criticising what you believe. Your idea that Democrats somehow orchestrated the Ukraine scandal just so they could impeach Trump is laughably far-fetched. Your idea that Republicans would protect their fuhrer over and above telling the truth is not so far-fetched. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Hmmm, let's see..., "the Ukraine scandal" sounds like it is a serious enough offense to land people in jail Lol. It sounds like a scandal involving the Ukraine you jabbering idiot. and yet, almost 200 senators risked it all in order to protect..., one man They didn't risk anything you total retard. Most of their careers and political positions are inexorably linked to the president who appointed them to their respective positions. Am I actually having to explain this to you, you paranoid, QANON retard? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
What are they ris... (face palm) Well..., let's see..., if Trump is found guilty, they are opening themselves up for adding and abetting during the impeachment vote. Oh the sheer IRONY of telling me they only have the right to vote that he is guilty, and then putting the words "face palm" in brackets!!!!! Voting not guilty is their constitutional right you absolutely ridiculously stupid halfwit. It is not "aiding and abetting". Besides anything else he'd already supposedly committed the crime. All they were asked to do is vote whether they thought he was guilty or not. How can you be American and be so thoroughly ignorant of your own legal and political systems? Side: True.
1
point
I don't think you are familiar with our political process. The vote was whether or not Trump should be tried of the charges. That's the impeachment part. The trial happens next. That's where he got acquitted. Had he been found guilty, then the question becomes, why did 200 senators not see that? Were they bought off by Trump? And thus, potential new hearings would ensue to try and determine why 200 senators did not see the obvious. But that's besides the point. You believe that all Republicans (except 1) Aided and abetted Trump in making sure he did not face jail time. I don't know what else to say about that. So I'll just shrug. I mean, it doesn't matter what you believe ;) Side: True.
2
points
I don't think you are familiar with our political process. Remember when you just asked me if I believe you care about what I think? The vote was whether or not Trump should be tried of the charges. And they have the right to vote no. That's the point of having the vote you laughably inept idiot. The trial happens next. That's where he got acquitted. Had he been found guilty, then the question becomes, why did 200 senators not see that? The trial was also settled by a vote you incredible retard. If you want people to be less confused about which vote you are talking about, then simply tell them which vote you are talking about. It isn't rocket science bud. Neither is it rocket science to point out that the senate, where he was tried, is also controlled by Republicans, so perhaps you could explain to us what on God's Earth you think would have been the point of the Republicans voting him not guilty in the house and then guilty at the senate? I mean, are you smoking some kind of crack brother? Obviously the Republicans knew they controlled the senate and the charges weren't getting further than that. There was zero risk to anybody in the party as long as it was united on the issue, which it was. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
The impeachment was NO MORE political than the Senate rejection of the process. The difference is, BOTH PARTIES KNEW it was a legitimate process with TONS of evidence (unlike conservative investigations of Hillary), and the conservatives, supported by a Presidential Attorney General .... I think our FIRST, circumvented the laws of the U.S. (causing several Justice Dept. (?) resignations), and let this IMPOTUS get away with, well, treason? The case could be made but, it would require an AG Of, BY, and FOR the people .... you know .... a REAL AG, Not a "Presidential AG"! The Justice Dept. would have locked anybody guilty of his "crimes" up! Side: True.
2
points
2
points
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
1
point
I'm just watching the little hamster in the treadmill you call a brain You can see quite a lot in that crystal ball of yours, can't you Joe? My emotions, my brain, and what I'm reading at any given moment. Say, with powers like that, did you ever think about running for president? Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
The impeachment was NO MORE political than the Senate rejection of the process. The difference is, BOTH PARTIES KNEW it was a legitimate process with TONS of evidence (unlike conservative investigations of Hillary), and the conservatives, supported by a Presidential Attorney General .... I think our FIRST, circumvented the laws of the U.S. (causing several Justice Dept. (?) resignations), and let this IMPOTUS get away with, well, treason? The case could be made but, it would require an AG Of, BY, and FOR the people .... you know .... a REAL AG, Not a "Presidential AG"! The Justice Dept. would have locked anybody guilty of his "crimes" up! I get the feeling sanity is about to prevail though. Although, only just. I have to be honest, judging from the results of this election America truly cannot be saved from itself. The brainwashing is too deep and has been going on for too long. If the American electorate were properly politically informed, there is no way on this Earth Trump would ever have won a presidential election. Side: True.
|
