CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
17
Uhhh, YEAH it's STUPID It's VERY VERY STUPID
Debate Score:34
Arguments:35
Total Votes:41
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Uhhh, YEAH it's STUPID (15)
 
 It's VERY VERY STUPID (15)

Debate Creator

excon(18260) pic



I dunno WHY some people like FromWithin and Juggla67 ban people.. Is it STUPID or what?

Hello:

I dunno WHY the TRUTH is so threatening to some people that they just PLUG their ears..

But, BANNING people on this site is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, because I can start a NEW thread just like this one..

excon

Uhhh, YEAH it's STUPID

Side Score: 17
VS.

It's VERY VERY STUPID

Side Score: 17

The person who screamed how it did not bother him to be banned, is COMPLANING ONCE AGAIN!

Try being honest and wha la, you will no longer be banned.

Do you remember what got you banned? I said you support late term abortions for any reasons when electing those who vow they will keep it legal, and you DENIED supporting it.

THIS IS WHY YOU ARE BANNED! Live with your pathetic deception!

Side: Uhhh, YEAH it's STUPID
SunTzuv2(52) Disputed
2 points

I (Mingiwuwu, Andy banned my account for editing my posts blank) was honest with you about how you banning me upsetted me, I asked you several times to let me back and promised earnestly to be polite (I was never rude in the first place). In response, you told me either to admit things that weren't true and that I wanted to debate against, regarding abortion being murder etc, or to accept my ban from your debates.

The reasoning behind your ban, therefore, was that I was honest about my beliefs and you didn't like them.

Side: It's VERY VERY STUPID
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

You are being dishonest right now.

I never said you had to agree with me that abortion was murder. I SAID... when you elect politicians who vow to keep No Restriction late term abortions legal, then you are supporting the killing of viable babies for any reason.

So do you support the killing of viable babies for any reason when you elect those who keep it legal?

When you admit this fact, and when you reframe from being insulting towards Christians, being hateful and vulgar towards people on this site, then I will take you off my ban list.

This is not rocket science. Excon knows exactly why he is banned, yet he refuses to admit what he supports. There can be no debate without honesty.

Side: Uhhh, YEAH it's STUPID
YeshuaBought(2848) Clarified
1 point

For the record, I am looking for honest work. I would love to work if I could just find a job. If we kept jobs in America, this woul not be a problem.

Side: Uhhh, YEAH it's STUPID
1 point

You literally claimed that money has always existed and claimed that it's existence is necessary to exchange things. You're a literal retard, I banned you for the opposite reason that FW bans people.

Side: It's VERY VERY STUPID
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

You literally claimed that money has always existed

Hello again, J:

You claim that trade existed WITHOUT a medium of exchange.. That's STUPID, STUPID, STUPID... Even IF the medium of exchange was GOATS, or BEADS, it existed, you dumb shit..

Look.. I can't explain money to somebody who thinks people will work for "resources" instead of money.. OK, you dumb fuck, then "resources" ARE the MONEY... How is it that you don't grasp this SIMPLE concept????

excon

Side: Uhhh, YEAH it's STUPID
Juggla67(142) Disputed
1 point

You claim that trade existed WITHOUT a medium of exchange.

I claimed no such thing. I merely insinuated the FACT that money hasn't always existed by claiming it was "invented" (a better term might be "contrived"). Trade can exist without a medium of exchange you absolute stupid fuck, and money is not the only type of medium of exchange. If you just trade two items directly without any form of symbolic value system or currency then you are exchanging without a medium of exchange.

"A medium of exchange is an intermediary instrument or system used to facilitate the sale, purchase or trade of goods between parties. For a system to function as a medium of exchange, it must represent a standard of value." - Investopedia

If you simply trade an item for another (as people did before money was invented/contrived and they still often do) then there is no "medium of exchange". There is just two people agreeing that what they are exchanging is worth the trade for both parties.

Look.. I can't explain money to somebody who thinks people will work for "resources"

That's literally what you're working for when you work for money you subhuman object. Would you work for money if you couldn't use it to obtain goods and services? You're literally not a person.

Side: It's VERY VERY STUPID
Jazzmaster(14) Disputed
1 point

You claim that trade existed WITHOUT a medium of exchange.. That's STUPID, STUPID, STUPID

LMFAO. It's historical fact you laughably ignorant moron. Money has only existed for about 7,000 years. The concept of trade is tens of thousands of years old. Literally all you need to do to verify it is to open Wikipedia, but you'd obviously prefer to just sit here shouting and calling history stupid:-

An early form of trade, barter, saw the direct exchange of goods and services for other goods and services. Barter involves trading things without the use of money.

Trade originated with human communication in prehistoric times. Trading was the main facility of prehistoric people, who bartered goods and services from each other before the innovation of modern-day currency. Peter Watson dates the history of long-distance commerce from circa 150,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade#History

You are a stupid, brainwashed ideologue who reeks of a false sense of superiority.

Side: It's VERY VERY STUPID
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

and claimed that it's existence is necessary to exchange things.

Hello again, J:

No, I'm not done with you yet..

So, you're saying that PRIOR to 5,000 years ago, when there was NO money, if someone wanted to TRADE 20,000 bales of hay, for 20,000 pounds of meat, they had to HAVE 20,000 pounds of meat, and 20,000 bales of hay WITH them at the negotiating table..

If that's NOT the STUPIDEST thing I've EVER heard from a fucking communist, you'll come up with something STUPIDER in your next post.. I can't wait..

excon

Side: Uhhh, YEAH it's STUPID
Juggla67(142) Disputed
1 point

So, you're saying that PRIOR to 5,000 years ago

Money was invented before that

If that's NOT the STUPIDEST thing

That's literally how it works in a direct trade. You're just a mindless inanimate object.

Side: It's VERY VERY STUPID
Jazzmaster(14) Disputed
1 point

So, you're saying that PRIOR to 5,000 years ago, when there was NO money, if someone wanted to TRADE 20,000 bales of hay, for 20,000 pounds of meat, they had to HAVE 20,000 pounds of meat, and 20,000 bales of hay WITH them at the negotiating table

That's how reality works you dumb goddamned bastard. You can't give somebody something if you don't have it in the first place. You can't do that whether money exists or not.

You're an absolutely stupid moron. I've personally explained to you several times how money historically changed trade and its incentive, but just like you did when your ancestry test was debunked by SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS, you IGNORE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE WRONG and continue on anyway. You want to talk about the stupidest thing you've ever heard? Well buddy, YOU are the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Stupid, self-centred, dishonest and rude.

Side: It's VERY VERY STUPID