Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS Rogerfederer

Reward Points:3
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
2 points

You should try to understand the positions you attack before you attack them. You might look a little less foolish.

You should try to understand that I literally shit things out with a higher IQ than you.

When I said an immediate family member with a known clean history should not be required to get a background check, I assumed you understood that checks are required to purchase. If your brother is a criminal who can’t buy a gun, then you can’t sell to him.

This is an extension of your RETARDED fallacy where you reverse the roles of the participants involved in the purchase of the gun. Let me repeat it again, so it sinks in really deep into that utterly dense head:-

The clean brother buys the gun.

He passes it to Bundy.

Now, would you like me to translate that into Hebrew for you? Or do you understand now?

Besides which, Ted Bundy MURDERED DOZENS OF WOMEN before he was ever declared a "criminal" by the state. Hence, that too is a fallacy. Bundy himself could have bought a gun had he wanted to.

2 points

I do t know how else to tell you this, and it might come as a shock, but Bundy was a real person.

He was a hypothetical example used to prove the point that some family members can be criminals while other family members are not criminals. It isn't rocket science you stupid fascist troglodyte.

rogerfederer(3) Clarified
3 points

His non-criminal brother is also irrelevant. No one is concerned about Bundy selling one of those guns he didn’t use to his non-criminal brother.

Oh God you are simply so ASTONISHINGLY CROOKED AND STUPID. It's the OPPOSITE of what you said. The non-criminal brother would pass the background check and then pass the gun onto his psychopathic, mass-murdering brother. Shut your idiot mouth you moron.

1 point

Yeah, I got that. Why do you do it?

Because just like you said pal, he has the mind of a child. Probably why he finds children attractive in the first place.

1 point

This from a guy who literally admitted he is addicted to child pornography.

Lol. Notice how he immediately shuts his stupid face when you bring up his past. Thanks for exposing him.

2 points

Its hilarious watching you back track

It's hilarious watching you pretend to be laughing while you simultaneously ban every account which argues with you.

ROFLMAO. Your desperation is pathetic. You are a pitifully fucking stupid Irish lowlife and a barefaced liar.

1 point

A lib saying there's evidence

Stop lying for thirty seconds you farcically stupid wanker. No lib has claimed there is evidence. YOU, a NEO-NAZI and COMPULSIVE LIAR, claimed that "libs still have found nothing on him". You are brazenly trying to shift the burden of prrof for your own claim onto other people because you are a LUDICROUSLY stupid and filthily dishonest, sad little Nazi wanker.

1 point

This language is not allowed in Mingiwuwu's Arena, please speak with more elegance.

Less than 24 hours ago you screamed at Outlaw60 that: "People like you need a really good fucking".

You're factually a massive hypocrite. You banned me because I rightly pointed out that you are dangerously insane, not because I cursed. At least tell the truth you little slimeball.

1 point

There are no laws that govern the peniton particle because there is no such thing as a peniton particle.

Let me try to illustrate why this analogy is false.

Imagine you lived 10,000 years ago.

Would it be true to say: there are no laws which govern the movement of the wheel because there is no such thing as a wheel?

1 point

Spacetime is physical

No, space-time is a mathematical construct used to explicate the standard model of the universe. To call perfect emptiness "physical" is a contradiction in terms (i.e. a paradox).

If material doesn't exist, then the laws that govern it does not exist.

Wrong. You are conflating causes with effects, which I have already tried to explain to you once. If there were no water anywhere in the universe, then that would not stop H2O being the chemical rule for creating water. If there were no cars anywhere in the universe, then that would not change the rules one has to follow in order to build a car.

There are no laws that govern the peniton particle because there is no such thing as a peniton particle.

This is a false analogy. There are laws which govern all particles, regardless of what you decide to name those particles. Were your premise correct that the laws governing them simply vanish when one removes them all, then it would be quite an astounding coincidence when one puts them all back and the exact same laws begin to take effect, would it not?

Obviously, if one returns all the particles to their original positions, and the initial effects are repeated, that proves the universe has retained information absent all physical matter.

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here