CreateDebate


AThAPhys's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of AThAPhys's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Yes I know. He is also the biggest troll of DebateIsland.com.

1 point

Why do, you keep randomly, punctuating your sentences, with commas.

1 point

Gee, did you even read the article? I know it's a different state, but the point stands.

1 point

Yes, that's why it is clearly fraud. I'm saying it's impossible for dead people to vote, therefore it must be fraud.

1 point

I think Trump claims are correct - over 100 people born between 1800 and 1900 'voted' in Pennsylvania.

1 point

You're someone who attacks others

yes

and then pretends to be the victim when he gets called out.

YOU were the one who got called out. I called you out on your hypocrisy. I was the one who said that you openly admitted to writing snarky replies, which you DID NOT DENY! You in fact AGREED WITH ME that you write snarky replies. Seriously?

In other words: you're an idiot.

If you can use ad hominems, so can I. You are a .

1 point

It's not. I called you out on your hypocrisy, and you responded with a SNARKY REPLY.

1 point

Calling me an idiot is an ad hominem. What about this do you not understand? I feel you are not listening.

1 point

That's an ad hominem. It doesn't seem that you actually debate. I feel that you are not listening.

0 points

No. I called you out on your hypocrisy, is what actually happened.

1 point

Indeed I am. Yes, SNARKY REPLIES have no place in an environment for rational discourse.

1 point

Victor.

The very fact that you openly admit to writing snarky replies shows that you ought to be banned.

1 point

Yes, I did. However, I fail to see how this is relevant to the debate. Please explain.

1 point

Honestly I don't think there are enough active users who aren't trolls on the site to justify spending €350+ on the site per month.

1 point

Why the hell would you self-criticise in debate? Or anywhere, for that matter?

1 point

then feigning surprise when you get a snarky reply.

Aha! So you ADMITTED to DELIBERATELY writing SNARKY REPLIES??? This is the only evidence needed that you should be banned from this site.

1 point

I'd suggest you shut your nasty little mouth and leave me alone. Thanks.

And yet, once again you are trolling.

1 point

You're a scumbag Mingiwuwu. A scumbag.

Yes, that's right. And that's okay!

1 point

Should I be happy that you are pretending he has opened a legitimate debate and that you have merrily joined in his personal attacks against me?

because I wasn't talking to you. I was taking to the OP.

1 point

Strong minds discuss ideas,

Average minds discuss events,

Weak minds discuss people.

Fair enough. But I discuss all three.

0 points

Because I reported all your posts which include swearing and you have not been banned, nor have those posts been taken down. It frustrates me.

Besides, your swearing is often implicated in insults, while the swearing of others is often to prove a point. I'd let the latter slide. But really both are worthy of a ban.

Finally, the OP of this debate mentioned you specifically.

0 points

Who is CD? I'm fairly new to this site, so I am not familiar with all the users here.

1 point

To be fair, I do agree that plenty of other members, including the creator of this debate, do swear a lot on this site. However, in the pinned post called 'Keep Calm and Follow The Rules' it does say that swearing is not allowed, and that you will be banned if you do it.

I did call you out for it a few times, and yet you continue to do it.

I am not an alt account. You have no proof for your claim.

I like your trance music more than I like your debating tactics by a long shot.

1 point

I'm still here...

There are so many instances of swearing for which the user BurritoLunch should have been banned. And yet... he's still here.

1 point

I am not Hindu. I am an atheist. I don't see where this is gonna go...

1 point

You literally just said that transgender people should not legally exist. You believe that everyone should conform to your views. Wow.

1 point

Because the Rapture is one fictional event from a fiction book written over 1,000 years ago... and even then, some versions of the Bible don't include it...

1 point

And the one who just so happened to create the world and everything in it, including you.

And you have no evidence for all of this, surely.

What I meant is that just because humans don't know everything, we don't need to fill in the gaps with a God. Because science will eventually answer all our questions.

1 point

I have no god, because logic and evidence points to the fact that there is no god.

1 point

AlofRI made a stupid joke in response to your stupid question. So no thanks, but thanks

1 point

WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA this is probably the funniest debate I've seen all week, yes the person who created this is probably a bit of a troll, but it's hilarious how far this simple question about water escalated...

1 point

That's like saying: if a cleaning product isn't clean itself, then how come it can make other things clean?

1 point

False. Only solids can be wet. Unfortunately, there is a 50 character limit, so I guess I'll just keep typing...

1 point

False. Liquids are neither dry nor wet. Also, you are too quick to assume that dry and wet are the only two possible states.

1 point

Being a liquid, water is not itself wet, but is capable of making other solid materials wet. When we say that something is wet, we mean that it has absorbed a liquid.

4 points

So? Why the personal attack? Anything wrong with being a virgin? No... thought not. This debate just shows that you are extremely willing to use ad hominems against people you don't like.

1 point

Supposed I proved to you that not all water is wet.

Would this change your mind?

No it would not.

End of discussion.

AThAPhys(92) Clarified
1 point

I am genuinely worried about you mate. Not the techno. The weed.

1 point

Maybe, I suppose that I haven't disproved God, but that I have disproved the Christian God.

Call me cynical, but how does that disprove God?

The Bible says: In the beginning there was nothing. Then God created...

Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

2 points

Because not everyone believes in God's law, and some people have different gods, with different laws... just because you believe in a certain God, that doesn't mean everyone else does...

1 point

You are using the argument from ignorance: "We don't yet understand how everything in the world came to be, so a bearded omnipotent deity must have done it."

We don't have to explain practically everything yet. I use science to make sense of the world, and it doesn't matter that science doesn't know everything, because what science does know is true and holds up to the test of investigation.

1 point

There is no evidence for Genesis. There is evidence for the Big Bang. I find it really hard to believe that in the beginning, there was nothing, and then suddenly God appeared, and made some light (even though energy cannot be created or destroyed, and light it a type of energy)... it just doesn't make any sense. And just because it isn't how you picture things doesn't mean it is true.

1 point

In my debates, I like to prove that God cannot exist, rather than does not exist. So here is some proof.

1. God violates the laws of physics. Remember in the beginning of most holy books, like the Bible, when God creates the heavens and the earth?

Well, look at this law of physics:

No matter or energy can be created or destroyed.

And there you have it! Proof that God does not exist.

Here's another:

The Bible says that God is omnipotent. Omnipotence is impossible, because in order to be truly omnipotent, God would be able to create a rock so large that even he cannot lift it. But then he is not omnipotent, if he cannot lift the rock. And if he can't create the rock, he is not omnipotent.

I just proved that god does not exist

2 points

Paedophilia harms no-one unless it is acted upon.

That's true.

Expecting people not to act on their sexuality though is of course unrealistic.

But now we're back to square one: paedophilia is harmful. This path of reasoning changes nothing.

My point was only that we shouldn't really have opposite attitudes to essentially what is the same issue: abnormal sexual attraction.

I think we can, considering that gayness harms no one, while paedophilia does cause harm to children.

2 points

Your point is a good once, but the difference is that gayness harms no one, while paedophilia harms children as they are not sexually mature.

1 point

Then I would suggest you go to different site because unfortunately there is a lot of swearing here.

1 point

There is no evidence for the Bible. I think the world came from the Big Bang. Also, slavery is talked about in the bible. That is not happening today.


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]