You: "You have no proof!"
Me: I have proof! Look at this article:
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
My argument is that once a similar thing was going on with homosexuality. Someone could ask "Is being homosexual okay? Should we support them and the homosexuality movement?" and not be shunned by society. At some point, it will take a while, mind you, transgenderism will become normalized, and we will no longer have to discuss this question.
I would let people be transgender if they want, but don't expect people to care. What really annoys me is when it comes up in conversation. Be transgender if you want, but don't make any outrageous requests, like when a mother that has changed gender wants to be labelled as 'father' on the birth certificate.
I dunno.. In my view, a person who is logical and reasoned understands that fucking children ISN'T reasonable or logical.
Why do you use the F word so much? I imagine that you would say when preparing breakfast: "Now I will have some f*ing toast."
To your point, I would disagree, because sexual desires have nothing to do with reason or logic. They're instincts.
Did I say it was related to your argument?
No, but it's not normal to post random comments to an established thread...
I will easily debunk your weak argument with some bongo beats delivered at a moderate tempo.
Can I listen on souncloud? or?
You stick with your, fucking children is cool, story, and I'll stick to my, fucking children is the WORST thing any adult can do to a child
I never said that having sex with children is cool, I simply said that it bears no relation to how good a president is. The part of the mind which processes sexual desires is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CENTRE to the one that processes logic and reason.
I cannot imagine WHY you'd defend a child FUCKER..
I cannot imagine why you think giving claims without evidence is ok in debate.
Also, please ease off on the gratuitous sweariness...
You need EVIDENCE to prove that screwing children is WARPED???
I need evidence to prove any claim.
Dude! That's fucking NUTS!
why?
Finally, I just want to say that regardless of whether you think non-coerced pedophilia is 'warped' or not, this is totally irrelevant to being President. The part of the mind which processes sexual desires is completely different from the one that processes logic and reason.
Can you explain why you are so grossly and so overtly misrepresenting everything you see, hear and read?
This debate is going nowhere. I quit. "Debating" you is a waste of time. Debating is in quotation marks because this is just you insulting me, and me pointing it out, and then you insulting me for pointing it out.
Liar. Add that to the list of reasons why I banned you.
You have no proof. In fact, proof is lacking from a lot of your debates.
You claimed "anti-capitalists invented the wealth divide".
Not the wealth divide. The divide between rich and poor; the idea that the poor cannot become rich.
Look, don't ban me because you disagree with me. That is a textbook example of ad hominem.
You've just literally claimed that if I publish and promote Nazi propaganda without violence or intimidation then that constitutes "calm and civil discourse".
Everyone is entitled to their views, whether you agree with them or not.
Why would anybody be interested in reading your senseless drivel after you've just equated knowingly making false accusations against somebody for political gain with "calm and civil discourse"?
Because if it is calm, civil, and a form of discourse, then it is calm and civil discourse.
You're an idiot. F$&! off.
Sigh...
A) Using alts to hide your identity.
Incorrect, this is my only account
B) Trolling.
I would say that your behaviour on this site is trolling, but never mind.
C) Denying something which can objectively be proven to exist (i.e. the wealth divide between rich and poor).
That's not my point. My point is that poor people have the opportunity to become wealthy if they put their mind to it.
Nazism was not a debate. It was a political regime. Whatever my beliefs are, you have no right to insult me as a person because of them. Attack my arguments by all means, but ad hominem is the most overused and annoying fallacy of all time.
If you are stupid and write stupid things, then that is a problem for you, not for me.
It's your problem if you insult me because of my beliefs.
Are we clear about that?
Yes.
Also, I believe that your use of the F word should result in a ban. See this post by the owner of CreateDebate: https://www.createdebate.
Telling lies for the purpose of manufacturing extreme far right counter-propaganda and obfuscating the incredibly disgusting things your leader has done in a political game of tit-for-tat is not the same thing as "calm and civil discourse" you incredibly annoying twat.
It is if I do so calmly and in a civil way.
People are not going to listen to you if you insult them and state unpleasant, untrue things about them. Not that I care, I'm just saying it makes me less inclined to take your arguments seriously.
Oh, Biden isn't capable of getting through a sentence
Correct. Example:
https://www.youtube.com/
so we should elect the paedophile.
How does being a paedophile affect your skill as a president? Just nit-pickin'...
Biden is not a paedophile, a rapist or a pathological liar.
No, I never said he was. I said Trump is, but he is nonetheless a better president because he is actually capable of getting through an actual sentence.
Also, I'm not a Trump fan. I think that our entire political system needs a major overhaul. But, I think that out of the two awful candidates that we have, Trump is the better one.
Sure buddy. Makes perfect sense.
Yes I know
When your only other choice is an average guy who never did much wrong or right, vote for the paedophile, rapist, pathological liar, corrupt scumbag who tried to blackmail the president of another country to fix the US election.
Yes, but that's the paedophile, rapist, pathological liar who isn't in the pre-stages of dementia, and is actually capable of forming a coherent sentence. Therefore, he may actually have a decent chance of causing change to happen, real change, good change. And of course, he is by no means an ideal candidate (Trump), but he is at least better than Biden (possibly). :0
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but when Biden is the only other option, it may not actually be a horrible idea to vote for Trump! Biden can barely get through a sentence without getting confused and losing his train of thought, so how do you think he will do running the US? Especially in 3 years... he is seemingly in the pre-stages of dementia or some other neuro-disease, so he might not be doing so well in years to come. I'm not saying Trump is a good president, I'm just saying he might just be better than Biden. What makes me sad is that we have to choose between these two men to be our president. Take someone like Obama. He did a good job as President, in my opinion. He made a lot of mistakes, but did a good job overall.
I don't understand what the hell you are talking about.
Sorry, what? How are you denying that expensive items are better than cheap ones? Take Apple MacBooks for example. They are more expensive than similarly specced Windows laptops, but they have greater precision and last longer. Oh, and they have a three-year warranty, something you will seldom get on a Windows laptop.
Capitalism isn't made from diamonds. It is made from home grown garden fed bullshit. It is made from the idea that the poor can get rich by making the rich richer.
What annoys me is when anti-Capitalists create this divide between 'the rich' and 'the poor'. Everyone has the opportunity to get rich, if they work hard and are smart with their money.
You can't seriously be trying to convince me that you believe there are no people in the world who aren't selfish and greedy.
Everyone puts themselves before others... to do otherwise would be illogical. Perhaps there are a few mentally disabled people who would not save themselves in the situation I described, but that is evidence of them being mentally disabled, not selfless and greedless.
Capitalism forces people to be selfish.
And this is a bad thing?
Arguing that people are somehow naturally conditioned to be selfish arseholes even when they aren't directly incentivised to behave that way is a typical capitalist fallacy called putting the cart before the horse. It flips cause and effect.
You have a fair point, but humans have always been looking out for themselves, in order to survive. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene provides an excellent, clear explanation of this.
Who are these people? Some people are more selfish than others, but if forced to save another human or themselves in the event of a fire, I'm fairly sure that every human would save themselves, even if it was a family member or close friend.
