CreateDebate


Debate Info

29
30
Yes No
Debate Score:59
Arguments:62
Total Votes:68
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (16)
 
 No (25)

Debate Creator

Grenache(6103) pic



Posting more than one response to a banned person is evidence of maliciousness

So let's say someone ban's another person in the middle of a debate.  Perhaps then they post one more comment explaining why they banned them.  OK fine.  But when they come back a second or third or more times to keep piling on more comments already knowing the banned person can't answer isn't it solid evidence of maliciousness of the banner instead of the bannee?

Yes

Side Score: 29
VS.

No

Side Score: 30

Nowasaint does it all the time, its ridiculous and cowardly, but by doing it he is actually helping his opponent's case by acting idiotic, so just let him do it :p

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1389) Clarified
0 points

Grenadee can't handle it. He feels like he's supposed to have the right to say anything he feels like saying in my house. Wrongo. You show me respect in my house or you leave. Grenadee finds it extremely difficult to show me respect, I remind him of his brother who thinks he is earning his way to heaven by better behavior than Grenada.

Side: Yes
1 point

Well... genius... this isn't your house. This is Andy's website, so get off your high horse and at least act like someone moderately intelligent.

Side: No
3 points

HAHAHAAHHAAHAAAAA Yes. Oh lord yes but it's also so funny!!! And sometimes this person waits a few days then posts in his debate again.

Example: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Devil MonkeysVSChristians_3#arg766223

After he banned me he then chatted for a few hours, called me a witch and THEN came back a day later to continue having a go at me in a conversation he knew was only going to be one sided. Mainly because in another debate he kept saying things that I was calling him out on for being incorrect, but he couldn't ban me. He likes to stay in his little bubble.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1389) Disputed
1 point

the lord of witches is Satan. Praying to him won't keep you from frying like an eternal sausage in Hell.

Side: No
Mint_tea(4600) Disputed
1 point

Except, and I'm amazed I have to say it again. Satan is a Christian construct. Most actual witches and practices of Paganism don't believe in Satan. More importantly, for the fourth time, I'm not a witch nor do I practice; gaining knowledge in other cultures and beliefs isn't as scary as you think it is, unless of course your faith is weak.

Side: Yes
2 points

Of course it is. You already had a chance as debate moderator to say what you believe you needed to say to them, but now like a coward you're going to come back multiple times over multiple days to keep adding new insults and new lectures onto the thread they can no longer answer.

Toward the end of the movie Gladiator the cowardly childish emperor faces the hero gladiator in a final fight but he has the hero wounded by his men in advance so it won't be a fair fight. Luckily in the end the gladiator has enough personal strength to take the emperor down with him. Well the cowardly emporer is you phonies who use the bans a lot and then keep on talking. And here, through debates like this one, is where the rest of us get to draw blood on you despite your effort to hide behind the ban.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1389) Disputed
1 point

Oh boo hoo .

Side: No
NowASaint(1389) Disputed
1 point

YOUR OWN WORDS HERE SHOWING YOU ARE THE MALICIOUS ONE:

"And here, through debates like this one, is where the rest of us get to draw blood on you despite your effort to hide behind the ban."

NOW THIS IS MALICIOUSNESS!!!!! This has been your attitude toward me from the start you punk.

Side: No
Grenache(6103) Disputed
2 points

Nope. I've been standing up to an arrogant blowhard tyrant who banned me on the first debate discussion we had within days of me joining this site. And I told you right then you picked the wrong person. Having fun yet? Because I've spoiled your party every week for about a year now.

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes, it's akin to tying someone up then knocking seven bells out of them.

It's cowardly, spiteful and vindictive.

It's the sort of practise common in Denmark, where, long with cowardice it's a sort of national characteristic.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1389) Clarified
1 point

If you don't like it, don't be a foul mouth punk when you come to my discussions. Every time I see your dirty mouth post there it annoys me and if I comment more than once when you are banned, boo hoo for you. You should not have posted in my debate when you can't act like an adult to have a discussion.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1389) Clarified
1 point

You came into my discussion with a foul mouth, a sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully, to me it means a coward hiding behind big blasting words. You came in spiteful and vindictive, through your stinking foul mouth in your face and got yourself knocked out of the room you punk. Just be thankful it's only cyberspace and you really don't get hurt when you get thrown out on your tail. You're just a punk, you got yourself banned the same as you are going to get yourself banned from life and wake up in Hell if you will not repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Side: Yes
1 point

Well said, you've earned my respect for defending your faith in the face of adversity and gratuitous aggression.

However, you'll never change people's minds until you know what they're thinking, and you'll never know what they're thinking if you ban them.

Let the non-believers, like me, spew out their venom, unlike me, I hope, then address their anti-Christian rhetoric with reasoned argument.

Banning Hitler's hate speeches in the U.K, during the 1930s wouldn't have stopped WW2.

If you respond in kind to their bloshiness then you have permitted them to take command of your thread by adopting their crude methods of argument.

It may create a more colourful debate but it only serves to tarnish the word of your God.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5553) Disputed
1 point

When will you repent for your sins? Still laughing at those sizzling sausages that are the work of God?

Side: No

Saintnow and Fromwithin do it a lot. Saintnow more than FromWithin. Saintnow bans people that disagrees with him he has banned me before and has posted lots of questions and arguments on my argument. But than argues that I am not responding because he unbans me. Than bans me again.

Side: Yes
Mint_tea(4600) Clarified
2 points

To be fair, though I rarely agree with him, FromWithin actually will concede or agree with some things or debate to a point. He can be an interesting debater and he doesn't go out of his way to talk to people he's banned after the fact.

Side: Yes
1 point

From within and I get along on most topics we still have are disagreements. I was just saying that they do the same they ban and will write on the argument. From within has calmed down on the posting after banning. But they where both horrible at it at one point. Saintnow is NowASaint.

Side: No
NowASaint(1389) Disputed
1 point

I have seen too much of your dirty sodomite garbage, I do not want to see you posting in my discussions. I've said all I have to say to you, if you post in my discussions I take it automatically as being disruptive because you are an "activist" (i.e., whiner) and my discussions/debates are not a platform for you to activate your sin in.

Side: No
1 point

Yes indeed Nowastain is indeed the biggest culprit and he now has a ' buddy ' Jeffrey from Ghana who's father apparently owns a ..... fish pond .... he actually mentioned this thinking it was a newly discovered debating ploy :)

For me as an atheist what amuses me it that the majority of people who impose bans describe themselves as ' Christians ' ..

Side: Yes
Eloy(195) Clarified
2 points

You should not be surprised that Christians and other religious people want to ban people who disagree with them. They have been doing this for millennia.

Side: Yes
2 points

Nothing surprises me from these Christian hypocrites.................

Side: Yes
1 point

Looks like your intended target finally took notice.

Side: Yes
1 point

The occasional banning is warranted. There is a handful of people I have to ban. But get pretty mean and gross by the time I call it.

But this is kindof funny. Its like watching mud sports as everyone is pulling each other in. 😅😁😅😂

Side: Yes
1 point

Completely agree. But then again I've launched this same debate myself in the past.

Side: Yes
1 point

Maliciousness

The desire to cause pain for the satisfaction of doing harm.

Posting a response on a social media site is your definition of maliciousness. You Leftist are not only losing your mind you have lost what little mind you have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: No
Grenache(6103) Disputed
2 points

It is a completely accurate use of malicious. You conservatives who ban and then mock are solely interested in doing harm to everyone who isn't as conservative as you.

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Explanation of harm on a social media site would be interesting to hear from you.

Side: No
NowASaint(1389) Disputed
1 point

You come into my discussions pretending like you want to talk when you are nothing but malicious toward me...putting words in my mouth and ascribing actions to me which I have no part of. I wil not quote you because I found your wording to be crude and foul mouth punk garbage which results in people getting teeth knocked out if you act that way on the streets. So what if you feel you are being accused of being a sinner worthy of death and eternal damnation in Hell's fire. You're guilty and that's not my problem. If you don't like the truth, keep your foul mouth and whiny attitude out of my discussions.

And if you don't like me posting repeatedly after I ban you, you should have thought about that before you came with your punky attitude trying to put words in my mouth and accusing me falsely. When I look at that debate, if I see your bad attitude post and notice something I feel like responding to, I'm going to respond. Why should I let you have the last word? It may take me more than one post to cover your shotgun character smears you try to blast me into oblivion with. You throw out ten points from different angles all with one aim...character smearing of me, you are the malicious one between me and you, you always have been and you have never shown me anything different......though you do repeatedly claim you are such a stinking good person.

Side: No
NowASaint(1389) Clarified
1 point

Thank you. I have no desire to cause pain or do harm to anybody. Love has to be tough.

Side: Yes
1 point

You're just mad cause you got banned ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCfyOXJf3ZM
Side: No
1 point

Amen. The guy wants to stomp me into the ground, then whines when i ban him. You really did nothing worthy of being banned the last time, just that video I thought was out of place in my discussion but I have to give you credit for not getting mad about it like a lot of these cry babies.

Side: No
1 point

You just have no sense of humor, you old sour puss ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
Side: No
1 point

Banned and Malicious now there are 2 key words used by Democrats. Would it happen to be you are a Democrat / Hillary supporter ?

Side: No
1 point

The banned person was malicious, that's why they got banned. If you don't like it, keep your malicious tail out of my discussions.

Side: No