#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Who Created Whom?
Did God create man, or did man create God?
God Created Man
Side Score: 105
|
 |
Man Created God
Side Score: 107
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Even if there were millions of false gods, that does not mean that there wasn't a god that did create man. For example, look at a large lottery. You could say that millions of people bought a ticket and didn't win, but now you're jumping to the conclusion that no one won because there are so many losing tickets. That doesn't make sense. Side: God Created Man
To continue the analogy, we don't know if someone won the lottery or not. There could have been winners for every draw. Likewise, we don't know which religions are right, if any, but that doesn't automatically exclude a god. It's also possible that many of the world religions are partially right. Side: God Created Man
To continue the analogy, we don't know if someone won the lottery or not. Actually, we know for sure no one has won the lottery yet. There could have been winners for every draw. In this analogy, there can only be one winner. Likewise, we don't know which religions are right, if any, but that doesn't automatically exclude a god. We know they are all wrong in some respect. It's also possible that many of the world religions are partially right. Close is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades. So, since you avoided the question I asked I will go ahead and fill in your answer. Of course you wouldn't participate in the lottery. So, why continue participating in God? Side: Man Created God
2
points
1
point
2
points
It would be very fun to start building a God. Mankind has expressed great need and urge to build huge buldings, massive spaceships, huge walls, huge lasors, indestructible materials and tank armour. Mankind also desires to develop the technology to develop time travel, teleportation and mind reading, as well as creating objects out of nothing. It's about time mankind starts building a GOD! Side: Man Created God
2
points
0
points
You're comment didn't make any sense. It did make sense. You just didn't understand it. What guy? What are you discussing? The person you responded to said he would invest if there was a business model. Someone has to create the business model. The business model will have how much it costs to create the God. You don't ask the investors how much something will cost that you want them to invest in. You tell the investor how much it will cost and they will decide if they can invest. Side: Man Created God
2
points
It did make sense. You just didn't understand it. Drivel. The person you responded to said he would invest if there was a business model. Someone has to create the business model. The business model will have how much it costs to create the God. You don't ask the investors how much something will cost that you want them to invest in. You tell the investor how much it will cost and they will decide if they can invest. You take everything literally. No one said anything about anybody being an investor. Saash was just having fun being himself. You were taking everything seriously. And no, I wasn't creating a business model for anything either. I never said I was creating a business model nor that I was in investor. Even if I was, I am still unable to create a business model if the investor doesn't give me any details that I require. Side: God Created Man
Drivel. Snappy comeback. You take everything literally. If you aren't going to interpret the words properly don't come to a fucking debate website you stupid fuck. No one said anything about anybody being an investor. Yes he fucking did. Jesus fucking Christ man. Saash was just having fun being himself. And you fucking ruined it by asking a stupid fucking question. You were taking everything seriously. You don't even take a debate website serious enough to fucking read, asshole. And no, I wasn't creating a business model for anything either. He asked for a fucking business model. Either create one of STFU and GTFO. Even if I was, I am still unable to create a business model if the investor doesn't give me any details that I require. You stupid fucking piece of shit. You asked for details to be provided that you are supposed to provide. That was the fucking point. What kind of an asshole tells someone they are being too serious then complains that he isn't getting enough details for his business model. You are so fucking dumb. Side: Man Created God
1
point
Snappy comeback. This is all you care about. Snappy comebacks. Let the whole thread explode, why not... If you aren't going to interpret the words properly don't come to a fucking debate website you stupid fuck. Don't tell me what to do. Now shut up. Yes he fucking did. Jesus fucking Christ man. Why are you throwing around such language? And you fucking ruined it by asking a stupid fucking question. No such thing as a stupid question. Just the Cartman who answers them. Leave everyone alone. Trouble maker. You don't even take a debate website serious enough to fucking read, asshole. I think you need to look at yourself first. He asked for a fucking business model. Either create one of STFU and GTFO. I will do what I want to do. Not what you want. You're a coward. You stupid fucking piece of shit. You asked for details to be provided that you are supposed to provide. That was the fucking point. I won't tolerate people telling me what to do. Now step aside, rascal. I don't like your tone of voice. What kind of an asshole tells someone they are being too serious then complains that he isn't getting enough details for his business model. You are so fucking dumb. When did I demand that I be given more details? I said it in a light hearted fashion. I said that in order to create a business model I need more details, but I never demanded anything. You can't take humour. Me and Saash are friends. Not you. Got a problem with that? Side: God Created Man
This is all you care about. Snappy comebacks. Let the whole thread explode, why not... Why is it that you will completely dismantle a thread and blame other people for it? Don't tell me what to do. Now shut up. At least you didn't lie and say you do read the words properly. Progress. Why are you throwing around such language? Because you don't listen to nice words. No such thing as a stupid question. So, you are admitting that you are stupid. Leave everyone alone. Trouble maker. No, a trouble maker would attack someone who tries to help them. I think you need to look at yourself first. Continuing the trend of not being self aware. Every single thing you say about me applies to you 10 times more than it applies to me. I will do what I want to do. Why don't you want to be right? That's what I don't get. You're a coward. The coward who is too afraid to do what others ask of him is calling others a coward. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously. I won't tolerate people telling me what to do. Now step aside, rascal. The hypocrisy is hilarious. You don't like to be told what to do, then you immediately tell someone else what to do. I don't like your tone of voice. You also don't like being right. It isn't a problem with my tone. When did I demand that I be given more details? "if the investor doesn't give me any details that I require" Well, would you look at that. Cartman has a better recollection of what you say than you do. I said it in a light hearted fashion. I like how you ask a question to imply you didn't do something, then immediately admit to doing it. You can't take humour. Did you actually think it was funny to say that you can't create a business model without additional details? Me and Saash are friends. Then Saash is a poor judge of character. Got a problem with that? No, that sounds like Saash's problem. Side: Man Created God
1
point
Why is it that you will completely dismantle a thread and blame other people for it? I told you. That was an accusation. Pack it in! At least you didn't lie and say you do read the words properly. Progress. Don't tell me whether or not I am able to read. You're getting nowhere. Just quit. You're boring everyone. Because you don't listen to nice words. You barely use any. Even your "compliments" are deliberate put downs. So, you are admitting that you are stupid. Bing! You are calling me stupid, an insult. Hallmark of the trouble maker. No, a trouble maker would attack someone who tries to help them. You haven't actually helped. You just made up things that aren't there. Continuing the trend of not being self aware. Every single thing you say about me applies to you 10 times more than it applies to me. I don't think you are teaching me anything here. You don't understand, do you? You just aren't being helpful. By ten fold, stop it with the accusations. Why don't you want to be right? That's what I don't get. You see things that aren't there. Why are you incredibly paranoid. The coward who is too afraid to do what others ask of him is calling others a coward. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously. I'm not spineless like some others. I don't do something just because someone tells me to do it. Control freak. I shall do what I please. The hypocrisy is hilarious. You don't like to be told what to do, then you immediately tell someone else what to do. I don't tolerate anybody being my master. If they do, I kick 'em up the backside and show 'em whose the boss. I'm telling you, boy! You also don't like being right. It isn't a problem with my tone. You spend too much effort. Stop wasting both mine and maybe your own time. Is this all you can come up with? Well, would you look at that. Cartman has a better recollection of what you say than you do. I said: "If the investor doesn't give me all the details I require"... Anything wrong with that? Are you trying to make it out like I was offering a threat? Learn to read. All I said was that if I am not given the details that I need, I am unable to provide a business model. You like to turn everything round, don't you? I like how you ask a question to imply you didn't do something, then immediately admit to doing it. I said what I had said in a light hearted manner. I never said I demanded anything. You love picking words out of context, don't you? Did you actually think it was funny to say that you can't create a business model without additional details? It was called banter. Yes, it was funny. Then Saash is a poor judge of character. I haven't hurt Saash, it's not like I have any reason to hide. No, that sounds like Saash's problem. He only just met me. Side: God Created Man
Bing! You are calling me stupid, an insult. Hallmark of the trouble maker. You called you stupid by not being able to admit that questions can be stupid. That only leaves stupid people. You haven't actually helped. That's not my fault. You refusing to be helped is not my problem. You just made up things that aren't there. Another statement that applies 10 times as much to you. If they do, I kick 'em up the backside and show 'em whose the boss. Another lie. Stop trying to be macho. No one believes you. Are you trying to make it out like I was offering a threat? No, of course not, you fucking retard. Who the fuck would think you are threatening? You love picking words out of context, don't you? You love pretending you said something else and hiding behind the word context. It was called banter. Yes, it was funny. Wow. What a horrible sense of humor. Business models is your idea of banter. How incredibly boring you are. What's next? Banter about the stock market? Side: Man Created God
1
point
You called you stupid by not being able to admit that questions can be stupid. That only leaves stupid people. You're just trying to find an excuse to call me stupid. There is no such thing as a stupid question. Just the stupid people who ask them. What makes a stupid question? Did you not ask blatantly deceit rhetorical questions when you should know better? You certainly did. That's not my fault. You refusing to be helped is not my problem You've lost the right to help anyone. Another statement that applies 10 times as much to you. You accuse others of worse behaviour than yourselve. You try to deflect blame in order to deny ever being at fault. This is how bad you are. Another lie. Stop trying to be macho. No one believes you. I guess you didn't like what I had said. What a coward! If anybody tries to tell me to do anything, I will turn it on them and tell 'em who needs to be told. I don't tolerate people who dictate, they bring on themselves their own trial. Side: God Created Man
1
point
You called you stupid by not being able to admit that questions can be stupid. That only leaves stupid people. You're just trying to find an excuse to call me stupid. There is no such thing as a stupid question. Just the stupid people who ask them. What makes a stupid question? Did you not ask blatantly deceitful rhetorical questions when you should know better? You certainly did. That's not my fault. You refusing to be helped is not my problem You've lost the right to help anyone. Another statement that applies 10 times as much to you. You accuse others of worse behaviour than yourselve. You try to deflect blame in order to deny ever being at fault. This is how bad you are. Another lie. Stop trying to be macho. No one believes you. I guess you didn't like what I had said. What a coward! If anybody tries to tell me to do anything, I will turn it on them and tell 'em who needs to be told. I don't tolerate people who dictate, they bring on themselves their own trial. Step up to the plate and be a good boy, for once. No, of course not, you fucking retard. Who the fuck would think you are threatening? I definitely think you were insisting to me that I was threatening others. I know my own motives, I will decide if I was trying to threaten anybody. Go do your own thing. Don't tell me what I intend to do. You love pretending you said something else and hiding behind the word context. Because the context is what determines what something means. You love changing the context. And there is a context to this statement as well, which you will try to change. Wow. What a horrible sense of humor. Business models is your idea of banter. How incredibly boring you are. What's next? Banter about the stock market? ROFL! Jokes about the stock market! Tell me some! Keep it coming, I would love it. Try it, it'll make us laugh for once! Give us some satire, dry-mind. Side: God Created Man
You're just trying to find an excuse to call me stupid. There is no such thing as a stupid question. Just the stupid people who ask them. I am looking for any excuse to call your question stupid and not call you stupid. You refuse to allow questions to be stupid, so you are calling yourself stupid, not me. You've lost the right to help anyone. I lose my rights to help people when I attempt to help people who desperately need it, but are too stupid to let me help them? That seems like a bad way to do things. You try to deflect blame in order to deny ever being at fault. Come on man. How do you not see that these statements apply to you 10 times more than they apply to me? I don't tolerate people who dictate, they bring on themselves their own trial. This is actually a proven lie. You fully tolerate it when you yourself do it. I definitely think you were insisting to me that I was threatening others. I know my own motives, I will decide if I was trying to threaten anybody. Go do your own thing. Don't tell me what I intend to do. This is awesome. You accused me of claiming you were threatening, I clearly said I wasn't doing that, then you still stayed mad at me for doing the thing I said I didn't do. Now you are telling me to not do the thing I didn't do as if I did it. Because the context is what determines what something means. You know what is more important than the context? The actual words you use in your argument. You love changing the context. You love changing the words you used and calling it context. ROFL! Jokes about the stock market! A little bit of an overreaction there, don't you think? I didn't even tell a joke and you are on the floor laughing. See, you have no sense of humor. Give us some satire, dry-mind. Again, the guy who thinks there are jokes about the stock market is the one with the dry-mind. Side: Man Created God
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
No, I have not seen RV. Here is the critic review of the movie: "An unoriginal and only occasionally funny family road-trip movie, RV is a mediocre effort that not even the charisma of Robin Williams can save." Further proof that you have no sense of humor. Side: Man Created God
1
point
No, I have not seen RV. Here is the critic review of the movie: "An unoriginal and only occasionally funny family road-trip movie, RV is a mediocre effort that not even the charisma of Robin Williams can save." Further proof that you have no sense of humor The same has been said about virtually any film. How would you know what a film is like without watching it? Side: God Created Man
1
point
It really is insane how much you love being wrong. You're rubbing it in, aren't you? I'm not interested in this bullshit. The real question is how can you not know what the film is like after watching it? Try to make a valid point. I've watched it, you haven't. You haven't even heard of it. Side: God Created Man
Try to make a valid point. I've watched it, you haven't. You have the exact opposite reaction of people who have actually watched it. You haven't even heard of it. Of course I have heard of it. All I needed was to hear about it to know it was a horrible movie. You watched the thing and still didn't figure it out. Side: Man Created God
1
point
You have the exact opposite reaction of people who have actually watched it. How would you know? Did you watch it in the cinema? Saw anyone's grumpy face? Of course I have heard of it. All I needed was to hear about it to know it was a horrible movie. You watched the thing and still didn't figure it out. Why many times have you heard of it? Side: God Created Man
How would you know? I gave you the fucking review of someone who actually fucking watched it. How are you so fucking dumb that you couldn't figure that out? Why many times have you heard of it? They are called commercials. The real question is why did you think I hadn't heard of that movie when I made no indication that I had never heard of it? Side: Man Created God
1
point
I gave you the fucking review of someone who actually fucking watched it. How are you so fucking dumb that you couldn't figure that out? So I am supposed to dislike something just because someone else does? Why not try to ask multiple people? They are called commercials. The real question is why did you think I hadn't heard of that movie when I made no indication that I had never heard of it? You have made an indication that you have never heard of it. They are called trailers, not commercials. Commercials are for people who haven't watched something that has already been released. Trailers are for people who were aware of the release at the time it was out. Side: God Created Man
So I am supposed to dislike something just because someone else does? Why not try to ask multiple people? No, you are supposed to be able to tell when a movie is bad. You have made an indication that you have never heard of it. Wrong again. You love being wrong. Why would you even admit that? Because you love being wrong. They are called trailers, not commercials. I didn't see the trailer in the theater. It was on TV when I saw it, so it is still a commercial. Still love being wrong don't you. Commercials are for people who haven't watched something that has already been released. I haven't watched it and it has been released. Trailers are for people who were aware of the release at the time it was out. It was being rerun on TV. Side: Man Created God
1
point
you are supposed to be able to tell when a movie is bad. So you actually agree with me now? I'm using your own rhetoric. Wrong again. You love being wrong. Why would you even admit that? Because you love being wrong. You seem to think all back to front. I didn't see the trailer in the theater. It was on TV when I saw it, so it is still a commercial. Still love being wrong don't you. It's not normal to refer to a trailer as a commercial. The first word that comes to my mind even if I see a trailer on TV isn't often the word "commercial", I think "trailer". You're just of words revealed a lot. Words speak louder than rhetoric. I haven't watched it and it has been released. Obviously. It was being rerun on TV. This wasn't your original rebuttal. I wonder why. Side: God Created Man
So you actually agree with me now? I'm using your own rhetoric. You agree that you are terrible at understanding what movies are bad. It's not normal to refer to a trailer as a commercial. If the trailer is surrounded by commercials it is normal to call it a commercial. If the trailer appears in a commercial break why wouldn't I just call it a commercial? The first word that comes to my mind even if I see a trailer on TV isn't often the word "commercial", I think "trailer". That proves my point. You love being wrong. Words speak louder than rhetoric. They do. Again though, you fail to realize how much your words apply to you. Obviously. Your definition of a commercial fits in that case. This wasn't your original rebuttal. I wonder why. It was all part of the same rebuttal. More of your hatred of being right. Side: Man Created God
1
point
You agree that you are terrible at understanding what movies are bad. Re-read what I was referring to. If the trailer is surrounded by commercials it is normal to call it a commercial. If the trailer appears in a commercial break why wouldn't I just call it a commercial? There's nothing wrong with it. It's just not normal. Idk, why. That proves my point. You love being wrong. So you are telling me what I think? They do. Again though, you fail to realize how much your words apply to you. No, I don't. Your definition of a commercial fits in that case. Obvously. So? It was all part of the same rebuttal. More of your hatred of being right. Not if they contradict. Side: God Created Man
Re-read what I was referring to. Sorry, I meant to have a question mark. I believe you are terrible at understanding what movies are bad. If you believe the same thing then I do agree with you. If you don't believe that, then I do not agree with you. So you are telling me what I think? Context, baby. :) You are telling us that you like being wrong by always being wrong. No, I don't. So, you admit that everything you have used to describe me applies to you much better? Obvously. So? I properly used the word commercial and your objection to me using the word commercial was wrong. Context, man. Not if they contradict. No, just like all of your arguments, even if parts contradict, they were part of the same argument. Side: Man Created God
1
point
Sorry, I meant to have a question mark. I believe you are terrible at understanding what movies are bad. If you believe the same thing then I do agree with you. If you don't believe that, then I do not agree with you. That's ok. We just have differing opinions on that matter. Context, baby. :) You are telling us that you like being wrong by always being wrong. I am a big ugly bear, hardly a baby or a darling. You are telling us that you like being wrong by always being wrong. No, that's just your interpretation of things. 1: you believe I am wrong. 2: your assuming that people who are wrong are aware of being wrong and that they enjoy it. So, you admit that everything you have used to describe me applies to you much better? Are you trying to piss me off on purpose? When I said "No, I don't" I was saying that I disagreed with your claim that everything I say about you somehow applies to me. I properly used the word commercial and your objection to me using the word commercial was wrong. That's your opinion. No, just like all of your arguments, even if parts contradict, they were part of the same argument. So we can actually come to a final conclusion? Just like your arguments, mine don't contradict? Side: God Created Man
1: you believe I am wrong. A belief that makes sense since you are. 2: your assuming that people who are wrong are aware of being wrong and that they enjoy it. No, I am assuming you know you are wrong since I keep telling you that you are wrong. Are you trying to piss me off on purpose? I am not trying to avoid pissing you off. I am just speaking the truth, though. When I said "No, I don't" I was saying that I disagreed with your claim that everything I say about you somehow applies to me. But, my claim was that you failed to realize that everything you say about me applies to you better than me. It is a fact that what you keep using to describe me fits you much better than me. That only leaves you realizing it or not. That's your opinion. No, it is both of our opinions as I showed. So we can actually come to a final conclusion? Probably not. We always seem to, but then you usually reveal that you want to continue being wrong. Just like your arguments, mine don't contradict? Nope. Unlike my arguments, you frequently contradict yourself. Side: Man Created God
1
point
A belief that makes sense since you are. How am I? No, I am assuming you know you are wrong since I keep telling you that you are wrong. Just because you tell me something, doesn't mean I share the same opinion. I think that should be obvious by now. I am not trying to avoid pissing you off. I am just speaking the truth, though. If you're being honest, doesn't mean you are being truthful. But, my claim was that you failed to realize that everything you say about me applies to you better than me. It is a fact that what you keep using to describe me fits you much better than me. That only leaves you realizing it or not. And what if I don't somehow realise it? And what if your conclusion is that I am wrong is wrong? That isn't left out at all. No, it is both of our opinions as I showed. You misrepresent mine. Probably not. We always seem to, but then you usually reveal that you want to continue being wrong. This joke is getting old. I love being wrong? I always seem to come to an end with you, but you still try to find a means to pick on some word I use. And you do it out of the blue. Nope. Unlike my arguments, you frequently contradict yourself Not at all. And your jokes about it are ludicrous as well. Side: God Created Man
How am I? I have explained it multiple times. The fact that you still haven't figured it out just adds another reason. Just because you tell me something, doesn't mean I share the same opinion. It isn't my opinion that you are wrong. It is a fact that you are wrong. If you're being honest, doesn't mean you are being truthful. What's your point? I didn't use either of those words to describe myself. And what if I don't somehow realise it? That means you were wrong for stating "No, I don't". But, no one will be surprised if you don't realize reality. And what if your conclusion is that I am wrong is wrong? It isn't. What if gravity pushed us away from the planet? I love being wrong? Yep. And your jokes about it are ludicrous as well. Why is it that you think facts are jokes? Side: Man Created God
1
point
I have explained it multiple times. The fact that you still haven't figured it out just adds another reason. No matter how many times you explain it, doesn't mean you're right. I am still waiting. It isn't my opinion that you are wrong. It is a fact that you are wrong. "It isn't an opinion, it is a fact". What an often used cop out. What's your point? I didn't use either of those words to describe myself You said you were being truthful. And even if you were being honest, you still weren't being truthful. That means you were wrong for stating "No, I don't". But, no one will be surprised if you don't realize reality. Yet again, you don't realise this simple word. "If". It isn't. What if gravity pushed us away from the planet? Gravity is to do with what, exactly, when it comes to whether I am in the wrong? Yep. That's just an assertion. Opinion, not fact. Why is it that you think facts are jokes? You tell stupid jokes and pretend that they are facts. Side: God Created Man
No matter how many times you explain it, doesn't mean you're right. I am still waiting. Yes, I am right because I speak the truth. You are right that it has nothing to do with the fact that I happened to explain it. What an often used cop out. Calling facts opinions is a worse cop out. You said you were being truthful. And even if you were being honest, you still weren't being truthful. But, I wasn't being honest, I was being truthful. Yet again, you don't realise this simple word. "If". Have you surprised anyone yet? Gravity is to do with what, exactly, when it comes to whether I am in the wrong? No need to ask what if questions about things that won't happen. You tell stupid jokes and pretend that they are facts. Poor baby can't answer questions. Sad. If you ever stopped treating facts like jokes you might become a better debater. Side: Man Created God
1
point
Yes, I am right because I speak the truth. You are right that it has nothing to do with the fact that I happened to explain it. Yet again we are going round in circles. I believe that I am right about what I say, but I am not right for agreeing upon something I have never agreed upon. I can't be right about something that I haven't said. Calling facts opinions is a worse cop out. Except you call what I believe to be opinions. You stated it first. But, I wasn't being honest, I was being truthful. I said "even if", to make my point clearer, just to clarify my point. "Even if". When you say "if" you use it as proof that I have said something. When I say "if" I use it to disprove an alternative explanation. You provide an alternative explanation, but use that as evidence even though you don't prove that alternative explanation. Have you surprised anyone yet? Blabbbaaaaaaaaaa. No need to ask what if questions about things that won't happen. I am disproving the main case, as well as disproving an alternative gateway by saying "if". Right now the "if" no longer applies, but then it did. Poor baby can't answer questions. Sad. If you ever stopped treating facts like jokes you might become a better debater. You can't even prove your claims. Side: God Created Man
I believe that I am right about what I say, but I am not right for agreeing upon something I have never agreed upon. You aren't. Sorry. I can't be right about something that I haven't said. Wow, you won't even let people think you are right. More evidence that you love to be wrong. I said "even if", to make my point clearer, just to clarify my point. "Even if". Let me make my point abundantly clear. You are wrong, I was definitely truthful. Blabbbaaaaaaaaaa. So, no. Since no one is surprised, you must not realize reality. Sorry. I am disproving the main case, as well as disproving an alternative gateway by saying "if". Did I disprove gravity by asking "if" about gravity pushing us away? No. Just like you failed to do. Right now the "if" no longer applies, but then it did. Wrong again. It never applied. You can't even prove your claims. I can't prove my claims any more than I am doing. I have more supporting evidence than any criminal case ever conducted. Side: Man Created God
1
point
Wow, you won't even let people think you are right. More evidence that you love to be wrong. I don't bother claiming to be right when I'm not. I can't be right in what I have not said. I obviously don't care. Double pun on you. Let me make my point abundantly clear. You are wrong, I was definitely truthful. You can't simplify something you haven't fully explained. So, no. Since no one is surprised, you must not realize reality. Sorry. Why do you think no one is surprised? Because nobody cares. Did I disprove gravity by asking "if" about gravity pushing us away? No. Just like you failed to do. You can't disprove something that has already proved by stating "if gravity", since there is already proof for the basis of gravity. You can't prove something by stating something with an "if" if there is no basis for that "if". Are you implying that there was no basis that you were being honest, because I certainly hadn't originally. Wrong again. It never applied. It did if there was basis to believe it originally. I can't prove my claims any more than I am doing. I have more supporting evidence than any criminal case ever conducted. Why not go back and quote your original claim about you calling me dumb yourself then? I will at some point. Side: God Created Man
You can't simplify something you haven't fully explained. I didn't say anything about simplify it. I said I wanted to be clear. Why do you think no one is surprised? Because you don't realize reality. You can't disprove something that has already proved by stating "if gravity", since there is already proof for the basis of gravity. You are so close to understanding. It is so sad seeing you still fail. You can't prove something by stating something with an "if" if there is no basis for that "if". It is hilarious how you don't apply this to the current situation. Are you implying that there was no basis that you were being honest, because I certainly hadn't originally. No, I am implying that there is no basis to think I wasn't being truthful. It did if there was basis to believe it originally. Exactly. There was never a basis to believe what you believed originally. Why not go back and quote your original claim about you calling me dumb yourself then? How many times do I need to quote the statements that prove my point before you agree? I will at some point. More of you not being truthful. Side: Man Created God
1
point
I didn't say anything about simplify it. I said I wanted to be clear. When you said you were clarifying it you were trying to simplify it. Because you don't realize reality. That's you who doesn't. You are so close to understanding. It is so sad seeing you still fail. This statement that you had made tells me why context matters. It is hilarious how you don't apply this to the current situation. Because it doesn't apply. No, I am implying that there is no basis to think I wasn't being truthful. There is, plenty. Exactly. There was never a basis to believe what you believed originally. Unfortunately there was. And I've already explained. How many times do I need to quote the statements that prove my point before you agree? Why not just quote it once? More of you not being truthful. Getting impatient? Side: God Created Man
When you said you were clarifying it you were trying to simplify it. Wrong again, you stupid fuck. That's you who doesn't. Wrong again, you stupid fuck. Because it doesn't apply. Wrong again, you stupid fuck. There is, plenty. Wrong again, you stupid fuck. Unfortunately there was. And I've already explained. Wrong again, you stupid fuck. Why not just quote it once? Because I know for a fact that once doesn't do the trick. I want to know how many times will do the trick before I try again. Getting impatient? Not at all. I am perfectly fine being the only one using facts. Side: Man Created God
1
point
1
point
1
point
No, you are not my boss. You are the only thing wrong. I never said I was anyone's boss. I was using firing ones boss as an example of the absurdity of believing everything is wrong. How am I the only wrong thing/person? You seem to be hesitant to believe anything to the extent that you seem to believe absolutely any belief at all is wrong. Including the fact that your boss is your boss. Side: God Created Man
I was using firing ones boss as an example of the absurdity of believing everything is wrong. Only what you say is wrong. How am I the only wrong thing/person? Because you are a stupid fuck that loves being wrong. You seem to be hesitant to believe anything to the extent that you seem to believe absolutely any belief at all is wrong. I am hesitant to believe things you say because I know for a fact that you are wrong. Side: Man Created God
1
point
1
point
1
point
There is no inherent contradiction with honesty and truthfulness. And, I have not been calling myself honest. The fact that you keep thinking I am talking about honesty every time I mention the truth pretty much shows that even you don't think there is a contradiction. Side: Man Created God
1
point
There is no inherent contradiction with honesty and truthfulness. You aren't honest, are you? The fact that you keep thinking I am talking about honesty every time I mention the truth pretty much shows that even you don't think there is a contradiction. If you were truthful, that would mean you were honest. You said you were truthful. And also, that fact that you contradict yourself deliberately is evidence of your dishonesty. If you're posts were genuine there would be no gaps to scrutinise, there is no gaps within ones words if the person is being truthful. But since there are gaps, it means what you claim to be true isn't true. And if what you claim to be true isn't true, it means your claims are dishonest. How do I know you are being dishonest as opposed to incorrect? Because your contradictions are obvious. They are so obvious as a matter of fact that they go against the intended meaning of what you had said. Side: God Created Man
I have no idea what your definition of honest is, so I don't know how to answer your question. You have become very confusing now that you think truthful is the same as honesty when you previously said they were different. I haven't contradicted myself at all. The only gaps are with your words, and of course inside your head there is a massive gap where your brain should be. It is always funny when people claim I am contradicting myself but can never provide what is contradictory. It is also funny because I usually describe actual contradictions made by those people and they can't admit it. Side: Man Created God
1
point
I have no idea what your definition of honest is, so I don't know how to answer your question. If you want to know what my definition of honesty is, just pick up a dictionary. You have become very confusing now that you think truthful is the same as honesty when you previously said they were different. I don't remember saying truthfulness is different to honesty, if so, it depends on the context. Nor did I say that they were the same. Being truthful always means you are honest, but being honest doesn't mean you are being truthful. Truthfulness is not exactly another name for honesty, it is a type of honesty, instead. You don't say I am being truthful if what you thought was the case didn't turn out to be true, the person may be being honest, but not truthful. Just like Ferrari is not another name for a car, it is just a type of car. You don't say Ferrari if you have a Mustang. The only gaps are with your words, and of course inside your head there is a massive gap where your brain should be. Worthless retort. It is always funny when people claim I am contradicting myself but can never provide what is contradictory. It is also funny because I usually describe actual contradictions made by those people and they can't admit it. You can't claim something without proof. You insult yourself, apparently. I'm just using your own words against you, Cartman. (You insult yourself) Side: God Created Man
If you want to know what my definition of honesty is, just pick up a dictionary I can't. No dictionary has your definition of honest. Dictionary Honest: free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere. Your belief: just being honest doesn't mean you are truthful. Side: Man Created God
1
point
I can't. No dictionary has your definition of honest. Wrong. Dictionary Honest: free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere. Hint: just because you aren't being untruthful doesn't mean you are being truthful. Untruthful is an adjective that describes general behaviour that does not connotate to the truth, but in a deliberate way. Truthful is an adjective that describes general behaviour as being true, in a deliberate way. You can be say something untrue without intending it (therefore not truthful) If you say something untrue without intending it, it doesn't mean you are lying (i.e. untruthful). Truthfulness and untruthfulness is not just about being correct or incorrect, it is about the intent. The intent has to match up with the desired effect to be one or the other. You don't have to be truthful in order to avoid being untruthful. Got it? free of deceit You didn't say that you were free from deceit, did you? You told me that I was incorrect to say that you were being honest. Your belief: just being honest doesn't mean you are truthful. Correct, see top. Side: God Created Man
1
point
Are you out of your fucking mind? If you aren't being truthful you are being untruthful. If you are not being untruthful you are being truthful. They are opposites. There isn't a middle ground. You can say something wrong without meaning to be wrong honest, neither truthful/untruthful shade of grey you can say something wrong while knowing you are wrong - dishonest + untruthful, not truthful shade of black You can say something right while thinking you are wrong dishonest, neither truthful/untruthful shade of grey You can say something right while knowing you are right honest, truthful, not untruthful shade of white. So what I mean about middle ground? It's not all black and white? There are grey shades in the middle. Grey is made of different palettes of black and white. Side: God Created Man
1
point
You can say something wrong without meaning to be wrong Then you are still being honest and truthful (they mean the same thing). you can say something wrong while knowing you are wrong - Then you are being dishonest and untruthful (they mean the same thing). You can say something right while knowing you are right That is being honest and truthful (they mean the same thing). So what I mean about middle ground? You didn't demonstrate any middle ground. Side: Man Created God
1
point
Then you are still being honest and truthful (they mean the same thing). No word means the same thing. Every word is unique, just like me and you. You have to tell the truth in order to be truthful, for a start. Telling the truth means what you say is true. If you say something wrong without meaning to, you aren't telling the truth. Then you are being dishonest and untruthful (they mean the same thing). Well, you are being dishonest and untruthful in this circumstance. But they still mean different things. The fact that you used the word "and" proves that they are separate words. That is being honest and truthful (they mean the same thing). Correct. Still, no word is completely alike. But what about if someone said something true while thinking it was wrong? Cartman is claiming to have been truthful yet dishonest. You can't be truthful and dishonest. Cartman thinks it is possible, since he said he was. You didn't demonstrate any middle ground Really? Well, you are clashing within the middle ground, already! Side: God Created Man
1
point
1
point
Talk about being dishonest. You can't answer the question. If you were honest, you could answer the question. Did you call me honest, or did you claim I called myself honest? I never said I wasn't honest. Sorry. You are the one who couldn't answer the question. You also weren't being honest. I had never called you honest. You're post rings of obsession. Side: God Created Man
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
How old do I sound? I bet you think I sound childish, when in reality I sound like an old man telling you to get off my lawn. You are such a stupid shit that you make me sound like a grumpy old man. You try too hard sometimes. You need to know when to stop. Or I'll be grumpy. Side: Man Created God
Oh, look, another fucking question you can't fucking answer. Did I nail it on the head? Were you actually stupid enough to think I was being childish? Did I make you look foolish for thinking I was childish when anyone who actually thought about it at all would realize it wasn't childish? Were you childish enough to think "He said the F word, oh no, I can't be around those words"? Do you really think you can get me to stop by saying I will make you grumpy? Are you stupid enough to actually believe I want you to feel good about being a complete fucking retard? Side: God Created Man
1
point
Oh, look, another fucking question you can't fucking answer. Did I nail it on the head? Were you actually stupid enough to think I was being childish? Did I make you look foolish for thinking I was childish when anyone who actually thought about it at all would realize it wasn't childish? Were you childish enough to think "He said the F word, oh no, I can't be around those words"? You can't rely on Ad Populum if you don't even know the general consensus. Do you really think you can get me to stop by saying I will make you grumpy? Are you stupid enough to actually believe I want you to feel good about being a complete fucking retard? Yet again, you are assuming that I meant it as a threat. Words speak louder than rhetoric. I'm insulting you by saying this. Don't spin it round. Side: Man Created God
You can't rely on Ad Populum if you don't even know the general consensus. Wow, 4 questions all together that you couldn't answer. But, at least you said enough to prove that you didn't actually think about my response when you made yours. Yet again, you are assuming that I meant it as a threat. Yet again you failed to answer my questions. If you don't answer questions, I get to make up your answers for you. I'm insulting you by saying this. Are you stupid enough to think that saying you aren't threatening me is an insult to me? Side: God Created Man
1
point
Wow, 4 questions all together that you couldn't answer. But, at least you said enough to prove that you didn't actually think about my response when you made yours. I did answer them. I made a statement that refuted all of your questions. Yet again you failed to answer my questions. If you don't answer questions, I get to make up your answers for you. You seem to miss the context behind what I say. Notice how it's going round in circles? Are you stupid enough to think that saying you aren't threatening me is an insult to me? It is if it serves as a rebuttal to your original claims. I'll stick to the facts. Not the claims you make later on to cover up those later claims. Side: Man Created God
I did answer them. I made a statement that refuted all of your questions. Poor boy. Delusional and stupid are no way to go through life. You seem to miss the context behind what I say. Hiding behind context instead of writing out your thoughts is a really stupid approach to debating. It is if it serves as a rebuttal to your original claims. Why on Earth would you consider rebuttals to be insults? That's why you can't debate. The rest of us are not insulting you by pointing out that you are wrong. You need to get over this idea that a counter argument is an insult. I'll stick to the facts. You have never once stuck to the facts on this website. Not the claims you make later on to cover up those later claims. I am not the one who said that LibProlifer didn't downvote someone, got proved wrong, then said I was talking about LibProlifer following the guy. You have a history of getting caught being wrong then changing the words you used to continue being wrong. I have a history of calling you out on all your bullshit which sounds like I keep changing what I am saying because you are constantly coming up with new bullshit. Side: God Created Man
1
point
Poor boy. Delusional and stupid are no way to go through life. You seem to be unable to actually explain this properly. Hiding behind context instead of writing out your thoughts is a really stupid approach to debating. How can you hide behind something transparent? How can I hide behind a certain context that is there for all to see? Try actually getting to the point Why on Earth would you consider rebuttals to be insults? That's why you can't debate. The rest of us are not insulting you by pointing out that you are wrong. You need to get over this idea that a counter argument is an insult. I never said that a rebuttal is an insult. I'm just repeating the rhetoric that you frequently use. You like to imply that I'm insulting myself when I offer a rebuttal. For a start, according to your own words you should say that I am rebutting myself, not insulting myself. How can I insult myself when I offer a rebuttal? You aren't consistent with your own words. You have never once stuck to the facts on this website. That's a difficult claim to make. I am not the one who said that LibProlifer didn't downvote someone, got proved wrong, then said I was talking about LibProlifer following the guy. You have a history of getting caught being wrong then changing the words you used to continue being wrong. I have a history of calling you out on all your bullshit which sounds like I keep changing what I am saying because you are constantly coming up with new bullshit. The context was that LibProlifer didn't downvote someone within the debate itself, but that she has simply downvoted the guy via the public waterfall. This guy who accused LibProlifer said that the fact that she down voted him via the actual debate was evidence that she was supposedly following this guy. Are you going to actually dispute this? Properly? Side: Man Created God
You seem to be unable to actually explain this properly. No, you are unable to understand it. How can I hide behind a certain context that is there for all to see? By not using the specific words that precisely describe your position you can lie about context and pretend you said something that you never said. I never said that a rebuttal is an insult. In context you did. You said a non insult is an insult when it is used as a rebuttal. That's a difficult claim to make. No, it is a difficult claim to disprove. ;) Are you going to actually dispute this? Yes. You denied the following and the downvoting, thus completely negating the context. "LibProlifer hasn't followed you, nor has she down voted any of your arguments." Side: God Created Man
1
point
No, you are unable to understand it Buck up. By not using the specific words that precisely describe your position you can lie about context and pretend you said something that you never said. So It is incorrect to use different wording? I can only use the exact same words as originally? So rephrasing something is wrong? In context you did. You said a non insult is an insult when it is used as a rebuttal. No, I didn't. What I said was that a rebuttal is an insult when it rebuts somebody else's insult. You can't expect me not to rebut your insults, can you? No, it is a difficult claim to disprove. ;) You seem obsessed with this line of thinking. Yes. You denied the following and the downvoting, thus completely negating the context. "LibProlifer hasn't followed you, nor has she down voted any of your arguments." LibProlifer hasn't downvoted anybody's anybody's argument within the confines of the debate. I haven't touched any germs. I haven't touched any germs within the context that I am speaking of, clearly. Side: Man Created God
So It is incorrect to use different wording? I believe it is, why don't you? Why is using different wording than what you actually mean not incorrect? What I said was that a rebuttal is an insult when it rebuts somebody else's insult. So, in other words a non insult becomes an insult. You seem obsessed with this line of thinking. Yeah, I like facts. LibProlifer hasn't downvoted anybody's anybody's argument within the confines of the debate. You can't admit that you made a mistake. It is so sad. I have to admit that you have an impressive skill. Being able to deny an undeniable fact is a very delusional skill. Side: God Created Man
1
point
I believe it is, why don't you? Why is using different wording than what you actually mean not incorrect? You can use different words without contradicting. You can use different words and different ways of phrasing something to describe something from a different angle, still about the same subject, just making another point. You can make another point about something without it being a different point. That's what I mean by using different words. So, in other words a non insult becomes an insult. I suppose that depends on the context. Yeah, I like facts. Then you need to be patient. I have to admit that you have an impressive skill. Being able to deny an undeniable fact is a very delusional skill. Thank you, anyway. It comes with practice. I still get a head ache sometimes though, I'm not immune to that. Side: Man Created God
1
point
1
point
1
point
Haha. You just admitted that following you around is dumb. Why you hitting yourself? When I added "How dumb" at the end, I obviously was calling Lady Linkster dumb, because the post was addressed to her. Why do you resort to childish retorts? Although following me around needlessly like a pesky fly is still quite dumb. Side: Man Created God
When I added "How dumb" at the end, I obviously was calling Lady Linkster dumb, because the post was addressed to her. Not in context. Why do you resort to childish retorts? You called an innocent bystander dumb. Fuck off with your bullshit about childish retorts. Although following me around needlessly like a pesky fly is still quite dumb. Why you hitting yourself? Damn you are hilarious: "I have nothing to say against your insult of me, all I can do is deny your initial claim that I called you dumb. By the way, I am calling you dumb now to make sure that your argument that I can't refute is definitely true." Side: God Created Man
1
point
Not in context. Why not? You called an innocent bystander dumb. Fuck off with your bullshit about childish retorts. I'm not surprised that I called LadyLinkster dumb. I was tired and fed up of having to deal with so many people cramming everything up. My energy wears out quickly, and LadyLinkster did intervene quite a bit, to be fair. Why you hitting yourself? Damn you are hilarious: "I have nothing to say against your insult of me, all I can do is deny your initial claim that I called you dumb. By the way, I am calling you dumb now to make sure that your argument that I can't refute is definitely true." I don't recall denying that I have ever called you dumb. What I was denying was that within that particular post I was calling you dumb as opposed to LadyLinkster. Side: Man Created God
What I was denying was that within that particular post I was calling you dumb as opposed to LadyLinkster. I fucking love it when fucking idiots who complain about context fail to understand context. My statements were strictly referring to the one argument where you denied calling me dumb as opposed to LadyLinkster. Side: God Created Man
1
point
My statements were strictly referring to the one argument where you denied calling me dumb as opposed to LadyLinkster. You're statements? You only made one statement about me denying making that statement. But you made a statement that accused me of constantly denying that I had called you dumb, which isn't true. I only denied calling you dumb once. Hilarious. It's ok, I only denied it once. Dumbass. Side: Man Created God
You only made one statement about me denying making that statement. You are going to hassle me about adding the letter s? Really? That's all you have? But you made a statement that accused me of constantly denying that I had called you dumb, which isn't true. No, what isn't true is me making a statement that accused you of constantly denying that you called me dumb. I only denied calling you dumb once. I agree. The quoted text of mine proves that I agree. Hilarious. More of your poor sense of humor in action. It's ok, I only denied it once. Dumbass. Who is the real dumbass? The first person who said that you only had one argument denying I was dumb, or the dumbass who said exactly what he quoted the other person saying then called that person a dumbass for not saying it? Good job, dumbass. Side: God Created Man
1
point
You are going to hassle me about adding the letter s? Really? That's all you have? It's just that you have added the letter r in order to avoid being clear. It really did jumble things up, when you added the r. No, what isn't true is me making a statement that accused you of constantly denying that you called me dumb. I remember you telling me that I had constantly denied calling you dumb. I agree. The quoted text of mine proves that I agree. So you have only accused me of denying that I had called you dumb only once? That isn't what I remember. More of your poor sense of humor in action. Yet you provide no explanation. Who is the real dumbass? The first person who said that you only had one argument denying I was dumb, or the dumbass who said exactly what he quoted the other person saying then called that person a dumbass for not saying it? Good job, dumbass. You're being the fool for pretending that you had only accused me of doing it only once. Side: Man Created God
It's just that you have added the letter r in order to avoid being clear. That's one of the stupider things you have ever said. Indicating that I said more then one sentence was to avoid being clear? Really? You are so dumb that you think pretending to say more than you said can be confusing? I remember you telling me that I had constantly denied calling you dumb. And I remember telling you twice that I didn't do that. You have a history of having a poor memory. So you have only accused me of denying that I had called you dumb only once? Yes, read what you quoted. That isn't what I remember. That's because your memory is shit. Yet you provide no explanation. You are so unfunny that it requires no explanation. You're being the fool for pretending that you had only accused me of doing it only once. If that were true then you are a double dumbass for not being able to recognize that I changed my stance which would indicate you were right. Side: God Created Man
1
point
That's one of the stupider things you have ever said. Indicating that I said more then one sentence was to avoid being clear? Really? You are so dumb that you think pretending to say more than you said can be confusing? It can if the person is tired. And I remember telling you twice that I didn't do that. You have a history of having a poor memory. You have a history of repeating this. And being wrong. Yes, read what you quoted. I will in my own time. That's because your memory is shit. Ad Hominem without facts. You are so unfunny that it requires no explanation. And I may have to continue being unfunny with you. You're too funny with me. If that were true then you are a double dumbass for not being able to recognize that I changed my stance which would indicate you were right Changing your stance indicates that I am right. Obviously. I obviously reckognised that. Let's be unfunny. Side: Man Created God
It can if the person is tired. Now, you are accusing me of intentionally trying to mess with you and only coming up with a plan that requires you to be tired. You have a history of repeating this. And being wrong. You have a history of repeating "I don't recall..." I will in my own time. Do you really not know how stupid it is to make a comment about what I wrote before actually reading it? Ad Hominem without facts. An explanation with known facts. You constantly misremember everything. I obviously reckognised that. You didn't. You keep telling me to change my stance. I had to tell you twice that I currently have that stance and you still don't realize it. Side: God Created Man
1
point
Now, you are accusing me of intentionally trying to mess with you and only coming up with a plan that requires you to be tired. Being tired was just an example. If the person is fuzzled or frustrated by repetition, then some slight change from singler to plural would confuse a person as well. You have a history of repeating "I don't recall..." That's right, for once. I do have a history for repeating "I don't recall" when an event doesn't happen. Probably because I tell the truth. Hint, you are about being right, I am about being truthful. What does that make you think? Nudge, nudge. Do you really not know how stupid it is to make a comment about what I wrote before actually reading it? I have read it. In order to prove it to somebody who is so stubborn, I just need to scroll up and copy and paste a comment you had made. An explanation with known facts. You constantly misremember everything. Here we are, repetition. You didn't. You keep telling me to change my stance. I had to tell you twice that I currently have that stance and you still don't realize it. When did I ever tell you to change your stance? Is this another one of your jokes again? Side: Man Created God
If the person is fuzzled or frustrated by repetition, then some slight change from singler to plural would confuse a person as well. Only if the person is a complete idiot. I do have a history for repeating "I don't recall" when an event doesn't happen. These events that never happen have been shown to you to happen. Probably because I tell the truth. You have never once told the truth. I have read it. "I will read it when I feel like it" "I have read it" Shit, you will say anything won't you. In order to prove it to somebody who is so stubborn, I just need to scroll up and copy and paste a comment you had made. It turns out stubborn people don't give a flying fuck if you quote them. Evidence: every time I have quoted you saying exactly what I claimed you said and you continuing to deny it. When did I ever tell you to change your stance? When you told me to believe that you only denied I was dumb once. Is this another one of your jokes again? Further evidence that you have absolutely no sense of humor. Side: God Created Man
1
point
Only if the person is a complete idiot. You don't know what an idiot is. These events that never happen have been shown to you to happen. False. You have never once told the truth. Any way to prove it? "I will read it when I feel like it" "I have read it" Shit, you will say anything won't you. You think I will say anything? kljikljmo;k;, Happy now? It turns out stubborn people don't give a flying fuck if you quote them. Evidence: every time I have quoted you saying exactly what I claimed you said and you continuing to deny it. That's what Muslims say to allah. When you told me to believe that you only denied I was dumb once. When did I ever insist that you should change your stance? Yet again, I have never insisted that you were to change your stance. You can't change a stance you only had once. Further evidence that you have absolutely no sense of humor. Why not just quit then? Side: Man Created God
1
point
1
point
1
point
and ? I'm just saying when people start debating with you, you get crushes. Which is a mocking statement. If you get crushes on people, you follow that person around and obsess over them. It's obvious what you meant by that stupid mocking retort. You are wrong to accuse me of following Cartman around. Or he is on a popular debate like everyone else. Cartman deliberately comments to me within every debate that I go on. It's not me who causes Cartman to comment to make all the time, is it? Cartman is a pest. How dumb. Nutcase. Side: Man Created God
1
point
"Which is a mocking statement."
I try ;3 "If you get crushes on people, you follow that person around and obsess over them". Someone has been reading to many teenage romance books. "It's obvious what you meant by that stupid mocking retort. You are wrong to accuse me of following Cartman around." LOL. I am not trying to accuse you of following Cartman around. You sound extremely butthurt. "Cartman deliberately comments to me within every debate that I go on". Like I said before, You both are on a popular debate. You also post unpopular opinions and he responds. "It's not me who causes Cartman to comment to make all the time, is it? Cartman is a pest". Actually it is. Its your opinions. "Nutcase." nutcase. Side: God Created Man
1
point
I try ;3 A mocking statement is an Ad Hominem. Rude. Someone has been reading to many teenage romance books. Why the hell would I read shit like romance novels of any kind? And you haven't even explained your joke, have you? Explain it. LOL. I am not trying to accuse you of following Cartman around. You sound extremely butthurt. If I was butthurt I would have stopped posting by now. Like I said before, You both are on a popular debate. You also post unpopular opinions and he responds. Why does he always pick MY unpopular opinions, as opposed to somebody else's? I don't always post on popular debates, he often follows me on more obscure debates well. He always chooses to comment in response to MY posts, as opposed others. How come? It's all about trying to push people's boundaries and I'm sick of it. Actually it is. Its your opinions. How is it MY opinions? Nobody else has the same reaction to me, even though I'm on the weekly leaderboard. Side: Man Created God
1
point
"A mocking statement is an Ad Hominem. Rude." OMG THANK YOU. "Why the hell would I read shit like romance novels of any kind?" Just admit it. Also, You practically wrote a teenage romance novel there(a shitty one while I am at it) "And you haven't even explained your joke, have you? Explain it." Which joke ?I make many. If I was butthurt I would have stopped posting by now." Sure. "Why does he always pick MY unpopular opinions, as opposed to somebody else's?" Because yours is the worst and he debating with you is fun. You get some good laughs out of it. "I don't always post on popular debates, he often follows me on more obscure debates well". Aw, you are paying that much attention to him ? "He always chooses to comment in response to MY posts, as opposed others. How come?" Your post get popular and hes like "why the hell not" "It's all about trying to push people's boundaries and I'm sick of it." Maybe you should leave ? .Your opinions start the debate(buts thats good. This is a debate website) EVERYONE HAS THE SAME REACTION WITH YOU ! Side: God Created Man
1
point
OMG THANK YOU. Clearly you don't care. Just admit it. Also, You practically wrote a teenage romance novel there(a shitty one while I am at it) No, I didn't. I was talking about petty crushes, I wasn't describing love, which is something that can't actually be explained easily. Which joke ?I make many. I think you know which one I am talking about. The one about me somehow developing crushes on other posters. Sure. Yes, whatever. Because yours is the worst and he debating with you is fun. You get some good laughs out of it. No, there not the worst. You just fail to read most of the posts between me and Cartman. Aw, you are paying that much attention to him ? It's impossible not to notice it if he constantly does it. Try to think. Your post get popular and hes like "why the hell not" No, my post doesn't get particular popular and I'm not concerned by that. Maybe you should leave ? It's your call to leave. You are the first one to comment. So? .Your opinions start the debate(buts thats good. This is a debate website) How does my opinions start a debate more than anyone else's? EVERYONE HAS THE SAME REACTION WITH YOU ! Who? Actually provide some examples. Shall I turn this back round on you, like for troy? Side: Man Created God
1
point
"Clearly you don't care" I was wondering when you would get that. "No, I didn't. I was talking about petty crushes, I wasn't describing love, which is something that can't actually be explained easily." Ill let you get away with reading teenage romance novels "I think you know which one I am talking about. The one about me somehow developing crushes on other posters". Nope, do not remember that one. "Yes, whatever." Tee hee "No, there not the worst. You just fail to read most of the posts between me and Cartman." Proof ? "It's impossible not to notice it if he constantly does it. Try to think." It is hard to ignore how much you like him. "It's your call to leave. You are the first one to comment. So?" I am just stating that if you are tired, Leave. "How does my opinions start a debate more than anyone else's?" Its weird. Yours,Fromwithin and Saintnow tend to cause these type of reactions "Who? Actually provide some examples." Go through your debates. Unlike you. I am to lazy to do that ;3. "Shall I turn this back round on you, like for troy"? Sure. Also, I see you didnt reply to my kinky comment XD. Side: God Created Man
1
point
I was wondering when you would get that. You mean you were just pretending to disagree? Ill let you get away with reading teenage romance novels How would you know if you've never read them? I don't read romance rubbish Nope, do not remember that one. Liar. It is hard to ignore how much you like him. How so? You are the first one to comment. I was the first to comment on this thread, but I wasn't the first to initiate a conversation with Cartman. I am just stating that if you are tired, Leave. I'll leave when I feel like it. Its weird. Yours,Fromwithin and Saintnow tend to cause these type of reactions No, they my posts don't. I tend to keep a low profile, my posts do not cause any reactions on the scale of Saintnow and FromWithin. Go through your debates. Unlike you. I am to lazy to do that ;3. I've done that millions of times before, why don't you? Sure. Also, I see you didnt reply to my kinky comment XD. The reason I didn't reply to that comment was because I didn't need to. I am not concerned with that sort of stuff right now. Side: Man Created God
1
point
"You mean you were just pretending to disagree?" tats for me to know.......... And take to the grave. "How would you know if you've never read them? I don't read romance rubbish" I remember the time I use to be into them. That was a bad week for me. Lucky it was years ago. "Liar." I really dont. "I was the first to comment on this thread, but I wasn't the first to initiate a conversation with Cartman." OKay~ "I'll leave when I feel like it." Hopefully soon. ?\"No, they my posts don't. I tend to keep a low profile, my posts do not cause any reactions on the scale of Saintnow and FromWithin." That is bull "I've done that millions of times before, why don't you?" Did you not read what I just said ? I am lazy. "The reason I didn't reply to that comment was because I didn't need to. I am not concerned with that sort of stuff right now." Sure. Side: God Created Man
1
point
tats for me to know.......... And take to the grave. No, it isn't. If you accuse someone with a deliberate lie, you should own up to it. I remember the time I use to be into them. That was a bad week for me. Lucky it was years ago. I'm not surprised. Hopefully soon. Ad Hominem. That is bull Can you prove this? Who has reacted to my posts other than Cartman and Saintnow? Did you not read what I just said ? I am lazy. Then don't make claims you can't prove. I am not concerned with that sort of stuff right now." Sure. Leaving it? Side: Man Created God
1
point
"No, it isn't. If you accuse someone with a deliberate lie, you should own up to it." Hmmm. Who said I lied ? "I'm not surprised." You shouldn't be. Almost everyone has gone through that phase. "Ad Hominem." Ad Hominem. "Can you prove this? Who has reacted to my posts other than Cartman and Saintnow?" I can. But Like I said before, I am lazy. "Then don't make claims you can't prove." I can prove it. I just dont wanna go through the hassle of screen shooting and posting it. "Sure. Leaving it?"' What ? Side: God Created Man
1
point
Hmmm. Who said I lied ? I did. Because I spotted it. You shouldn't be. Almost everyone has gone through that phase I'm not surprised. I'm bored, LadyLinkster. Another phase everyone has gone through. Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem. I can. But Like I said before, I am lazy. Will you actually state it eventually? I can prove it. I just dont wanna go through the hassle of screen shooting and posting it. You don't have to post screen shots. What ? Leaving it now? Side: Man Created God
1
point
"I did. Because I spotted it." Okay ? Good job having good visions ? "'m not surprised. I'm bored, LadyLinkster. Another phase everyone has gone through." Seems like I am going through that to. "Will you actually state it eventually?" Maybe tomorrow. "You don't have to post screen shots." I so if I want to prove a point. "Leaving it now?" Leaving now? Side: God Created Man
1
point
"I did. Because I spotted it." Okay ? Good job having good visions ? "'m not surprised. I'm bored, LadyLinkster. Another phase everyone has gone through." Seems like I am going through that to. "Will you actually state it eventually?" Maybe tomorrow. "You don't have to post screen shots." I so if I want to prove a point. "Leaving it now?" Leaving now? You clearly don't want to prove a point. Side: Man Created God
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
No I am not. Stop assuming stupid things like that. I also think it is a good time to say kinky. Saash has told me that he wouldn't make an investment into building a God unless there was a business model. I had asked saash how much did he think it would cost? Cartman then said that I shouldn't be asking the investor how much it costs. The problem is, Cartman was putting me in a position where I was the person providing the investor with a business model. I never said I was providing a business model to begin with. Secondly, in order to provide a business model, I need to ask for saashs opinion in order to get an idea of how much the business model should be. It's better to create a business model that at least fits the investors expectations before producing a business model. I wasn't telling saash to create a business model for himsef, I was asking him to give his opinion of what the business model would be like, so even if I was going to provide the business model, I was only asking for his idea, not his solution. And btw, saash may well have been able to have came up with a business model for himself if I simply asked him how much he thought it would cost. Side: Man Created God
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
So many cultures through history had completely different explanations for God(s), believed in different temperaments and needs of God(s), justified their cultural behaviors by God(s) even though those mandates were as diverse as cutting a man's heart out or loving thy neighbor. It is germane to early human civilizations to try to explain that which they could not explain by creating religions. If indeed there truly is one God and s/he made everything and she shared that news with the world then s/he did a very inconsistent and crappy job of it. Furthermore, as immense as all of space is it's hard to believe a) one God made all of that, and b) that the importance of life on Earth has the central importance expressed in the religions of this world. Side: Man Created God
1
point
So many cultures through history had completely different explanations for God(s), believed in different temperaments and needs of God(s), justified their cultural behaviors by God(s) even though those mandates were as diverse as cutting a man's heart out or loving thy neighbor. It is germane to early human civilizations to try to explain that which they could not explain by creating religions. If indeed there truly is one God and s/he made everything and she shared that news with the world then s/he did a very inconsistent and crappy job of it. Furthermore, as immense as all of space is it's hard to believe a) one God made all of that, and b) that the importance of life on Earth has the central importance expressed in the religions of this world. Do you believe there is any evidence to support the existence of Christ? Side: God Created Man
Indeed, I believe Jesus Christ lived and walked, and I believe he was a good man with good lessons. But I also believe the scriptures written many years after his death are at best paraphrasing what he said or what had happened and may be at worst the spin and public relations campaign of a fledgling church. I also believe many other great people walked in other places and times around the world and contributed to some of the other religions that are out there. The fact that most of these religions claim they're the only true way and the rest are wrong is telling. And the fact that a God who cared so much as to send his only son did practically nothing to prove to the rest of the world what was correct is a sincere indictment on the omnipotence of God and/or the preeminence of the Christian message. Side: God Created Man
1
point
Indeed, I believe Jesus Christ lived and walked, and I believe he was a good man with good lessons. But I also believe the scriptures written many years after his death are at best paraphrasing what he said or what had happened and may be at worst the spin and public relations campaign of a fledgling church. I also believe many other great people walked in other places and times around the world and contributed to some of the other religions that are out there. The fact that most of these religions claim they're the only true way and the rest are wrong is telling. And the fact that a God who cared so much as to send his only son did practically nothing to prove to the rest of the world what was correct is a sincere indictment on the omnipotence of God and/or the preeminence of the Christian message. What is the Christian message? What were the teachings of Jesus about? Side: Man Created God
Regardless if a culture "needed" a god or not has no bearing if a god exists or not. Announcing their presence and acts is not a requisite of creating man. Your belief of the difficulty of creating the universe doesn't argue for or against a god. The accuracy of world religions does not have any bearing on the creation of man. The universe could have been created by a god and all religions Could still get the details wrong. Side: God Created Man
Of course God is man made. I should say... All gods are man made since there are thousands. The human homo sapien mind cannot tolerate two things... Thoughts of its own demise...and the idea that their life is random and the events of the world and their life is built upon randomness...and most things are without purpose. Ergo...meaningless. This is why we have superstition and religion and gods and conspiracy theories. Side: Man Created God
Of course man is god made. There are thousands of interpretations of the god that made the universe. The human mind is very flexible and can easily comprehend death and the cause and affect nature of the world. I would continue, but you define your own interpretation of the universe then use this unsupported argument to say that life is meaningless and then use THIS unsupported point to explain why there is superstition, religion, and conspiracy theories. Side: God Created Man
|
