- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
You didn't read the description
Are you kidding me? The title of your "debate" is a blanket statement that socialists need to be ethnically cleansed. It's such a childish, desperate plea for attention and conflict that nobody is going to read any "description" you care to write because you are an obvious, clear-cut, textbook shitposter.
I have spent the last three months pointing out how much of a piece of shit you are
And let me guess. It's "objective reality" that I'm a piece of shit. Right? Lol. Funny thing is, that's how psychopaths usually view their victims.
You're absolutely bonkers mate. You're not even worth replying to.
Shut up imbecile.
Ahahahaha! The irony here is absolutely laughable. You behave like a psychopath and then attack capitalists for having the exact same personality type. You've spent the last three months obsessively harassing me you mentally ill rodent. And you want to have a conversation about psychopathy? Lol.
The objective reality that most billionares are psychopaths is not your idea.
Well it damned well isn't yours mate. So the question remains. Why are you stealing other people's ideas?
In fact, forget that. Why are you arbitrarily determining your own baseless assertions to be "objective reality"? Have you personally employed a team of psychiatrists and successfully assessed every billionaire in the world for psychopathy? Have you then collected the results and conducted an impartial analysis, including identifying factors of bias?
You have done none of these things. You're simply an idiot and your arguments always boil down to the exact same thing: It's a fact because I say it is.
That's not what I'm doing
Yes it is. It's either that or you are too stupid to understand the difference between acknowledging history and justifying it.
I'm not interested in your infantile, obsessive attempts to distort everything I write. Please, go away you goddamned child.
Same old games. I assume you are both of them and just want people to look at you.
He might be Ramshutu. He isn't Nom.
However, you've done a marvellous job of describing his obsessive thirst for attention. And you are absolutely right that he pretends to be other people. Only a few days ago he was replying to his own posts on different accounts.
The kid is honestly just pathetic.
I believe that climate change is real and that man made carbon emissions is the primary reason. However, to argue that the OK glacier is shrinking is primarily because of cliamate change is morally wrong and deceptive.
I think the complete opposite is true. I think your source is wrong and deceptive. Here is my evidence:-
Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, American Thinker has published Anti-LGBT articles, as well as those by prominent white nationalist, Jared Taylor. Further, American Thinker routinely publishes conspiracy theories, such as those by Pamela Geller, who is also on the SPLC’s hate watch list due to anti-Islam positions: Report: Obama said ‘I Am a Muslim’, which has been debunked as a false claim. They have also promoted conspiracies about the Seth Rich Murder and they have published numerous articles that are not supportive of the consensus of science, such as this one: The Hoax of ‘Climate Change’
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!