- 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.
Whenever you read a post you disagree with, the only thing which ever seems to enter your mind is, "How can I twist and distort that to mean something it doesn't really mean?"
That is exactly it. Amarel will never argue with your actual idea. He will always find a way to distort or misrepresent it first. If that proves difficult then he will try to take you completely off subject.
Peterson himself perhaps said it best. Liars lose their centre of reality very easily. It leads them into a neurotic form of narcissism because eventually they inevitably start to believe their own lies.
Written by DarthPrime a mere 24 minutes ago:-
You should create a puppet named, "butthurt", seeing that's what you are.
You should have written, "seeing AS that's what you are".
Yet another fail, hey Bronto?
Hello Nomenclature my old friend, I see you want a logical bitch slap again.
I'd rather you explain why you are so comprehensively delusional. Any chance of that?
You still haven't answered my last question of what is your plan when you are victimized besides hope for the best.
I believe that I did answer that question (at the time) and you are simply lying.
I never said we don't
You said you didn't need to, which is incongruous with the fact that you always are. Indeed, you began this post by making stuff up.
Whereas the extent of your arguments stem from a vicious cycle of having no understanding of firearms and the laws already surrounding them, to fearing those tools, to intentionally demonizing them instead of the violent individual
Oh for heaven's sake shut up you babbling fool. You claim I am not demonizing the "violent individuals" and yet I am the one trying to convince you not to sell them guns!! You on the other hand believe these people should be sold guns, just so you can also have a gun with which to protect yourself against them!! There is no combination of words you can use which will make that argument rational. I assure you.
If you want to ridiculously oversimplify reality into a balanced equation between "violent individuals" and "good guys" then fine, but you can't then unbalance that same equation by implying only "good guys" are going to be able to buy guns once you legalise them. That's self-contradictory and borderline retarded. Violent people have considerably more need of guns than good guys do. Hence, if you legalise guns then they are going to be bought by violent people intent on using them to commit violence.
.And (as doubtful as I am that he was being serious about using nuclear weapons) that, indisputably, is an elected official advocating the second American civil war between government and citizens.
No it isn't you idiot. The person he replied to was the one who threatened a war. He merely pointed out the fact that a war against the government would be short because the government has nukes. What he said was absolutely factually accurate.
You're an idiot. I can see why you get downvoted so much now.
He has the "technical" Constitutional right to do what he did. That said, he is a total scumbag and an ABUSER of the First Amendment …. as is ANYBODY who uses free speech to undermine the United States! The use of a freedom guaranteed by our Constitution to UNDERMINE that Constitution is one of the WORST tools of a TRAITOR!
Lol. Sorry Alfie. I upvoted you but I had to take it back. I thought you were talking about Trump!
Assange is not even American.
That said, I do agree with you that he's a piece of shit. Assange used a personal vendetta he had against Hillary to unbalance the outcome of the US election. As far as I am concerned he should be jailed. Assange would have lost nothing by withholding those emails until the election was over, especially since they did not contain proof of any serious crime. They were just a negative publicity tool obviously sent to him by people working for the opposition.
You honestly have to gape in incredulity at why Assange made the decision that he did.
Literally all of these links are op eds written by Conservatives about the exact same study. There was no reason to post multiple articles about the same study other than to try to use quantity as a form of argument.
The study referred to in these articles made no attempt to differentiate between religious donations and charity. When religious donations are taken out of the equation, the same study shows that liberals are by far the more generous group.
OK. For the love of fuck, if you're going to spread false information, at least make it believable. "Use nuclear weapons on American citizens who don't turn in semi-automatic weapons"?
Bronto literally belongs in jail, mate. Nobody that purposefully dishonest should be permitted freedom.
Look, the guy wants to take my guns, so I agree, fuck him. But the wonderful thing about being pro gun is that we don't actually have to make shit up to prove our point.
Then why are you guys always making shit up to prove your point?
-OK. Jesus child raping Christ on a rocket ship. After googling this, I must take back what I said. This crazy motherfucker actually hinted at using nukes for his agenda. What the actual fuck.
BULLSHIT. This is the literal extent of right wing "argument". You deliberately take people's language out of context and then attack them with it.
This is the correct context:-
"So basically Swalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get," airborne veteran and gun pundit Joe Biggs commented on Twitter
To which Swalwell replied...
"And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes."
It was a stupid comment, but -- more importantly -- the predominant reason it was stupid is because the right was absolutely guaranteed to distort his meaning then use his own language against him. That's what the right does. It doesn't have valid points or balanced arguments, so it twists and distorts the language of the people opposing it.
Donald Trump's ex-wife: Trump kept book of Hitler's speeches by bed
This is pretty damning stuff alright.
Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed ... Hitler's speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist
And it goes on beautifully....
When Brenner asked Trump about how he came to possess Hitler's speeches, "Trump hesitated" and then said, "Who told you that?"
"I don't remember," Brenner reportedly replied.
Trump then recalled, "Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of 'Mein Kampf,' and he's a Jew."
ROFLMAO. Way to go Donald. Blame the Jews.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!