Total posts: 1,067
Anyone who has miller or handicapped-vanilla should claim right about now. They won't provide the mafia any good use to kill, thus won't harm the town as much as regular characters, and rather would be anti-town if not claimed.
This is ofc if there is a justice or an affiliation cop but it would be beneficial to town to know now.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
He's obviously not completely noob, he's using word choice that a noob wouldn't use (i.e pushing, mass-claim, scum [noobs often say "mafia" I think])
Ayyantu is kinda weird like someone said "noob" Intelligence. Analyzing his behavior will hard and therefore he will rest as a null for me.
Created:
Ayyantu just seems off if you know what I mean. He's overly aggressive, trying to lead a lynch on someone who just made a joke, then trying to prompt a FOS on Sir. This might seem like noob-play but being a noob myself it just doesn't seem right.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
show scumreads so we can win
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
I thought it was
Claim
Evidence
Reasoning
or
Assertion
Reasoning
Evidence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
True, but in simple debates, adding "thereafter or "ergo" or "tis' thee" or some crap like that is annoying for both the voters and your opponent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yare yare daze...
Your belief in omnipotence surrounds around the fact that you think omnipotent means "all power comes from God" when the definition of omnipotent is "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful."
God may be omnipotent in the Christian religion, but that doesn't change the definition of omnipotent.
In essence, your definition is completely falsely derived from your own mind, rather than any reputable source. By using ad hominem to prove your case, it solidifies mine. You have been wrong the entire time, yet you can't admit it for some reason. You relate back to "our beliefs don't match your understanding" but you have never explained your so-called beliefs without stating a false fact. Therefore leading me to infer that your belief is based on false facts.
My arrogance doesn't come from nowhere, and I have exhibited barely any arrogance in that matter.
End of debate...
Created:
Does anything penetrate that dense brain of yours?
What the actual hell are you talking about?
Can't say anything but YOU'RE WRONG.
It must be hard being that stupid.
It's like you actually have to try being as stupid as you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your belief is false by definition, thus I already proved it wrong. Your belief is off baseless claims.
End of debate.
Created:
I haven't done it in this site, there have been a few nasty encounters but I wouldn't consider anyone here generally retarded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is stupid to argue semantics. What matters is what we actually believe, not how you can twist and lawyer around language so you can deceptively paint us as believing something we don't.
I'm not arguing semantics, your interpretation is wrong by definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I would say rather that omnipotence doesn't make sense to you.But having universal power, authority, and force certainly is in line with my understanding. That is, all power, force, and authority, is derived from God.That is also the doctrine of the church, which understands our relationship with this power through synergism rather than monergism
Proven false
I don't dispute the definition.This is a Latin word by the way.Omni- meaning All.Potens- meaning power.All power comes from God.Nobody believes that God makes square circles. That isn't what omnipotence means.
All power not "All power comes from God." Reputable sources have proven this wrong again. You're speaking false words.
Nobody believes that God makes square circles, but the fact that he can't means that omnipotence is self-contradictory thus doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It's not my interpretation, it's a dictionaries' DEFINITION. You found no other evidence to contradict this definition, rather tried to weasel out of it.
Your interpretation is not within the definition, therefore should not be held as correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your understanding of omnipotence does not fit the definition of omnipotence and is therefore wrongly interpreted.
You have nothing true to stand on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I haven't created a strawman. I have disproved every little thing you have said. You can't correct something if you are wrong in the first place.
Dismissing things as nonsense is more detrimental than refusing to be corrected by something that is false.
Your claims are literally all false in nature, and talking passively seems like a gambit to get you to sound more intelligent. You can't say you proved something when you have not.
Cheers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is clear you have nothing left to say, as all of your assertions are baseless. That means that I have nothing to address from you. If you want to prove something, prove it right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are being awfully passive. Your "evidence" is false, and now you are using ad hominem to justify your position. I have already addressed your claims as being false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your evidence consists of:
Omnipotent means that all power ultimately comes from God. It has nothing to do with creating rocks so big that God can't move them. These arguments are absurd and come from a bad understanding of theology.
The definition of omnipotent is not "all power comes from God." That is false.
Your proof consists of dismissing logical arguments that if a God was truly omnipotent it is self-contradicting. This is provided by several logical examples. In other words, you rely on superstition, not me.d
Created:
Posted in:
The question below is asking what the first question is asking.
The question above is asking what the second question is asking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Anything regarding the terms of the omnipotent being's power being limited makes it self-contradictory.
Make a rock that even the omnipotent being can't lift is a clear example of it. Dismissing that at is invalid is fallacious in nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Nah "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful."
There is no such thing as an omnipotent being, it's very definition is contradicting
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So its self contradicting then, an omnipotent being has to be able to do everything, including creating something more great than itself
Created:
Posted in:
A bear but also a man???
Also make sure to SMASH that like button so I can get friend of the crowd
Created:
Posted in:
If God is maximally great, ask Him to create a being that is greater than He is. Repeat this several times, so that you have an ultimate being.
Created:
Posted in:
I relate to some of the things you said.
That said, debating is about convincing and not who's right. Trying to please the voters can lead to burnout for debaters.
Goodbye!
Created:
Posted in:
Current Mafia
Danielle - Riddles Mafia
Signups
ILikePie5 - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Mafia
In the Hopper
Mharman - Voting: Stage 1
drafterman - Paranoia
Speedrace
Lunatic- The Stand
SupaDudz - The Disastrous Life of Saiki
Bullish
BearMan- Third Parties Mafia/ Deathnote Part 1 Mafia
On Hold
zaradi, Virtuoso, PressF4Respect, crocodile, RM
Created:
Posted in:
I am calling out the mods for being such good mods. I mean like, who just mods for free? Yeah that's right, the DART mods.
Created:
Probs Ragnar or Oromagi. RationalMadman for like tech tips.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't like to debate religion and never do, because it will almost always insult someone.
The challenge of evidence as an atheist is a perfectly fine refute. Merely saying that "everything" is evidence is a baseless claim, as you have to prove every single thing in existence is solid proof that a God exists. The fact of the matter is if an atheist challenges the evidence correctly, there shouldn't be any reason why the atheist should believe in that piece of evidence you have provided.
You claim that it's not really reversing the burden of proof, which it actually entirely is. This claim that "Atheists should prove the existence of no god" is very relevant, as, in most religious debates, it is as you stated, on the theist to prove God truly exists. The problem with this is that there is little to no evidence there is no existence of a God. Atheists are atheists not because they have evidence there is no god, rather that the evidence provided by a theist that God exists is weak.
And again, when an atheist asks for evidence, you try to give them the strongest evidence. You don't merely give up and say "everything is evidence."
That's how I see it.
Created:
Posted in:
what's the difference between a rebuttal and a refutation?
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
lol
here's where I got it from: http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/wang
I've used a lot of these and heard of lot of em but didn't really know what it meant till now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Nah I barely know how to read Chinese and those that I do, I only know Traditional.
I'm pretty basic at understanding Chinese when someone talks to me, but I have enough to speak chinglish sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nah it was like an insult. If I was insulting a guy named James Smith I would say "smith"
Apparently it means d*ck.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
@Lunatic
@Vader
@ILikePie5
Thoughts on this format?
Created:
There are three teams: green, yellow, and blue. None of the people know who is on their team. One person starts with the NK and once they are done, they will pass it on to another person. There's a twist though. There are deniers of this pass, which denies the pass and grants the person with the NK a second NK term. A person can only get the NK twice, if they are attempted to be given another term, the denier will fail. There are also stealers of the pass which steal the NK pass. If multiple people try to steal the NK, then the person who sent their actions first will get the NK. Finally, there are protectors of the pass, which protect the NK from being taken or denied.
Lynches are still in effect. Last team surviving wins.
Team Loadout:
1x Denier
1x Protector
1x + 1/2 chance Stealer
Vanilla
Created:
Posted in:
Obviously, this is very trivial, and probably won't need to be added any time soon, but I've seen that forum mafia usually has a ton of rules regarding editing posts and deleting posts. It would be great for game mods to have an option to make it so that there will be no post modifications in certain topics.
Created:
Posted in:
Current Mafia
Signups
None
In the Hopper
Danielle
Danielle
ILikePie5 - The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time
Mharman - Voting: Stage 1
drafterman - Paranoia
Speedrace
Lunatic
SupaDudz - The Disastrous Life of Saiki
Bullish
BearMan- Third Parties Mafia.
On Hold
zaradi, Virtuoso, PressF4Respect, crocodile, RM
Created: