Well no. Hundreds of forum posters who had no guts to do any actual debates are worse than Mall. Is a driver who still needs practice worse or is someone who has never ever driven a car before?
Police: Why did you kill this person?
Mall: Tell me the part where you prohibits this.
Police: Well, in law 37, section B bulletpoint a, it says any murdering of any person without excessive permission is illegal.
Mall: WHAT PROBLEM ARE YOU TRYING TO SOLVE? YOU THINK I AM JUST GONNA SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO YOU BLABING ABOUT IT?
Police: Well, I am trying to tell you that you broke the law by killing a person. Is it so hard to understand?
Mall: THEN AT LEAST TELL ME WHY. I am not here to listen to two idiots who think I did something wrong. You are supposed to prove what I am saying is TRUEEEE. Not false. TRUE.
Well, It probably won't for much tell us how correct is revolution, but the religious parents within the conservative households will rebel on the streets just after the day creationism is "on the syllabus".
This is the logic of that "National socialism should be taught in schools" to show how an ideology failed. Then again, why are the students taught an unproven theory, especially one less sound than the status quo? Just for criticism? Uniformity exists?! How do you expect the heavily religious students criticize the theory their church taught them?
This is a debating site, and it is about whose arguments are better. Pro literally gave up debating because his arguments are either "Con will probably use the letter E" or "Con used the letter E", but never the resolution. a good debater can prove why National Bolshevism should be utilized in this world in wide practice. Just because you are right doesn't mean you automatically win.
If Pro can just make his resolution a "little" more clear, then it might be possible. Kritiking the resolution is a scum move, but to a resolution this unclear it is viable.
I think it is ok to doubt Christian faith and only those ultra-right wing conservatives will disagree. I am not quite sure how is a faith not a faith without evidence nor doubt. An obscure belief without any evidence for nor against it is still faith, duh. I want Pro to solve this.
Actually no. We are not talking about reductio ad Hitlerum, because we are talking about Hitler himself, not something Hitler has done to imply that others that has done this is racist.
The judge already left.
Do not change the pfp until this debate is in the post-voting period/
Oh yes. If I swap bodies with Trump I will probably even come up with better solutions than him.
Well no. Hundreds of forum posters who had no guts to do any actual debates are worse than Mall. Is a driver who still needs practice worse or is someone who has never ever driven a car before?
It is too easy to win.
I can take this one, but I won't.
Democrats too. Only the republicans' water contains 10x more drugs than the democrat one.
Your arguments are relatively long, and if you can't get it in 3 days, maybe it is your problem.
No, no, I am not blaming you. If you can have something else to blame or you can settle it yourself then nothing really happened.
Maybe shorten your arguments. Ever since this account has been created I have won people with shorter arguments than them.
So you are able to respond to me in a matter of 2 hours even defeating me but here now 3 isn't enough? WHAT?
Well why Pro argues that? He is the same guy who said Hitler and Trump aren't racist! Both white supremacists!
This is pure falsism. This is like arguing that totalitarian government practice anarchy.
Wanna?
Are you mad that you did not gain positions?
gg.
I am no rapper but that is very good.
Mall's logic be like:
Police: Why did you kill this person?
Mall: Tell me the part where you prohibits this.
Police: Well, in law 37, section B bulletpoint a, it says any murdering of any person without excessive permission is illegal.
Mall: WHAT PROBLEM ARE YOU TRYING TO SOLVE? YOU THINK I AM JUST GONNA SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO YOU BLABING ABOUT IT?
Police: Well, I am trying to tell you that you broke the law by killing a person. Is it so hard to understand?
Mall: THEN AT LEAST TELL ME WHY. I am not here to listen to two idiots who think I did something wrong. You are supposed to prove what I am saying is TRUEEEE. Not false. TRUE.
Are you arguing that it should be a crime or it should be nothing at all?
Well, how about I suggest that you have to actually make something that is actually rap?
NF is good, how is he bad
hey
make it unrated.
So...you agree with CON?
You are really coming back. From 1337 to 1480.
No. My geography class investigated what kinds of city plannings are there and how they compare.
You bear the BoP so I don't think just asking questions is a good idea. You are supposed to defend your idea.
Consider this your free ticket to top 5.
This guy: Yeah, whatever, white power.
Trump: So true!
Unironically supporting an ironic idea by interpreting it as unironic is unironic, and Trump unironically supporting racism is unironically racist.
Well, It probably won't for much tell us how correct is revolution, but the religious parents within the conservative households will rebel on the streets just after the day creationism is "on the syllabus".
"That dude needs to find a better hobby than creating sock puppets on DART."
His creation of the sock puppets within this side only reveals that he cannot debate.
This is the logic of that "National socialism should be taught in schools" to show how an ideology failed. Then again, why are the students taught an unproven theory, especially one less sound than the status quo? Just for criticism? Uniformity exists?! How do you expect the heavily religious students criticize the theory their church taught them?
Really? Instigator is CON!
yea
Pro will win easily. Then big brother will throw a big tantrum that will make everyone know that Christianity isn’t any better than murder.
I am pretty sure Sum1hugme will be in the top ten after a few months.
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/r0d7b/the_definition_of_atheism_and_christianity/
Dis guy posted “your definition of Christianity is incorrect” then this.
i am anc2006, i disagree, i am no ancap, etc etc
Alright, close enough
Well you are born not believing in God, which is the definition of atheism. Atheism is any person that doesn't believe in God.
Just what are you arguing for?
@RM (can't even @ you, smh)
This is a debating site, and it is about whose arguments are better. Pro literally gave up debating because his arguments are either "Con will probably use the letter E" or "Con used the letter E", but never the resolution. a good debater can prove why National Bolshevism should be utilized in this world in wide practice. Just because you are right doesn't mean you automatically win.
If Pro can just make his resolution a "little" more clear, then it might be possible. Kritiking the resolution is a scum move, but to a resolution this unclear it is viable.
I think it is ok to doubt Christian faith and only those ultra-right wing conservatives will disagree. I am not quite sure how is a faith not a faith without evidence nor doubt. An obscure belief without any evidence for nor against it is still faith, duh. I want Pro to solve this.
Are you an RM alt?
#BringBackTheLikeButton
I have done a debate on this topic. Feel free to check it out.
Mandatory school will make me either submit it today, or tomorrow this time, or never.
Actually no. We are not talking about reductio ad Hitlerum, because we are talking about Hitler himself, not something Hitler has done to imply that others that has done this is racist.
just...WOW.
but he still stimulates white supremacy though.