Ron was good at certain things but he wasn't an intellectual in general. being really good at one thing like chess or math doesn't make you an intellectual. Hermione seems like a Ravenclaw on the surface but the houses represent more what is at your core and having certain traits from other houses doesn't make you that house if it's not the core of your being. Hermione is a true Gryffindor because doing the "right" thing is far more important to her than intellectual persuits at the end of the day. In a similar way I superficially appear to be a Slytherin a lot of the time because life has made me cold, spiteful and aggressive but at heart I just want to understand everything and the Slyhterin traits are something I feel I'm being pushed into.
There is absolutely nothing about Andy or Bronto that is Gryffindor-like. Gryffindors are honorable and brave, being brash irrational and arrogant as a gryffindor is possible but not a necessary trait. Do you think Hermione is brash or irrational? Bronto is a lying, greedy dick head who is willing to violently distort and/or dismiss facts to defend his idiotic ideologies. In the four house system he is a Slytherin and with six houses he would be slytherpuff because of his foolish and cuck-like loyalty to the country that stole his ancestors' land and the religion he has been indoctrinated with. Andy has no Gryffindor traits either, I think he is probably more of a Hufflepuff or with 6 houses a Slytherpuff. being a Cuck or a pussy is a Hufflepuff thing since they are loyal people, Any of the houses can be "teachers pet" types but whereas a Raven would be liked for their smarts, Gryffindor would be liked for their character and a Slytherin would be manipulating the teacher, a Hufflepuff is the most likely to be one out of blind obedience and passivity. I imagine Andy as being the type of kid who would kiss every authority figures ass and gasp at the mere thought of naughty words. A Gryffindor can be a goody-two-shoes but at least they have balls and can be defiant, Andy is a hufflecuck type of guy.
PS, I was contemplating what house various CD members would be in a few months back. Me, Nom and Mathfan would be Ravenclaws. You and most of the other members would be Slytherin. Only a few Hufflepuffs like Mint_Tea and pretty much no one there is a gryffindor type.
I took a cross-sorting quiz just now and I got Slytherclaw, same as you. I have been a Harry Potter fan since age 6 and I always considered myself a mostly ravenclaw type with some slytherin and gryffindor traits and pretty much no hufflepuff traits.
Mopac was Tzarpepe on CD. The guy is a total wank biscuit who does nothing but repeat his catch phrase "supreme ultimate reality" over and over again. This debate will be fruitless because both of you are theists at the end of the day, which means that no type of reality or logic is present in this debate to begin with.
If you're a christian
it means you drank from the pot that you pissed in
while pumping the word of man in and out of your ass like a piston
cause' you aren't even in the position
to pull your own words out of your butt cheeks, so you pull words from the bible out from betwixt them
after seeing how much you can fit in
you worship a work of fiction
and live a life of submission
thinkin' your religion
is God's jurisdiction
but God doesn't exist and
men are responsible for the bible, which was written
to control you, and keep you and your brain at a distance
you lack the intuition
to see your very instincts are synonymous with sin
why did God design you to oppose him then?
That seems to be the case with a lot of people. So naturally, it's complete and utter bollocks wagons. AC has had it's ups and downs in various areas ever since the beginning. Graphically it has improved steadily as well as with the quality of it's open-worlds but that is a given with the increase of technology. In terms of the story it was at it's best in AC3 but took a sharp downward dive after AC3. AC3 and the original AC are the best story wise, Origins and Odyssey have the best open-world and Black Flag has the best gameplay mechanics.
A lot of people dislike Connor as a character and see AC3 as the point where AC got destroyed, I attribute this to the fact that many people have a hard time relating to Connor or understanding him, not to mention the story as a whole. AC3 has it's flaws and ever since then AC has struggled to have a point story wise but Black Flag was a great game gameplay wise and so was Unity despite the fact that Unity marked the end of the "good old days" in AC.
I would have to give the first round to Edenison. RM used a fork like implement (a point) to make his first argument by his own admission. It doesn't look very good for you when you use a fork to type while arguing that forks are inferior.
I won't accept this one because Although I don't necessarily agree with you (you may be right but I'm not sure) I don't particulary want to waste my ass hole debating about mumble rap.
None of your votes matter because your main reason for voting for RM is that I forfeited but I haven't been on this site in a week and before I left RM wouldn't accept the battle. So we can have a rematch or else you are just giving him a win for battling against thin air.
fine, who do you want as judges?
Also just for the record, the ranking is based on winning debates, which is based on voting, which is based on majority opinion. Which essentially means that it's absolutely meaningless because 9/10 times the popular opinion is wrong.
I will be legit with you superdudz, RM is going easy on you. I battled him a few months ago and I know he's got juice. You need to study the advanced shit that both me and him can show you. We can make you a great rapper in the poetic as well as the musical aspects.
When I was your age, I wasn't shit with my raps. But I wrote and wrote until I was Eminem. I know you can be a high calibur rapper, if you apply yourself you could become one of the lyrical giants. But you need two things:
A) You need to study all aspects of the rap game
B) You need a higher source of information, and motivation rooted in things such as social change and existential truth rather than mere profit or ego.
The real anonymous is a loosely connected gaggle of hackers and activists with no central ideology or goals. It is not actually a group in the traditional sense, anyone can take up the mantle of anonymous, and there is a wide range of different types of anonymous members. Having no clear agenda or sense of direction, anonymous has accomplished little and will ultimately be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. This man is either one of it's more delusional members or (more likely) a troll and a total loser.
My motives are to counteract the destructive path that humanity is taking. Instead of helping you would rather lie about one of the greatest people in history.
Oh bugger off you winkle picker. You don't know the first thing about RBE and you are just pulling 90% of what you say out of your dirty little hole. When you die do you want your entire legacy to be making shitty youtube videos where you claim you can see the future and that Jacque Fresco was a child murderer with dreams of world domination? I enjoy trolling as well, but I do not make it my life's work. You must be some kind of beorgiose clown who inherited enough money to be set for life, that is the only way you could afford to sit here defaming people and making shit up on the internet all day. You are a spoiled child at heart aren't you?
Maybe, but I don't think he should. It might create echo chambers. Something I would prefer however is if there was some form of objective process for determining the winner of a debate that doesn't involve opinions. A voting system is ineffective because you win by appealing to the majority rather than by being correct.
I've never heard his voice, if that's him it doesn't even prove anything. In fact, it indicates that he's not the true founder, because why would he make an appearance without hiding his identity? It's not very anonymous of him.
This guy is not the founder of Anonymous, he is a man with high functioning troll disorder. He is a mega troll that apparently spends all his time trolling on debate sites and making fake anonymous videos on numerous obscure youtube channels. In reality he is probably similar to Bronto in regards to his views and is a very ignorant person parroting the opinions of various retards who know nothing about RBE. If you look at his "refutation" video of RBE it's clear he is a troll, because he literally gets every single thing wrong about how RBE works in deliberately stupid ways. I'll believe this guy is the founder of anonymous when pigs fly and you get laid.
Interesting, so you had similar ideas to Jacque before you even heard of him. Judging by your profile you are still young as well, so if what you say is true you are probably a relatively intelligent individual. Do you have any plans regarding the realisation of the system? (we can move this to pm if you prefer)
he/she (something tells me it's the female in the pic) appears to be more of a right wing "red neck" type to me. She probably lives on alligator and catfish.
Also you can argue that it's left wing or that it's neither, or even that it can be both. As long as you're arguing against the notion that it is right wing.
In my view the whole burden of proof thing is usually just a cop out from defending your position so in most cases (such as this one) I would say burden of proof is equal.
Tough bananas buddy. The spelling and grammar aren't even mine and on top of that the spelling and grammar is pretty much flawless, so if you want to vote against me just because you can't read then that just makes you gay.
No, you've got it all wrong. See, I'm both creative and logical. What you're doing is neither, you are just letting your sources speak for you 98% of the time. You aren't even technically debating.
The only way anyone here actually beats me is because of formatting and appealing to the sensibilities of the majority. When it comes to actually being correct and crafting your own arguments I am the best one on the site.
Copying and pasting articles is not grinding. Making up your own religion is not thinking. believing is not knowing. not actually debating is not "being".
How can you do that when I'm already better than you. Only 2% of your arguments are actually you debating, everything else is a copy and pasted article yet you think that makes you a great debater.
Ron was good at certain things but he wasn't an intellectual in general. being really good at one thing like chess or math doesn't make you an intellectual. Hermione seems like a Ravenclaw on the surface but the houses represent more what is at your core and having certain traits from other houses doesn't make you that house if it's not the core of your being. Hermione is a true Gryffindor because doing the "right" thing is far more important to her than intellectual persuits at the end of the day. In a similar way I superficially appear to be a Slytherin a lot of the time because life has made me cold, spiteful and aggressive but at heart I just want to understand everything and the Slyhterin traits are something I feel I'm being pushed into.
There is absolutely nothing about Andy or Bronto that is Gryffindor-like. Gryffindors are honorable and brave, being brash irrational and arrogant as a gryffindor is possible but not a necessary trait. Do you think Hermione is brash or irrational? Bronto is a lying, greedy dick head who is willing to violently distort and/or dismiss facts to defend his idiotic ideologies. In the four house system he is a Slytherin and with six houses he would be slytherpuff because of his foolish and cuck-like loyalty to the country that stole his ancestors' land and the religion he has been indoctrinated with. Andy has no Gryffindor traits either, I think he is probably more of a Hufflepuff or with 6 houses a Slytherpuff. being a Cuck or a pussy is a Hufflepuff thing since they are loyal people, Any of the houses can be "teachers pet" types but whereas a Raven would be liked for their smarts, Gryffindor would be liked for their character and a Slytherin would be manipulating the teacher, a Hufflepuff is the most likely to be one out of blind obedience and passivity. I imagine Andy as being the type of kid who would kiss every authority figures ass and gasp at the mere thought of naughty words. A Gryffindor can be a goody-two-shoes but at least they have balls and can be defiant, Andy is a hufflecuck type of guy.
PS, I was contemplating what house various CD members would be in a few months back. Me, Nom and Mathfan would be Ravenclaws. You and most of the other members would be Slytherin. Only a few Hufflepuffs like Mint_Tea and pretty much no one there is a gryffindor type.
I took a cross-sorting quiz just now and I got Slytherclaw, same as you. I have been a Harry Potter fan since age 6 and I always considered myself a mostly ravenclaw type with some slytherin and gryffindor traits and pretty much no hufflepuff traits.
Mopac was Tzarpepe on CD. The guy is a total wank biscuit who does nothing but repeat his catch phrase "supreme ultimate reality" over and over again. This debate will be fruitless because both of you are theists at the end of the day, which means that no type of reality or logic is present in this debate to begin with.
If you're a christian
it means you drank from the pot that you pissed in
while pumping the word of man in and out of your ass like a piston
cause' you aren't even in the position
to pull your own words out of your butt cheeks, so you pull words from the bible out from betwixt them
after seeing how much you can fit in
you worship a work of fiction
and live a life of submission
thinkin' your religion
is God's jurisdiction
but God doesn't exist and
men are responsible for the bible, which was written
to control you, and keep you and your brain at a distance
you lack the intuition
to see your very instincts are synonymous with sin
why did God design you to oppose him then?
That seems to be the case with a lot of people. So naturally, it's complete and utter bollocks wagons. AC has had it's ups and downs in various areas ever since the beginning. Graphically it has improved steadily as well as with the quality of it's open-worlds but that is a given with the increase of technology. In terms of the story it was at it's best in AC3 but took a sharp downward dive after AC3. AC3 and the original AC are the best story wise, Origins and Odyssey have the best open-world and Black Flag has the best gameplay mechanics.
A lot of people dislike Connor as a character and see AC3 as the point where AC got destroyed, I attribute this to the fact that many people have a hard time relating to Connor or understanding him, not to mention the story as a whole. AC3 has it's flaws and ever since then AC has struggled to have a point story wise but Black Flag was a great game gameplay wise and so was Unity despite the fact that Unity marked the end of the "good old days" in AC.
I would have to give the first round to Edenison. RM used a fork like implement (a point) to make his first argument by his own admission. It doesn't look very good for you when you use a fork to type while arguing that forks are inferior.
I can't believe anyone actually thinks this.
I can't believe anyone actually thinks this.
I won't accept this one because Although I don't necessarily agree with you (you may be right but I'm not sure) I don't particulary want to waste my ass hole debating about mumble rap.
You might want to consider try-harding this last round. Otherwise you're pretty fucked there, mate.
Now that I am here are you ready to battle me to my face and not wait till' I've been gone to start dissing me?
None of your votes matter because your main reason for voting for RM is that I forfeited but I haven't been on this site in a week and before I left RM wouldn't accept the battle. So we can have a rematch or else you are just giving him a win for battling against thin air.
I accepted your challenge. I hope you know what you're getting into lol.
fine, who do you want as judges?
Also just for the record, the ranking is based on winning debates, which is based on voting, which is based on majority opinion. Which essentially means that it's absolutely meaningless because 9/10 times the popular opinion is wrong.
I will be legit with you superdudz, RM is going easy on you. I battled him a few months ago and I know he's got juice. You need to study the advanced shit that both me and him can show you. We can make you a great rapper in the poetic as well as the musical aspects.
When I was your age, I wasn't shit with my raps. But I wrote and wrote until I was Eminem. I know you can be a high calibur rapper, if you apply yourself you could become one of the lyrical giants. But you need two things:
A) You need to study all aspects of the rap game
B) You need a higher source of information, and motivation rooted in things such as social change and existential truth rather than mere profit or ego.
RM takes the lead. Supadudz try using more multis and getting more aggressive.
Why do you want me to unblock you? So that you can argue with me and leave paticularly wankeresque comments from time to time?
Whatever you think is the most honest, most correct way to vote.
(0)
SupaDudz says The Last Jedi is his favorite movie.
(1)
SupaDudz talks about minecraft and wanting to kiss girls on his profile
If that was his plan, explain to me exactly how you know that and show me the proof.
Classifying your "proof" as religious proves that you are a meaningless troglodyte primitive.
The real anonymous is a loosely connected gaggle of hackers and activists with no central ideology or goals. It is not actually a group in the traditional sense, anyone can take up the mantle of anonymous, and there is a wide range of different types of anonymous members. Having no clear agenda or sense of direction, anonymous has accomplished little and will ultimately be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. This man is either one of it's more delusional members or (more likely) a troll and a total loser.
My motives are to counteract the destructive path that humanity is taking. Instead of helping you would rather lie about one of the greatest people in history.
Oh bugger off you winkle picker. You don't know the first thing about RBE and you are just pulling 90% of what you say out of your dirty little hole. When you die do you want your entire legacy to be making shitty youtube videos where you claim you can see the future and that Jacque Fresco was a child murderer with dreams of world domination? I enjoy trolling as well, but I do not make it my life's work. You must be some kind of beorgiose clown who inherited enough money to be set for life, that is the only way you could afford to sit here defaming people and making shit up on the internet all day. You are a spoiled child at heart aren't you?
Maybe, but I don't think he should. It might create echo chambers. Something I would prefer however is if there was some form of objective process for determining the winner of a debate that doesn't involve opinions. A voting system is ineffective because you win by appealing to the majority rather than by being correct.
Too bad someone real didn't get to it first.
I've never heard his voice, if that's him it doesn't even prove anything. In fact, it indicates that he's not the true founder, because why would he make an appearance without hiding his identity? It's not very anonymous of him.
This guy is not the founder of Anonymous, he is a man with high functioning troll disorder. He is a mega troll that apparently spends all his time trolling on debate sites and making fake anonymous videos on numerous obscure youtube channels. In reality he is probably similar to Bronto in regards to his views and is a very ignorant person parroting the opinions of various retards who know nothing about RBE. If you look at his "refutation" video of RBE it's clear he is a troll, because he literally gets every single thing wrong about how RBE works in deliberately stupid ways. I'll believe this guy is the founder of anonymous when pigs fly and you get laid.
Do you not see that this man is a troll?
What about the Muslim one?
Yes, pro goes first. Thank you for accepting my debate.
Interesting, so you had similar ideas to Jacque before you even heard of him. Judging by your profile you are still young as well, so if what you say is true you are probably a relatively intelligent individual. Do you have any plans regarding the realisation of the system? (we can move this to pm if you prefer)
So you know of the RBE. How familiar are you with the concept?
he/she (something tells me it's the female in the pic) appears to be more of a right wing "red neck" type to me. She probably lives on alligator and catfish.
Typical alt righter.
However you want lol.
Yes, I will accept you as an opponent. Just post whenever you're ready, my schedule is loose. I will initiate the first round some time today.
Also you can argue that it's left wing or that it's neither, or even that it can be both. As long as you're arguing against the notion that it is right wing.
In my view the whole burden of proof thing is usually just a cop out from defending your position so in most cases (such as this one) I would say burden of proof is equal.
Rational Madman told me in PM that he is gay and has a boyfriend, just putting that out there.
Tough bananas buddy. The spelling and grammar aren't even mine and on top of that the spelling and grammar is pretty much flawless, so if you want to vote against me just because you can't read then that just makes you gay.
I don't know if you can edit an argument once it's posted on this site.
I just checked, only a couple are broken. The first one doesn't work because the A at the end isn't supposed to be part of the link.
No, you've got it all wrong. See, I'm both creative and logical. What you're doing is neither, you are just letting your sources speak for you 98% of the time. You aren't even technically debating.
The only way anyone here actually beats me is because of formatting and appealing to the sensibilities of the majority. When it comes to actually being correct and crafting your own arguments I am the best one on the site.
Copying and pasting articles is not grinding. Making up your own religion is not thinking. believing is not knowing. not actually debating is not "being".
How can you do that when I'm already better than you. Only 2% of your arguments are actually you debating, everything else is a copy and pasted article yet you think that makes you a great debater.
Didn't mean to forfeit but I basically made too many debates expecting that only 10% of them would have any challengers.