Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It really doesn't matter how much the rich have. What matters is how much the poor have. The poor in America would be considered middle-class or rich in most other countries.
Thank you SirA. That was well said. And that is what liberals miss. But few of them travel, so they are mostly ignorant about the rest of the world.
Not being producers of wealth themselves, they hate the rich, and want to take their earnings and distribute to their poor voting slaves.
Elizabeth Warren rings a bell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How do you know anything is true? It is congruent with reality.
But your Moral standard calls them the same thing. I would never let you near my children.
Do you rape babies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please tell that to the idiot democrats who are resisting a border wall here in America.
A border wall if you looked at my debate would realize would not help with illegal immigration, drug imports and immigrants boost the economy.
Does your home have walls?
EU citizens did not need passports inside the EU.
Link: "With a valid passport, EU citizens are entitled to exercise the right of free movement (meaning they do not need a visa and don't need a residence permit for settling) in the European Economic Area (European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) and Switzerland."Meaning they need a valid passport to freely move across EU countries.
No sir. Have you ever taken the train from Paris to London? Were you asked for a passport?
No one has argued that people are not free to move around.
Guess you agree the border checks isn't against the EU principle.
I also agree fried chicken isn't against EU principle, what else have I not mentioned that I must agree with?
?? What do you think of cooks?
I hope I like their food. What do you think of professors?
I hope I like their teaching. Did that help you?
As I said, you pass or you die. Pay attention.
Where did you say "you pass or you die"?
Post #14 of this thread:
Reality is a hard university, but no one fails its classes. You just repeat till you learn or die.
Reading comprehension can be a problem for some. Just read more slowly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I do Ok.
Your perception and reality are different things. America has built the greatest wealth for the most people, your claims cannot be true for America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you going to add me as a receiver?
I don't know you.
They no longer are that stupid.
Having border checks doesn't change the free movement of people principle.
Please tell that to the idiot democrats who are resisting a border wall here in America.
Border checks I am assuming would be extra checks that they already do. Even before this you would need a passport to travel around.
EU citizens did not need passports inside the EU.
Now I am guessing there are more checks. People are still freely able to move.
No one has argued that people are not free to move around. Pleas stop with the unrelated silliness.
How can one be against an institution? And what did I say that made you think I was "against" anything?
Okay then. What do you think of professors?
?? What do you think of cooks?
You're in it. You won't fail it. No one ever fails it.
How about people who are dead?
As I said, you pass or you die. Pay attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
@TheRealNihilist
@Paul
Not your wealth the wealth of the wealthy.
I know, and it makes no difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I trust the bible because its true.
So is there any moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Huh? Who are soulless people? Who said anything about punishment?So soulless people should be punished forever for lets say an 80 year lifespan?
Debate me, not the atheist caricature in your head.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it not forever?
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Hell is death. It is permanent. No one is alive or conscious in hell. Souls are destroyed. That is hell.
Different decide different things about morality. So who is "we"?
If we decided that raping babies was moral, would it be moral?
Because the bible says so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
There are two kinds of conservatives, wealthy charlatans and the suckers who believe them.
At least you seem aware that conservatives are the group that produces wealth in the world.
This way the wealthy harnesses a large number of voters and they make the money flow to the wealthy with their votes.
So you're against democracy when the voters vote against your progressive liberalism?
What is it called when the liberals harness a large number of voters and they make the money flow to criminals and immigrants with their votes?
Created:
Posted in:
Since you didn't even tell me how they changed their position I'll argue against this.
They were liberal, wanting to import into their country every primitive idiot they could get their hands on. They no longer are that stupid.
As community colleges are filled to the brim with liberal progressive idiots as professors, I would be surprised if I even got a C.
So you are against institutions we use to decide whether someone is qualified or not on a specific subject?
How can one be against an institution? And what did I say that made you think I was "against" anything?
Thank god for the University of Reality.
I couldn't find it. You sure it is a university?
You're in it. You won't fail it. No one ever fails it.
Created:
Posted in:
Go back, answer my question. If you won't, fine, but repeating your question will be met with no answer.
You atheists tend to think theists owe you answers. We don't. And I could not care less for what you think if you believe only your questions are worth answering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Hell is a state, not a place. But yes, what Jesus said about it true. You didn't answer this question.Do you think Hell exists as well?
Whatever we decide that brings about the most happiness while not harming others.
We who? So you consider bad moral actions to be based on what we decide?
How do you know they are from God?
No sir. This will be a discussion, not an interrogation. If you don't answer my questions, I won't answer yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA, Brother Dee reminds me of one of those guys who shout, "somebody hold me back!!" When they don't really want to fight, but are ashamed for people to know that they are yellow.
He keeps begging you to quit. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
God is Black.
And Leonardo da Vinci had no eyebrows.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Heaven
2. Bad moral actions are actions that go against the laws God set down for us.
Now you. Same questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you asking if "afterlifers" exist somewhere in the universe?
Do you mean moral bad or legal bad?
Created:
Posted in:
As community colleges are filled to the brim with liberal progressive idiots as professors, I would be surprised if I even got a C.
The facts are:
Conservatives called it.
Liberals denied it.
Crimes like terror and rape have shot up in both countries.
It is mostly caused by the influx of Muslim immigrants.
And if Sweden and Denmark don't learn, the situation will get worse. Thank god for the University of Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
A couple things struck me about your reply.
First, you implied that ELOs increase once someone becomes a mod, but you did not provide evidence.
OK. You seem to be under the impression I've asked you to be a judge. The board has all the evidence. Look it up.
Second, you quoted me as saying "But can you prove this? You have certainly identified the dots, but how can you prove you are connecting them correctly?" To which you replied:
I probably could, but why would I go through the effort it would take? Especially when it would change nothing?
Well, for one, don't you want to believe true things?
I already do believe true things.
If you can't provide the evidence/data, how can you confidently hold the position you do?
You mean if I don't provide the evidence to you here.
Much of the evidence is on the leaderboard and in the debates. Anyone can look it up. But how confidently I hold the position I do is not dependant on me providing anything to you.
Also, I think you could effect change, if you went about it the right way.
You must be new to the site, and were not on DDO.
Which leads me to my third point of interest.
OK.
I'm not attacking people, the system is bad. Things will deteriorate till the problem is fixed. So I will wait. After the horse dies, someone posting "dozens" of links showing how healthy it is won't matter.
Have you proposed a solution?
I don't have to. The mods are aware of the problem and of what the solution is.
If you think there is a systemic problem, maybe there could be a systemic solution?
That would make sense.
Until you actually try to propose a change, how can you know trying is futile?
Because proposing changes to people with no oversight and total power hardly ever brings change.
Change has been proposed multiple times, see the posts by Ram? Basically he say conservatives lose because they make weaker arguments, but he is the liberal who determines that! They make weaker arguments because they lose the votes, and they lose the votes because they make wreaking arguments. It's circular.
I remain skeptical that your basic position is true, but I am convinced you believe it's true. Furthermore, I can understand why conservative members of the site would share your concerns. On that understanding alone, I would be open hearing any proposals.
Are you a mod? Are you able to affect change? Have you looked at the leaderboard? Have you strolled through debates?
If a proposal can make more members of the site feel more comfortable (without comprising the quality of the site), then I am all for it.
No proposal alone will do that. And making members feel more comfortable with a crooked voting system is worse than a crooked voting system itself.
At least one mod has openly admitted a bias against the religious, another has admitted that his bias is so strong, he refrains from voting on some issues. And all of them admit that they are all liberals.
If someone was a strongly biased liberal, and had to explain why liberal mods all had 100% win ratios, while conservatives lost all the time, would their answer be any different from the answers given here by the mods?
But as I said, we only have to wait. As they progress without consequence, they will get more and more reckless and blatant.
There is a split in the mod ranks right now, and the side that gains Mike's support will tell us whether the debate forum will shape up or get worse. We may also get further changes in the mod team.
I hope its for the better, but given our history, I am not optimistic.
Created:
Posted in:
Having border checks is not against the principle of free movement of people.
No one said it was.
But it is a change from their original position. Conservatives predicted it. Liberals called them islamophobic.
Who's doing what they called islamophobic now? Liberals.
Why are they doing now what they once condemned the conservatives for considering? Liberals.
Why the change?
They just graduated from the university of reality and have realized their liberal position was stupidity.
Too bad innocent Swedes had to die before the morons came to their senses. And people wonder why far right parties are gaining popularity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Unless some idiot with his finger on the nuclear button decides to risk it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LordLuke
interesting, could you give us some good examples of it? Ones where a conservative won the arguments, yet was voted against and lost in the end?
Yes I could, but that would only encourage drama as the voters would insist they were fair and correct. Votes are subjective, and mods know how to walk the fence so that claims of bias in any one vote is difficult to show, that is why I say look at the whole system. Look at the pattern of voting.
Why do we have more debaters than voters? Why so few conservative debaters and voters? Why do mod vote so often for their liberal co-mods?
I haven't read many debates, but I would like to examine a few good ones and see if that seems true or not.
So scroll through them. Some clique members may be good debaters, but all of them with a 100% win ratio? I've known them for years, they aren't that good.
On Dart, it isn't the good debaters who necessarily win, good networkers who get votes win.
Consider the case right now. Ram says he usually votes pro life. First, he substitutes "pro life" to mean conservative, it doesn't always. In an abortion debate, neither side need be liberal or conservative. For example, if the debate is whether aborting boy babies is worse than aborting girl babies, which is liberal? Yet its an "abortion debate".
I pointed out conditions under which the cabal clicks in, a debate with a known conservative, a debate with a clique member, a debate on a touchstone liberal POV. In debates not matching these criteria, the mod either doesn't vote or can vote strictly by who had the better argument, for that doesn't upset the standings. And it probably helps to mask their bias.
Thus Ram knows he can be right that he votes pro life on some debates, and still be part of a liberal cabal skewing voting. My claim and his are not contradictory, but he couches his claims as if they do counter mine.
He claims he posted dozens of links showing his votes for conservatives. This is like when atheists call Hitler a Christian. Ram's "conservative" moniker is dubious. And he did not post dozens of examples.
All he did to appear fair was post links to debates not with clique members and call one of the debaters "conservative".
Also, I could imagine Conservatives losing a few debates from being too practical, not spelling things out enough for their opponent.
True, but notice that the big boys have a win ratio of 100%. That isn't conservatives losing a "few" debates. That is them either not debating, or losing every single debate. Does that sound credible?
Scandal will come out in debate voting too. It's only a matter of time. I will be patient. I have no alternative anyway.
RationalMadman supports are often simply just easier to debate. I see all of his positions to be similar to debater's positions, which is part of the reason why I voted for him in the Hall of Fame. He's sort of the embodiment of Rationalism and also the desire to debate.
Overall, RM has been good for the debate form. He became more liberal after he noticed that being known as conservative, and or debating conservative positions was a loser. But he isn't part of the clique.
Squid noticed darth of voters. He brought up this thread. Others can see the problem too, even if they don't know the cause.
Though some will feel attacked, I'm not attacking people, the system is bad. Things will deteriorate till the problem is fixed. So I will wait. After the horse dies, someone posting "dozens" of links showing how healthy it is won't matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Could it not be that mods vote frequently and win often because they are skilled and highly committed to this site?
For some of them, yes. But notice that becoming a mod will suddenly raise the elo of some mods. Does becoming a mod increase ones debate skills?
And could it not be that, as you put it, "conservative" viewpoints often lose because their proponents are poor debaters, or simply because the "conservative" position can't stand up in logical debate?
That has not been my experience anywhere in the real world. The people who win here, win because of the people who vote, and the people who vote almost always vote for the liberal position, or against the known theist/conservative.
I have considered the "cabal" scenario, too. Viewed through a cynical lens, mods certainly do look like a self-interested cabal.
It was even more so at DDO, and the same thing has begun here.
But can you prove this? You have certainly identified the dots, but how can you prove you are connecting them correctly?
I probably could, but why would I go through the effort it would take? Especially when it would change nothing?
If you are a liberal, you'll think everything is fine, and your debate skills are great. If you are an honest liberal, you will have a gnawing feeling that perhaps your skills can't suddenly be that great.
If you are religious or conservative, you will know pretty quickly that the mods have latent bias against you.
What if the mods are reasonably fair, intelligent, and dedicated to the site, and you just happen to lose often because you are not a good debater, and/or your positions are logically inferior?
My positions are never logically inferior. But I don't, and have never debated. So this is not sour grapes from losing.
The mods are not evil, they have power and no oversight, and are in a mod echo chamber, with no conservative views. I don't think they realize what has happened, and if they have, rationalize it away because they don't really want to change anything.
Already, very few conservatives debate on the formal debate forum. Slowly, debate will die as it becomes only liberals debating liberals, the best debates are between people with very different views.
At DDO, the debate forum died long before the site itself died.
The same kind of thing is happening with traditional news media, as they shut out conservative views, they lose ratings, and cannot understand why fox and brightbart soar in the ratings.
To survive, debate sites need both liberals and conservatives, and the political leanings of mods should not be easily recognizable.
I would also say, have more varied political views among the mods, but that would not work. The majority of liberal mods would simply clique together and exile the few/lone conservative. If they could stomach a conservative on the team in the first place.
These things happen slowly, and without anyone knowingly trying to do it. Its just human nature. If the mod team was all conservative and the owner of the site the same, we would have the same problem, only with conservatives.
It takes objectivity to see ones own bias, and integrity to resist the sweet call of partisanship. The mods see that there is a problem, but have not yet accepted that it is the ethos of the site, which they initiated and now perpetuate.
Those were good questions Jeff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'll pass. That feminist crap spoils the story for me.Despite its feminist narratives, it was a fairly decent adaptation.
I don't watch much anymore--nothing new, at least.
It didn't have to be new, just good. I've been out of the US so I've missed a lot.
I've also taken a liking to NBC's "The Good Place."One show that I sort of anticipating is "Wheel of Time," based on a series of the same name by Robert Jordan.
I'll keep an eye out. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
Off topic. Open a thread in Religion or philosoply
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
They do support the free movement of people between EU states, but they have to behave differently now because reality has forced them.
What is reality again?
The thing that continues after you fall asleep.
Whether I disagree with your claim about America is irrelevant. My argument has nothing to do with support or freedoms. Your argument about America has nothing to do with what I'm saying, thus, I can ignore it
Clearly you can't engage with a hypothetical.
I can when I want to.
Do you support America's restrictions on speech
Some yes and some no.
...or are you going to avoid the question just because you think it is not relevant.
It isn't.
Hypotheticals are relevant and mine can be clearly seen to be as close to the topic at hand.
I made this topic and I disagree. But OK.
Okay then given I asked you a question wanting you to answer but you don't want to answer it I will be also making this difficult.
You've been making it easy so far??
Liberalism isn't multiculturalism.
This belongs in the thread of the person who said liberalism was multiculturalism.
I'm trying to, but you seem to be allergic.
This must be how you converse with people. Saying nothing of substance.
Lol. When you don't like what is said you say it lacks substance.
The two "knows" referred to different things. That I have to tell you this should embarrass you.
Not explained nor in what you said did you add a qualifier. This is a real problem with you that you can't even clearly lay out what you say then blame your shortcomings on me.
You think "peaceful" means "completely without crime" and you blame me for being unclear?
News that is lacking validity due to valuing liberal dogma over truth.
Is liberal pretty much attached to everything?
Most dumb things, yes.
Damn you must be obssessed to liberalism.
Perhaps. Obsession is subjective.
Wrong defintion and here is the actual one: consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media (print and broadcast) or online social media.
My definition was more accurate. Traditional news media outlets are all liberal, and all fake.
If it wasn't clear you would have to show they are being deliberate in their disinformation.
Why do you think every liberal thought Hillery would win? Why are they shocked each time the Supreme court finds in Trumps favor? Why do you think they all thought the Mueller report would depose Trump?
Would you like to place a bet on the Impeachment outcome?
I don't think you can read minds nor bother to argue so I guess you won't be able to support the claim you make.
Why would I need to be able to read minds to support a claim I made?
Nothing new and I doubt this will change anytime soon.
I haven't a clue what you're talking about. So OK.
Please clarify this.Because it would not help you.
You seem to have a vague objection to me and it's corrupting your perception. You see my responses through your lens, and some responses will be perceived by you into something hurtful to you. I do not wish to hurt you. I kinda like you.
So basically instead of actually supporting your claims with evidence you are saying it wouldn't change my mind?
No. I don't care about changing anyone's mind. I said it wouldn't help you. It would hurt you.
I see the opposite. You realize I am asking the right questions,
Everyone thinks their questions are the right ones. Everyone isn't always right.
...you don't want to find evidence so that your precious worldview isn't challenged.
Strange then that I would come to a debate board and speak to people with different worldviews to mine, isn't it?
I know it must be hard to have such a flimsy reality but if you are right then all this would do is reinforce what you know.
Well, either I'm right, or I have a flimsy reality (whatever that is!) I doubt it can be both.
If you don't care about what is true then don't give evidence but I would like for you to say that before I claim that you don't care.
Caring about truth as paramount is what makes conservatives, conservatives.
Look up "safe countries" and read slowly.
So I should be fulfilling your burden of proof?
Your education is not my burden. Read slowly because it will help your reading comprehension.
Must be really difficult trying to be someone who says things, gets annoyed and says to the other person go look up the information.
I'm never annoyed online.
Read it again slowly.
What? So when I give you a clear contradiction you don't know what to do and tell me to read what I said again?
You misread what I said. I know this because you misquoted what I said. Read it again slowly.
You should read again maybe it would actually help you realize the contradictory of the two statements.
OK. When you're less upset, read it again and you'll see you misread. There is no contradiction.
Again nothing of substance.
That is excellent advice to someone with a reading comprehension problem.
With the way things are going it would seem like you don't care about truth instead how truth conforms it your reality.
OK.
I want a club sandwich but that is irrelevant here no?
Nothing of substance yet again.
You asked.
I said "did", not "would".
I mean at this point I think you are intentionally missing out the point I was trying to make so much so you are correcting things that need no correction.
I wanted it corrected now before your poor reading comprehension cemented it into truth for you.
If it wasn't clear even if I said did instead of would it wouldn't change my point. You do know that right?
Yes. But you point was still wrong. Peaceful does not mean, completely peaceful, and beautiful does not mean without trash whatsoever.
Where is the word "completely" you added in? "completely peaceful, beautiful and safe" is different from, "peaceful, beautiful and safe". Words have meanings.
It was an oxymoron given peaceful requires no crime to occur...
Untrue. Some crimes are not violent. Also, if you were right, the earth would have no peaceful countries. That is obviously untrue.
...so yet again pointing out little details instead of the points I am making.
No matter how strongly you believe otherwise, completely peaceful, beautiful and safe countries" is different from, "peaceful, beautiful and safe countries".
Common sense works nicely.
Anarchism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Communism or other (do tell what other or you know do what you have been doing this entire time)?
You asked and I answered. My answer was correct and appropriate. So it wasn't one you like, eh.
Notice no "completely"
You are actually like without qualifiers like more or less the other person is supposed to understand no I don't mean complete civility but pretty much anyone knows civility isn't on a spectrum until you put it on one.
You put it on a spectrum when you added in "completely". No sane person thinks " peaceful country" means without crime. I do not play with silliness.
It isn't my fault you can't clearly lay out what you say.
Then perhaps your poor reading comprehension is my fault, right?
They became less civilized. Why is such simplicity difficult for you?
Oh so a key word is removed and now you blame me for your shortcomings?
Your "key" word "completely" was not mine, thus, I could not have removed it.
Damn it must be hard for you to understand when you have done wrong. Nice moving the goalposts as well.
Lol. You really think in absolutes till qualifiers are given? How old are you?
OK. And if a university was teaching liberal stupidity, I would not step into it.
At this point I don't even think you even know what the word liberal means.
I wish I didn't. That would mean there were none, and the world would be a better place.
Who said there was some grand conspiracy?
Do you think multiculturalism works anywhere?
Yes. When the cultures are similar enough, and when it is done slowly enough for those with the primitive culture to assimilate properly. And in the movies it works.
And who started this and who is carrying it on?
Who started what?
I want to see if you have the bravery to state the conspiracy you are apart of?
Lol. If a person was part of a conspiracy, he would not admit it. And as I told you, I'm not talking about any conspiracy.
If you think there is one, fine, but that's you, not me.
Lol. I agree.
Anyone reputable in any important subject would side with me.
And look, I agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm in Philly. If you don't mind an authentic conservative, and you don't suffer from TDS. Mrs. Ethan loves roasted ganders.
Bro!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
OK thanks.
At least the JWs stick around after one of their prophesies goes belly up. : )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Where can I find crossed's prediction about Seattle being bombed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
DebateArt.com (Community Hub)
Dart Community Hub
Validate the "Dart" lingo
DebateArt.com (Site Management)
Dart Site Management
Games (Mafia and other forum games)
Mafia Art or Mafia Nation
We both know mafia will dominate the thread anyway.
Games (video gaming, board games)
Games
I'm not tied to any, i just think too similar forum names will enable confusion.
Created:
Posted in:
A. The Vulva is the bits that would be regarded as being out, whilst possibly mixing with young boys. #96
Most young boys would not have a problem with that.
B. 59.
......!! OK.
C. Bro.
Bro!
D. I thought that was your opinion Bro.
Nah bro. I totally like sex. And if you took a gander at Mrs. Ethan, you'd know why.
59....really?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I believe there is no life anywhere else in the universe.What do you believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
My opinion of your intelligence just went up so fast, I almost got whiplash. You were dead on.
1. Eddard Stark's death: this set the tone for the series.
That totally fooled me. I was completely certain he would not die. That was the moment I was truly hooked.
2. Hatching of the Dragons: this is tantamount to the creation of three nuclear bombs for a world which hasn't seen them in centuries.
Dany. Nuff said.
3. Robb and Catelyn Stark's death: defeated idealistic delusions of typical medieval fairy tales.
That was traumatic.
4. Hardhome: the first real battle between the living and the dead which was to tease a climactic future event.
The cinematography was unbelievable.
5. Arya Stark's killing of the Night King: demonstrated that the writers no longer had any commitment to conveying a cogent plot.
Yeah. They had lost that commitment by the end of season 7. But the show was so awesome, there was loads of space between it and not good anymore.
I'm so impressed by your thoughts, please recommend something I should watch you think was very good. Do you have any suggestions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What I said had nothing to do with support. Rebut my argument, not your assumptions.
"Wait so if EU isn't completely free movement of people they don't support it?
I don't know and I don't care. I said nothing about support. If you want to start a discussion on a new topic, start a new thread.
I just remembered I said nothing about you supporting whatsoever.
I know.
If it wasn't clear "support it" refers to Denmark supporting free movement of people.
I did not say Denmark didn't.
Are you saying they don't and this clearly rebut your arguments.
Lol. You obviously don't know my argument. They do support the free movement of people between EU states, but they have to behave differently now because reality has forced them.
America has restrictions to when they use "free" so does Denmark. If you say I also disagree with America then I would have to think of a different argument.
Whether I disagree with your claim about America is irrelevant. My argument has nothing to do with support or freedoms. Your argument about America has nothing to do with what I'm saying, thus, I can ignore it.
They didn't mention truth that was detrimental to liberalism. Proof.
Define liberalism.
Don't put dictionary makers out of business. Look it up yourself.
And the fact that you can't answer shows you lack the knowledge.
Then enlighten me.
I'm trying to, but you seem to be allergic.
No. I state what I like. Sorry.
Even if you are contradicting yourself it doesn't matter. Noted.
As long as you remember that your thoughts are not reality.
"What you know is of no importance."
"Tell us why they have now started to check."
Clearly asking me what I know doesn't matter then asks what do you know about the cause of these checks.
The two "knows" referred to different things. That I have to tell you this should embarrass you.
Because you're a liberal. The fake news doesn't know either.
??? Define fake news.
News that is lacking validity due to valuing liberal dogma over truth.
Lol. You don't know that either. Go learn. The internet is free.
So you don't know either?
If you believe my not doing what you want means I don't know, sure.
If you do why not show some evidence?
Because it would not help you.
Sweden was a safe country. Safe doesn't mean no crime exists.
What does it mean? Do tell.
Look up "safe countries" and read slowly.
Non-sequitur. I did not say the country had no trash, and only a dummy would think, "beautiful country" means no trash.
You say I did not say there is no trash then contradicted yourself by saying beautiful country means no trash.
Read it again slowly.
Please tell me you know what a contradiction is.
Read it again slowly and then get back to me. Real slow now.
Why do you even think I want something?
So you want nothing?
I want a club sandwich but that is irrelevant here no?
TRN:It was neither completely peaceful, beautiful or safe in the first place.
ethang5:And no one said it was.
And I quote "Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism."
No qualifier was made that it would become less safe. You simply said by virtue of Musim terrorist the country would...
I said "did", not "would".
...no longer be safe, beautiful or peaceful.
Where is the word "completely" you added in? "completely peaceful, beautiful and safe" is different from, "peaceful, beautiful and safe". Words have meanings.
...liberalism loses to reality.
What do you propose as a solution instead of liberalism as in another political ideology?
Common sense works nicely.
Bringing bus loads of primitive Muslims into modern, civilized cultures like Denmark and Sweden will wreak those cultures.
Yet again stating Denmark and Sweden were civilized....
Notice no "completely".
..before Muslims then they became uncivilized.
They became less civilized. Why is such simplicity difficult for you?
You do know you are not saying less right meaning it is going from 10 to 0?
Your numbering system is your own.
Reality is a hard university, but no one fails its classes. You just repeat till you learn or die.
I don't think you have stepped into a university. Given your lack of knowledge on this subject.
OK. And if a university was teaching liberal stupidity, I would not step into it.
All I need to say is America has the same restrictions with the word free, your links don't support some grand conspiracy.
Of course they don't. Who said there was some grand conspiracy? I'm not talking about restrictions on freedom or conspiracies. Your reading comprehension is really poor.
Take that chip off your shoulder, and read more slowly.
I mean some people are just helpless in their own delusion.
Lol. I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thanks Doc. Saw your post on JWs. That was dead right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Who said anything about support?
I am talking to someone who is too much of a coward to be for the things he talks about. So basically whenever I do make a worthwhile argument instead of actually rebutting it you are going to say well I don't support it.
What I said had nothing to do with support. Rebut my argument, not your assumptions.
What you know is of no importance.
If you are having a discussion of feelings please do tell me because I'll immediately stop talking to you.
Context Clyde. What websites you know or don't know matters little to me. I don't post based on what you know or accept.
And stop threatening to stop talking. Just do it if you're going to.
None of them mentioned immigrants or Muslims either. They are called fake news for a reason.
?? Prove it fake news.
They didn't mention truth that was detrimental to liberalism. Proof.
Oh wait are you going to say who said anything about support?
How is fake news related to support?
Tell us why they have now started to check.
This seems like a knowledge question.
And the fact that you can't answer shows you lack the knowledge.
You really should've changed your earlier statements.
No. I state what I like. Sorry.
Remember this "What you know is of no importance.". I would say I don't know.
Because you're a liberal. The fake news doesn't know either.
Here you can come in and state your knowledge or feelings whichever you decide to use.
They are starting to check because the border is being overrun with ignorant Muslim terrorists they themselves let into their country.
OK boss. I will go find what you like. While I do that, can you tell us the increase in crime in Denmark and Sweden since 2014? Do you know?
Wow pivot? So unexpected. Please stay on topic.
Lol. You don't that either. Go learn. The internet is free.
So safety doesn't exist? No country can be called a safe country? Would you rather a trip to Switzerland or Afghanistan?
So you can't actually rebut my points so you are going to pivot yet again? Do try to answer what I said.
What you said needs no answer. Sweden was a safe country. Safe doesn't mean no crime exists. I usually will not spend much time on factitious points.
Right, those places have increased with the influx of primitives.
What? I saying even without immigrants there are still plenty of trash places.
Non-sequitur. I did not say the country had no trash, and only an dummy would think, "beautiful country" means no trash.
Only to a moron.
Don't know what peace means and calls me a moron.
I did not call you a moron. I said only a moron would think "peaceful country" means no crime whatsoever. Do you qualify?
No one said anything about starting.
Oh wow so whenever I say something that you can't defend you are going to feign ignorance.
Ignorance of what? Why would I have to defend something I didn't say?
It is pretty boring for you to say nothing of substance but I would've expected nothing less.
It's OK that you miss the substance. Everyone cannot have a high IQ. Don't worry about it.
I answered you.
Saying no multiculturalism. Still leaves me with other question. Do you want a dictatorship, monarchy, communism or anarchism?
Why do you even think I want something? I'm showing how liberalism has resulted in a once beautiful developed country being reduced to a 3rd world hellhole.
The clueless liberals in Sweden will continue to too. And their once safe, beautiful, peaceful country will go down the tubes.
It was neither completely peaceful, beautiful or safe in the first place.
And no one said it was. But it is much less beautiful, peaceful, and safe than it used to be.
Stay tuned on northern Europe. Sooner or later, liberalism loses to reality.
You sound just like lefties instead of Europe it is America. I guess horseshoe theory has more substance than I actually thought.
When liberals have to abandon their cherished leftist values in the face of hard reality, everyone wins.
Bringing busloads of primitive Muslims into modern, civilized cultures like Denmark and Sweden will wreak those cultures.
Reality is a hard university, but no one fails its classes. You just repeat till you learn or die.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah.
Hodor was sad. And noble. I had a tear.
I doubt I'll see TV this good again before I die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I like it. A real improvement.
But I hope you guys get different names for the two debate.org and game boards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
They did temporarily close their border. And there were not checks before. Isn't there supposed to be free movement between EU states?
Wait so if EU isn't completely free movement of people they don't support it?
Who said anything about support?
Then the US doesn't support free speech because they have anti-discrimination laws limiting speech.
Why are you talking about support?
If "stretching" is posting multiple news websites saying the same thing, I'd say, "a lot".
Breitbart is propaganda. I have never heard of euractiv.
What you know is of no importance.
Only two of them I know and none of two said they closed their borders. Please read through the first two again
None of them mentioned immigrants or Muslims either. They are called fake news for a reason.
Forbes as in October 2019 talking about an event in November 2019. Meaning they are speaking about it not telling us what occurred because it didn't happen when they released the news. They also said this "The temporary border checks–planned to start in mid-November 2019 and last up to six months".
Tell us why they have now started to check.
Telegraph are also talking about a event in November 2019 when they released the news at October 2019. Please find something more relevant and reliable. If it wasn't clear not Breitbart and during of after the event.
OK boss. I will go find what you like. While I do that, can you tell us the increase in crime in Denmark and Sweden since 2014? Do you know?
Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism.
Safe? Crime still occurs with or without Muslims.
So safety doesn't exist? No country can be called a safe country? Would you rather a trip to Switzerland or Afghanistan?
Beautiful? There is plenty of trash places that Muslims weren't apart of.
Right, those places have increased with the influx of primitives.
Peaceful? That would mean there is no crime whatsoever.
Only to a moron.
From what I understand Muslims didn't start that either.
No one said anything about starting.
So let me ask you again "What do you want instead?"
I answered you. You wanted to play obtuse liberal. The clueless liberals in Sweden will continue to too. And their once safe, beautiful, peaceful country will go down the tubes.
Sweden and Denmark, once the very definition of safe, peaceful, successful countries, are now havens for thugs flinging bomb and raping women.
And the clueless liberal, will turn a blind eye so as not to break his liberal code that says immigrants are wonderful, and ignorant muslim immigrants are even wonderfuller. Lol.
Germany tried that stupidity and the people forced the government to halt that lunacy. Spain, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, and Phillipines have followed.
Stay tuned on northern Europe. Sooner or later, liberalism loses to reality.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think you have the capacity to engage in a discussion of these topics.
Lol. OK Coal.
It's good to know you still think I'm equal you in value even if not in intelligence.
My human rights feel respected.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Committee.Wow, Funny looking word that one hey?Look at it......
I wonder if the Nobel committee got it right the first time? Or if other committees act exactly the same?
Hey thang, before you asked, ' Why religious groups and not religion?
Yes. You didn't answer.
Can you Imagine someone picking a religion?.
Sure.
Why Picking a religion Is the same thing as you walking up to a table full of alllllll the holy books and picking one of them up and stating . THIS IS THE BOOK GOD DID.
I don't see how, but being illogical is not against the law.
Thang? Let's test it.
Test what?
If you Tell me what holy book one claims is the correct one. ( make it up )
I WILL TELL YOU WHAT RELIGION THEY ARE.
I can do that too. What would we be testing? If you tell me what language a person speaks, I will tell you what alphabet they use. D'uh.
Low IQ bonobos can do that deb.
keep in mind, EVERYONE ON THIS SITE* PICKED A RELIGION WITH A mighty ( "MAKE-A-BOOK " GOD. )
Uh-huh. Really, all caps doesn't make you any more clear.
OrrrrrrrrrrrDid You simply get lucky.Lucky that the religion you choose to be in just so happens to have one of them make a book gods at the helm.
Sorry, you questions are just silly. You picked dart. Did you need luck?
thang. You don't pick a religion, then a religious group. You choose what book you want your god to speak. And the rest follows.
That hasn't been my experience. But you seem to think your thoughts are reality. I know better.
Imagine someone picking.The Christian religion and the sunni Muslim religious group.Doh!
Again, it may be clear in your head, but really, we can't see in there. What are you saying?
* excludes, janesix.Committee.
Now this post You might not be able to understand, but give it a go thang.
I've never understood a single post of yours deb. But I do enjoy their cute, out of touch with reality, quirkiness.
Answer me this.
No. I'm not here simply to answer you. You skip all my questions to you. If you will not answer mine, I won't answer yours.
WHAT COME FIRST? ( for you.)( A ). Believing in GodOrrrrrrrrrr( B ). Joining a religious group.
Go back to my last post and answer my questions. Your cheesiness will not give you a pass.
But please keep posting, there us a place for comic relief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Is there a fix to this problem?
Yes, but it will never be implemented.
Imagine you amble into the debate forum, see a debate that looks interesting, and vote on it.
Hold on there squid.
There is a clique of liberal members, some of them mods, who spring into action if the conditions are right.
If your vote goes against a clique member, your vote gets reported. A mod comes in and either reduces or removes your vote. If the mod cannot credibly change your vote enough to put the liberal debater in the lead, the mod himself (or another clique member) instantly votes, putting their friend back in the lead.
If you are a known conservative, your vote gets reported. A mod comes in and either reduces or removes your vote. If the mod cannot credibly change your vote enough to put the debater you did not vote for in the lead, the mod himself (or another clique member) instantly votes, putting their friend back in the lead.
How many times do you think this can happen before members know voting is a waste of time?
The same people wonder why so many members spend their time only in the forums.
Look at the leaderboard. Virtually all the mods have a 100% win ratios. The mods that don't are new and will be shooting up shortly. The rest of the top are clique members.
Now sort the board by number of votes with most votes on top. The first half of the first page is mods and clique members.
The debate forum has only a few people going around repeatedly voting for each other. Like a cabal.
The mods and the "elites" will never voluntarily let this system go. Mike has shown he isn't interested in board operations. So, short another cataclysmic change, the debate board will remain the same.
Ways to mitigate the problem:
If you are a conservative:
Do not debate or vote against clique members. Unless you just enjoy losing.
Do not vote or debate against touchstone liberal positions. Unless you enjoy wasting your time.
Debate only members who have given no indication whatsoever their religious or political leanings. Noobs are best.
Debate only topics that are impossible to classify as liberal or conservative. Like, "Are Babies Cute?"
If you are liberal:
Go wild. As long as you do not debate a clique member, you're going to win.
Find conservatives or theists and challenge them on the most absurd liberal talking points, like, "Can Babies Be Aborted 50 Years After Birth?" Have no fear, you'll win.
Go to a few debates by clique members and vote for them, and they will return the favor to you. Do that often enough and they might invite you into their clique, then watch your elo rise!
This isn't a solution but its the next best thing. Happy debating!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR CHILD LIKE QUOTE IN POST #63 IN ME NOT DOING YOUR WORK:
Maybe because I didn't bold, underline, and post it in all caps. Hmm?
“I was waiting for you, the great Christian to do so first. Where are your defenses? What? You haven't addressed any? I've addressed 2.
Uh, what part of my statement where I said “Now engage Steven because this is your fight,...
I blew you off because you don't assign fights for me. And since you call yourself a Christian, its your fight too. I've addressed now 3. You're still at zero, and you claim to have a direct line to Jesus! Are you getting static on your line brother?
Here, let me help you, go to this online “Reading Comprehension Class” and follow its instructions so you won’t make a continued fool of yourself when you return, okay? You can thank me later.
I read you fine. I just don't accept you as some sort of authority over me. I know that will surprise and hurt you, but you're just a weird guy on the internet, not in authority, and the sooner someone hips you to that, the better for you.
Therefore, once again, I am NOT going to do your work relative to the contradicting bible passages within this thread, do you understand?
Sure, you say your Lord commands all believers to defend the faith, but somehow its only work for others, not you. Yet you insist you're a believer. Go figure.
Still, both PGA and I have done more than you, and you say you're a "true" believer.
Obviously you can't do anymore bible deciphering,
The bible is not in code, and thus needs no deciphering...
(funny, deb-8-a-bull just used the same weird word deciphering for the bible instead of interpreting. Has anyone ever seen deb and brother Thomas in the same room?)
therefore, just accept the fact that you and PGA2.0 are "RUNAWAYS" from defending Jesus' words and should be totally embarrassed! Simple, isn't it?
In your head it certainly is.
Relative to the rest of your convoluted, nonsensical and grasping for straws that are not there statements in your post #63, I will have to leave those alone to save yourself further embarrassment in front of the members of DEBATEART. Once again, you can thank me later.
Lol. OK.
Oh, and to educate you further, as usual, the following is shown at your expense, and yes, AGAIN! :(
namby-pamby: lacking in character or substance : INSIPID
Did you see a picture of you next to the definition?
Do you want to remove one foot to insert the other again with me, or will your ignorance regarding the correct spelling of the term I used...
I didn't call your spelling wrong. I encouraged you to ask your best bud Jesus. Instead you went to some chick named Merriam Webster. What sort of "believer" are you.
..be enough proverbial egg upon your face to last awhile? Let me know, okay? Thanks.
I checked. There's no egg on my face. Perhaps the rotten egg scent you smell is coming from something closer to your nose.
Lol. I really thought this guy would be tougher.
Created:
Posted in:
There are contradictions - so what? Most have very little significance to Christian theology. It is hardly worth a discussion, imo.
That must be why no one can post and defend an actual contradiction.
A Biblical contradiction seems to be like abiogenesis. Atheists are all sure it exists, but can never produce an example of one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What could better illustrate contradictions in the Bible than a thread full of believers arguing over dissonant passages in the Bible?
Only 3 believers have posted to this thread, and they have not once disagreed with each other.
But you will not see your bias crippling your perception. What you see are, "believers" arguing over dissonant passages in the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
Explain John 3:16Exactly, my you do catch only eventually don't you. There was no Christianity so they couldn't have been instructed to go preach his word to Christians THAT'S WHAT!.
And that includes Eskimos, Incas, Mayans and Aborigines & Inuites too did it?
Yes.
Tell me, would he cast out those like myself who does not believe this Christ to be a god or even a son of a god?
Jesus said whomever believes. Whether the person is Jew or gentile doesn't matter. You have confused the person with the message.
Even though "he died that we may live"?
Yes.
You are the one who is extremely confused you poor thing.
I have not confused the person with the message. That is you.
Another contradiction.
Deal with the rebuttals you are running away from before oozing to yet another false claim.
..all I would like you to do is, instead of trying to put words into the mouth of the Christ,
You posted a fake quote you attributed to Christ. And though I have pointed that out to you 3 times now, you have pretended not to have seen it and deleted it from your lame replies.
People like you who think the Gentle Readers don't see your fakery are funny.
is to face the simple fact that the bible does indeed have contradictions.
OK. We'll take it on faith because you said it.
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Vulva.
A vulva is not a vagina.
B. Me neither. (It's an age thing)
How old are you?
C. One can only. For sure.
Common ground again! We're like twins!
D. We are discussing High School Bathrooms. (Another age thing)
Ah, you think sex is smut, and equate bathroom activities with sex, thus talk of bathrooms is smutty.
How old are you?
Created:
Posted in:
Lol!
Can the class say delusion?
I thought it could.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you know what Debs argument is?
Yep.
Please explain it in English.
Religious groups have existed for as long as religious groups have been able to exsist.
Ok
Some big, some small, some more enduring, than others.
OK
All with the same basic tenet
Ok
Take your pick, if you feel the need.
That's it? Deb's argument is that religious groups exist?
Has Deb alerted the Nobel prize committee?
Lol. This is rich.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You wouldn't be the best at scripture deciphering then hey?
Scripture is not in code.
Ok let me try it another way.
Hopefully, that other "way" will be coherant.
Gerald 23 : 11Things called Religious groups existed longgggg before you religious group did right ?
Are you asking if Gerald 23:11 says this, or if things were called religious groups long before my religious group was?
If the former, I am unfamiliar with your holy book, if the latter, could you really be asking if the first group to be called a "religious group" was my group? Really?
Patricia 18 : 4And some of these religious groups before and certainly after run EXACTLY like your group does right? ( with in reason. like a god, a human god, a book, a clubhouse. )
Does having a a meeting place qualify as exact? But OK, so we see where you're going, OK.
Did a group before your group go like this?
??
Derek and Jacquie 43 : 22Now Did God speak to someone that ended up being in your group first?
?? First what? As opposed to being in another group? Who told you that God spoke to someone "in my group"? You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
(was god the reason why your religious group come to be?)
Depends on how you mean, "came to be". Groups come together because of shared interests/beliefs, this is true for even nonreligious groups. Generally though, God is the reason everything came to be.
(is you religious group the one true religious group? )
No, there are religious groups all over the world. I still haven't a clue what "one true religious group" means to you.
Frank 12 : 7Can you say that all religious group before yours are fales or fake religious groups?
No. Are you asking if I believe that "true" (whatever that means to you) religious groups began to exist only after I joined one? Really?
( YES ORRRRR NO ) thang. yes or noDance thang Dance.
I answered no. But you are so sure I'm dancing we'll wait for your delusion to pass. Lol
Well I'll leave it at this for now.
Lol. So you've shocked the world by showing that religious groups existed before mine? Are you up for a Nobel?
If there is something you don't understand please feel free to ask.
There is even nothing for me to ask about. Your position is still ridiculous. Whatever it is.
If you don't want to answer any of the questions straight forward like thang , don't bother. I already know the answers.
Like you already knew I was dancing?
Soooooo your religious group. Was it( A ) God started what can be best explained as a fake religious group.Or
( B ) The makers of fake religious groups somehow got it spot on.
Or ( C ), My group is simply a group of like minded people who enjoy being together.
I'm also a member of a chess group. Did God get that wrong too?
Did the makers of the Dart group somehow get it spot on too? Did no true debate group exist till you signed up?
Lol. I'm sure in your head all this is crystal clear Deb, but to us outside in reality, you seem pretty clueless.
Created: