I don't have the actual comment, I had it quoted from somewhere else. It was from early May, 2019. You said it, its not that hard to remember your own ideology.
"Are you telling you can't justify violence when it is conservatives who is stopping public healthcare for everyone and cutting social security for people who need it? Since there live is on the line they are justified with their response because of what conservatives do to them which is not give them public healthcare that allows them to treat their injuries using tax payer money."
I have this quoted, I can't find the link through the many comments over time.
You believe in physical violence against people who have a different policy position on healthcare. That's called fascism.
Aw politifact? I was hoping for the Washington Post. Thank you for providing a down the center fact checker. Really makes me want to believe that Trump always lies.
Oh no, the TDS. Acting like Trump not delivering on 1 promise is the worst thing ever, when literally every other president has done the same. Thank God for leftists like you guys, you really helped us win the election and thank God you will help Trump win again.
I agree it is not an argument. I don't believe it is legitimate criticism. Or maybe people are just uniformed because of the media that portrays things a certain way.
Though it may be a mild form, since you are socialist and naturally do not like conservatives getting elected, you have TDS. If you support the rule of law then you should investigate the Democrats for starting a fake witch hunt to undermine the presidency. Since they can't win themselves they resort to other things that they 100% know are cheap and un-american.
Great argument. You should attack how guns save lives and the effects on murder rates when guns were banned(England, for ex.). Look back at my debates for some ideas.
If you want to talk about the amount of people, look at the actual statistics.
2.5M instances a year in which a gun is used defensively. There are far more lives saved by guns than lives taken.
In many instances, such as England, gun bans did not have any effect on decreasing murder rate. It actually went up a little bit. If you ban guns, criminals get other guns off the black market or just use other things, like knives. You are taking away 99.9% of gun owners right to self-defense, and punishing them for the crimes off mentally insane people.
" Finally, you can get creative by abusing exact wordings and phrases."
That's exactly what I'm against. I would love if people would have an actual discussion.
"Triggered right wingers shows more triggered right wingers."
wth the sentence structure doesnt make any sense its like liberal logic doesnt make any freakin sense
I've debated over 100 times, I can defend my position without a shadow of a doubt. Like I said, I don't have the time nor the stamina right now to debate. Its ok, you can have your truth.
On the other hand, you are so right. Every time a radical leftist rebuts my point and sources the Washington Post fact checker I get red in the face and so stresed out.
i will debate at a later time, this stuff takes a lot of time and honestly it kinda bores me sometimes especially when people are semantical and sweaty n stuff like forgot the freakin bop and specific defintions n stuff just debate and have a discussion you know it just gets on my nerves
It's a debatable subject and is just a desperate plea to play the race card when you know truly it is completetly irrelevant to the current day. Radical leftists are getting out of hand. I'm sorry you suffer from TDS, get well.
If you were capable of any logic, you would see I have evidence and rebuttals to claims. Just go to the speedrace debate, or the first round on this one.
That is completely your opinion. If you want to vote cheaply, do so. It's not a surpise that most conservatives lose on this site considering 90% of voters are radical leftists who vote on their crazy logic bias.
By accepting the debate you consent to the rules. Notice I said give or take 10 years, it was just a baseline.
Your example is 50 years old, it is not relevant to whether or not Trump is racist today, and even those housing claims are debatable.
In 2009, Trump changed to a republican from his liberal ideologies before. That is partly why I said 10 years.
Again it is your opinion that the rule is unjustifiable. You should vote given the rules and based on the actual debate content, not because you are personally salty and think Trump's arguable racism from 1965 carries over to 2019.
Rules are rules, and it is not unfair to the other side because they are the ones who accepted it. That is completely your biased opinion. In my understanding, when someone claims Trump was racist when he was a teenager in 1960(cough), it carrys no weight to determine if Trump is a racist in 2019, and just causes more unnecessary debate which is a waste of time. That's why I made the rule.
No one voted based on the topic. Half of the rounds were about the rules and that's why people voted against me. Nice that u cherry pick the debate tho
So you changed your mind?
I don't have the actual comment, I had it quoted from somewhere else. It was from early May, 2019. You said it, its not that hard to remember your own ideology.
"Are you telling you can't justify violence when it is conservatives who is stopping public healthcare for everyone and cutting social security for people who need it? Since there live is on the line they are justified with their response because of what conservatives do to them which is not give them public healthcare that allows them to treat their injuries using tax payer money."
I have this quoted, I can't find the link through the many comments over time.
You believe in physical violence against people who have a different policy position on healthcare. That's called fascism.
I'm confused by that sentence
>>Name me a position that I hold that is crazy leftist fascist.
Using physical violence against people whom disagree with you on policy.
"The link does not claim that. It claims this:
True 5% Mostly True 10% Half True 14% Mostly False 21% False 35% Pants on Fire 15%"
Fantastic.
"What am I doing?"
Being a crazy leftist fascist.
"We both know how little this matters when it comes to a functioning website"
Fair point. I changed it.
"If you want to create a debate that I deem worthwhile I'll accept."
Maybe in the future. Forums are just more productive in my opinion.
Keep doing what you're doing though, It really helps us win.
Aw politifact? I was hoping for the Washington Post. Thank you for providing a down the center fact checker. Really makes me want to believe that Trump always lies.
Oh no, the TDS. Acting like Trump not delivering on 1 promise is the worst thing ever, when literally every other president has done the same. Thank God for leftists like you guys, you really helped us win the election and thank God you will help Trump win again.
lmao he has 4 wins in 180 debates #L
No, I don't do many debates anymore. Just wanted to give my opinion.
lol MAGA
No, you socialists should. We all know this impeachment stuff is bs and has been fake from the very beginning.
I agree it is not an argument. I don't believe it is legitimate criticism. Or maybe people are just uniformed because of the media that portrays things a certain way.
Though it may be a mild form, since you are socialist and naturally do not like conservatives getting elected, you have TDS. If you support the rule of law then you should investigate the Democrats for starting a fake witch hunt to undermine the presidency. Since they can't win themselves they resort to other things that they 100% know are cheap and un-american.
Both.
Sad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Just can't get over the fact he is President.
You tagged me, did you delete it?
Great argument. You should attack how guns save lives and the effects on murder rates when guns were banned(England, for ex.). Look back at my debates for some ideas.
If you want to talk about the amount of people, look at the actual statistics.
2.5M instances a year in which a gun is used defensively. There are far more lives saved by guns than lives taken.
In many instances, such as England, gun bans did not have any effect on decreasing murder rate. It actually went up a little bit. If you ban guns, criminals get other guns off the black market or just use other things, like knives. You are taking away 99.9% of gun owners right to self-defense, and punishing them for the crimes off mentally insane people.
"If the Earth were round people would fall off the bottom."
HAHAHA wylted's argument actually has me dying brilliant 😂😂😂
oof. Pro's argument was weak. Unfortunate con forfeited and did not jump on that.
" Finally, you can get creative by abusing exact wordings and phrases."
That's exactly what I'm against. I would love if people would have an actual discussion.
"Triggered right wingers shows more triggered right wingers."
wth the sentence structure doesnt make any sense its like liberal logic doesnt make any freakin sense
lmaoo
"you are doomed until you actually test your views and are open minded to the other side." lmaooo coming from omar 😂😂😂
Your truth. Not the truth.
I've debated over 100 times, I can defend my position without a shadow of a doubt. Like I said, I don't have the time nor the stamina right now to debate. Its ok, you can have your truth.
On the other hand, you are so right. Every time a radical leftist rebuts my point and sources the Washington Post fact checker I get red in the face and so stresed out.
haha true
i will debate at a later time, this stuff takes a lot of time and honestly it kinda bores me sometimes especially when people are semantical and sweaty n stuff like forgot the freakin bop and specific defintions n stuff just debate and have a discussion you know it just gets on my nerves
Look at the calender.
It's a debatable subject and is just a desperate plea to play the race card when you know truly it is completetly irrelevant to the current day. Radical leftists are getting out of hand. I'm sorry you suffer from TDS, get well.
If you were capable of any logic, you would see I have evidence and rebuttals to claims. Just go to the speedrace debate, or the first round on this one.
That is completely your opinion. If you want to vote cheaply, do so. It's not a surpise that most conservatives lose on this site considering 90% of voters are radical leftists who vote on their crazy logic bias.
By accepting the debate you consent to the rules. Notice I said give or take 10 years, it was just a baseline.
Your example is 50 years old, it is not relevant to whether or not Trump is racist today, and even those housing claims are debatable.
In 2009, Trump changed to a republican from his liberal ideologies before. That is partly why I said 10 years.
Again it is your opinion that the rule is unjustifiable. You should vote given the rules and based on the actual debate content, not because you are personally salty and think Trump's arguable racism from 1965 carries over to 2019.
lmao ur so biased
Rules are rules, and it is not unfair to the other side because they are the ones who accepted it. That is completely your biased opinion. In my understanding, when someone claims Trump was racist when he was a teenager in 1960(cough), it carrys no weight to determine if Trump is a racist in 2019, and just causes more unnecessary debate which is a waste of time. That's why I made the rule.
Are you referring to death's comment or my debate round? I was just thanking death for trying to help me win, I understand conduct isn't all I need.
Yes, thank you for trying to help me win. You should probably read the description, it says in present day, as well as the resolution.
I was starting to contemplate if off topic poems were his strategy to win debates...
ikr im like wth is this poem lmao
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/cnns-brian-stelter-loses-42-his-audience
CNN is thriving
I'll get it next round, plenty of them left, I need to split it up cuz I already put a lot of anti-racist quotes in there
laughed at "CNN is shit with gay pedophile Bryan Stelter" lmao
He's prolly going to win on some resolution sheet
I was going to, but he would just say the topic is Trump so the Dayton shooter is irrelevant
funny how fake news cnn completely ignored the dayton's motives but pounded El paso dude--unbiased don le-mon and fredo cuomo
"You play the victim card more than Fredo"
fredo cuomo lmao
What you think?
lol next time i'll put in the description that orogami and RM can't accept lol
"all i have to prove is trump's NOT NOT racist, so as long as he's 2% racist I win the resolution"
fitting lol, he's like OBJECTION: MISPELLED RACISM like ok bro
Yeah, at least you debate honestly with me.
I love people who debate to win and use semantics, other than to actual have a productive discussion.
No one voted based on the topic. Half of the rounds were about the rules and that's why people voted against me. Nice that u cherry pick the debate tho