The Official Debate Championship Shit Talking Thread!

Oh no! SM gets crushed on rebuttal.

Excellent point USF. If homosexual sex is a mental illness, by SM's definition, then those who have sex who can't reproduce or don't want to, would be mentally ill by SM's very own definition.

SM got off to a good start but if he don't pull a rabbit out of his hat on the question/answer section he's toast!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh no! SM gets crushed on rebuttal.

Excellent point USF. If homosexual sex is a mental illness, by SM's definition, then those who have sex who can't reproduce or don't want to, would be mentally ill by SM's very own definition.

SM got off to a good start but if he don't pull a rabbit out of his hat on the question/answer section he's toast!
Click to expand...

Thank you, again. :clink:
 
Yurt said:
you're basing that on your personal beliefs....i stand opposite of SM in beliefs but he has out debated USF...he even caught usf basically plagerizing a sentence from wiki....
Click to expand...

Just because you're emotionally damaged, I wanted to refer you to the rules of the dabete.
Since you've just got a hard on, for me, everyone uses material from others, to explain their point.

Well, that and you're scared of homoosexuals.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Just because you're emotionally damaged, I wanted to refer you to the rules of the dabete.
Since you've just got a hard on, for me, everyone uses material from others, to explain their point.

Well, that and you're scared of homoosexuals.
Click to expand...

fuck you, i just said i don't support sm's belief and that makes me scared of homosexuals? you are joke. you didn't CITE.... you stole that sentence from wikipedia....that is plagerism and should disqualify you, for who know what else you plagerized...

you can use material, but you have to cite or change is substantially so it is yours...giving a stat is no big deal, but taking someone else's words and passing them off as your own is total bullshit
 
Yurt said:
fuck you, i just said i don't support sm's belief and that makes me scared of homosexuals? you are joke. you didn't CITE.... you stole that sentence from wikipedia....that is plagerism and should disqualify you, for who know what else you plagerized...

you can use material, but you have to cite or change is substantially so it is yours...giving a stat is no big deal, but taking someone else's words and passing them off as your own is total bullshit
Click to expand...

I refer your emotionally damaged self, to the rules of the debate. :cof1:

By the way, I don't see any sources cited for the information you provided; so should you be disqualified for lying??

"Alcohol overdoses result in approximately 2000 college students deaths per year. Automobile accidents as a result of DUI’s resulted in over 11,000 deaths in 2009."

You owe Beffy a blowjob, for not participating and allowing you to claim a "victory". :good4u:
 
Yurt said:
you're basing that on your personal beliefs....i stand opposite of SM in beliefs but he has out debated USF...he even caught usf basically plagerizing a sentence from wiki....
Click to expand...
I can't agree with you there. I'd give SM the opening statement. He more clearly stated his views and did a better job of sourcing his references for sure. He also made a serious mistake that USF nailed him on.

But SM's rebuttal was weak and boiled down to, essentially, GOTCHA, on USF's references. I was really surprised. SM's rebuttal was as bad as his opening statement was good.

Where as on the actual topic of the debate USF just completely savaged SM on rebuttal. He took SM's main argument and destroyed it. So where as SM had a better opening statement then USF, USF just crushed him on rebuttal.

SM will have to change tactics. If he stick to the assertions he made in his opening statement he'll be in trouble cause USF succeeded in discrediting them.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I refer your emotionally damaged self, to the rules of the debate. :cof1:

By the way, I don't see any sources cited for the information you provided; so should you be disqualified for lying??

"Alcohol overdoses result in approximately 2000 college students deaths per year. Automobile accidents as a result of DUI’s resulted in over 11,000 deaths in 2009."

You owe Beffy a blowjob, for not participating and allowing you to claim a "victory". :good4u:
Click to expand...

again, you don't need to cite every source for stats, what you CAN"T do is plagerize other people's WORDS for your debate....stats are not plagerism

that you can't tell the difference between the two is laughable...obviously i got those stats somewhere, but the rules don't say anything about citing stats and since the focus is on how YOU debate, not how well you source, i left the source out, but i WROTE the sentence, whereas YOU stole the sentence.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can't agree with you there. I'd give SM the opening statement. He more clearly stated his views and did a better job of sourcing his references for sure. He also made a serious mistake that USF nailed him on.

But SM's rebuttal was weak and boiled down to, essentially, GOTCHA, on USF's references. I was really surprised. SM's rebuttal was as bad as his opening statement was good.

Where as on the actual topic of the debate USF just completely savaged SM on rebuttal. He took SM's main argument and destroyed it. So where as SM had a better opening statement then USF, USF just crushed him on rebuttal.

SM will have to change tactics. If he stick to the assertions he made in his opening statement he'll be in trouble cause USF succeeded in discrediting them.
Click to expand...

again, you're basing that on your personal views...usf's debate is hard to follow, sm's flows easily, makes sense and slammed usf's opening statement

all you keep saying is....SM is "wrong" somewhere....debates are not always about being right, hence why we have judges from both sides, because you need to distance yourself from your political beliefs...
 
Yurt said:
again, you're basing that on your personal views...usf's debate is hard to follow, sm's flows easily, makes sense and slammed usf's opening statement

all you keep saying is....SM is "wrong" somewhere....debates are not always about being right, hence why we have judges from both sides, because you need to distance yourself from your political beliefs...
Click to expand...

In all fairness, Mott can't say exactly where SM is wrong without being accused of helping one side of the debate.
 
USF:


Quote:
The accumulated research convinced professionals in the medical, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences to come to the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder
Click to expand...

WIKI:


Quote:
As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder
Click to expand...

:readit:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You need to learn more about the law. It's congress who makes the law. The President cannot over ride the law just as he cannot make the law. He can only veto a proposed law.

Besides, Obama didn't even sign this treaty into law. The first Bush did, so you don't even have your President right. Obama has no choice, as chief law enorcement officer, to enforce this law, that is all ready on the books, until such time as a new treaty has been ratified by the Senate into law.
Click to expand...
Make up your mind 15ppMoot, either its a international standard like you claim or its a congressional law. But you conveniently ignore the third possibility that is the actual case here: regulation. Regulation is not the same as law; it is adopted by the agency after public debate. And regulations that are not law can be overruled by an elected official who has oversight of that agency: The Obama.

Why is it the The Obama insisted on this ridiculous standard? Wouldn't it make sense to have ships skim oil and discharge 97-99% clean water directly back into the spill area? Wouldn't most of the 1-3% discharged oil simply float back to the surface to perhaps get collected by a second skimming operation?

Why don't you take your political-liberal gotcha wantin', Obama worshipin', granola eatin', Subaru drivin' hat off for a minute and put your common sense scientist hat back on an answer the question, solve the problem instead of being a pussy?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh no! SM gets crushed on rebuttal.

Excellent point USF. If homosexual sex is a mental illness, by SM's definition, then those who have sex who can't reproduce or don't want to, would be mentally ill by SM's very own definition.

SM got off to a good start but if he don't pull a rabbit out of his hat on the question/answer section he's toast!
Click to expand...

Actually its a medical definition not mine. Folks who can't reproduce by physical condition have a physical condition, not a mental illness. Folks who decide not to simply made a choice.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can't agree with you there. I'd give SM the opening statement. He more clearly stated his views and did a better job of sourcing his references for sure. He also made a serious mistake that USF nailed him on.

But SM's rebuttal was weak and boiled down to, essentially, GOTCHA, on USF's references. I was really surprised. SM's rebuttal was as bad as his opening statement was good.

Where as on the actual topic of the debate USF just completely savaged SM on rebuttal. He took SM's main argument and destroyed it. So where as SM had a better opening statement then USF, USF just crushed him on rebuttal.

SM will have to change tactics. If he stick to the assertions he made in his opening statement he'll be in trouble cause USF succeeded in discrediting them.
Click to expand...

USF's statement and rebuttal were merely a collection of porrly written sentences, some partially plagiarized and others fully so- no structure to hold them together and very poorly organized and written. "Destroy" is simply your biased opinion, nothing more.
 
Yurt said:
again, you're basing that on your personal views...usf's debate is hard to follow, sm's flows easily, makes sense and slammed usf's opening statement

all you keep saying is....SM is "wrong" somewhere....debates are not always about being right, hence why we have judges from both sides, because you need to distance yourself from your political beliefs...
Click to expand...

Thanks Yurt. You've proven yourself to be able to distance your personal or political beliefs so that you can fairly judge a situation. That's an admirable trait, and one that 15ppMoot is sorely lacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top