The official Round III and Round IV Debate Championship TRASHTALKING pwning thread

Ok, in all seriousness, I'm not cool with the idea of Mott replacing Winter. I know it's a stupid debate contest (on the internet no less) but seeing as he is both the current champ and the creator of the contest, it'd really taint the image giving the 2nd chance to him. And the fact that he's not cool with it either.

I suppose you could always have a three-way round robin type thing to sort out a winner without giving someone a bye into the final or resurrecting a body.
 
Ok, in all seriousness, I'm not cool with the idea of Mott replacing Winter. I know it's a stupid debate contest (on the internet no less) but seeing as he is both the current champ and the creator of the contest, it'd really taint the image giving the 2nd chance to him. And the fact that he's not cool with it either.
Its all a farce anyway, proven when the "judges" gave you the win over me.
 
Its all a farce anyway, proven when the "judges" gave you the win over me.
1280722714336.jpg
 
Let's do me versus superfreak on globalization.

I'm filling his nostrils with my man goo for a couple days now.

I win.
 
Last edited:
I beat you even before the judges got involved. I really don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Go back and read the damn thing!!

:clink:

not even close, you admitted it fit the definition of a religion, but then you pussed out and claimed it would be "dishonest" to claim that, despite the fact it meets the precise definition of religion

that you won is a shame
 
It's fine SM.

Your mummy would probably allow you to view it without worrying about you having the nightmares again.

Mom's never lived here. I have a router-level filter because I don't want the shit in my house.

I had a friend that served two years in Club Fed and I hired him to get him out of the half-way house. He downloaded some porn onto an office computer and it infected the thing so badly we nearly had to throw it away.
 
not even close, you admitted it fit the definition of a religion, but then you pussed out and claimed it would be "dishonest" to claim that, despite the fact it meets the precise definition of religion

that you won is a shame

I said that? :cof1:

Either I was drunk, which I wasn't, or you are lying... :lies:
 
I said that? :cof1:

Either I was drunk, which I wasn't, or you are lying... :lies:

remember my question to you...your answer proved my point about atheism, so you then had to rant about how it would be "dishonest" to actually characterize it as a religion, despite your answer confiming that it does in fact fall under the definition of religion
 
remember my question to you...your answer proved my point about atheism, so you then had to rant about how it would be "dishonest" to actually characterize it as a religion, despite your answer confiming that it does in fact fall under the definition of religion
Actually, if I remember correctly, he said that certain people use it in place of a religion, but that doesn't make it one.
 
Actually, if I remember correctly, he said that certain people use it in place of a religion, but that doesn't make it one.

the salient part of his question which absolutely shows atheism is a religion under websters definition is this:

Atheists have absolutely no proof that a deity exists, and so they choose not to believe in him. To specifically answer your question (to be fair), no they cannot prove there are no deities.

like i said...atheist have to believe and threedee admits this as there is no proof and he expressly says they "choose not to believe"....that is believing, eg, they don't believe in the diety and under webster:

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

thats a religion
 
Back
Top