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

Yurt said:
and?

thanks for the rep btw :)
Click to expand...

She's being obtuse so far. Apparently avoiding to answer.

I'm having a real hard time over there. I think Jim has put a delay loop or something on me that make the site real slow for me. I confronted him with it and he did his usual bullshit then closed the thread. I think he's pissed because I keep bugging his bum-buddy Darin.

Why don't You ask KAthianne? I'm about to go out of town for the weekend and can't keep up with this right now.
 
Damn Yankee said:
She's being obtuse so far. Apparently avoiding to answer.

I'm having a real hard time over there. I think Jim has put a delay loop or something on me that make the site real slow for me. I confronted him with it and he did his usual bullshit then closed the thread. I think he's pissed because I keep bugging his bum-buddy Darin.

Why don't You ask KAthianne? I'm about to go out of town for the weekend and can't keep up with this right now.
Click to expand...

i have no desire to ask her why
 
I dont' think she liked how I called her out on just throwing her votes over to 3d "because the die is cast"

that's my theory anyway
 
Threedee said:
Yurt, your argument was a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative, and hence atheism is not a religion.
Click to expand...

seriously....that is just plain stupid

you can prove a negative, its absolutely false you can't, in fact, it is a weak debate tactic to bring it up...and its stupid to claim that just because you can't, ergo....atheism is not a religion

nice way to avoid actual definitions

the fact you also used a dictionary source to back your points up, only shows you accept webster, thus, you must accept websters definition
 
Threedee said:
That's dishonest, because if I can prove that you did post something, then there is no faith involved at all.
Click to expand...

:palm:

no, you're being dumb and not understanding what you're talking about

if you don't believe, then you must in fact believe that such 'thought' etc must not be true or may not be true....either way, it is based on YOUR belief as, even you admitted, there is no proof of an atheists ardent belief that there is no diety

seriously, you have fallen for a major logical fallacy and you let your whole argument rest upon that
 
One judge says mott should go forward
One judge has no preference
One judge says threedee should have round III win via default.

Contestants:
Threedee wants the win for III (obv)
Billy claims to want threedee to have the default win
Mott is uneasy about accepting the debate

I haven't talked about it with superfreak yet.

Total:

3 (maybe 4) -1 in favor of threedee winning round III.

At this time I think I am just going to make the executive decision based on the majority of votes that threedee should get the round III win. In addition to votes, I think it logically makes the most sense. Once winterborn received his winning votes for round II, he was promoted to the third round. His leaving the contest is an absense in the third round, not the second.

If other prior contestants think the decision is bullshit please weigh in. But for now I am giving threedee the win.
 
Yurt said:
:palm:

no, you're being dumb and not understanding what you're talking about

if you don't believe, then you must in fact believe that such 'thought' etc must not be true or may not be true....either way, it is based on YOUR belief as, even you admitted, there is no proof of an atheists ardent belief that there is no diety

seriously, you have fallen for a major logical fallacy and you let your whole argument rest upon that
Click to expand...

Rationalism, reason, and logic are spinning in their graves. The burden of proof is on religious people (like me) to prove that Jesus Christ is Risen Today (Alelujah!!), and not on atheists to prove it is all bunk. Without objective data, there is no proof (and never will be, until the Second Coming). What you are engaging in is good old-fashioned deflection. You don't believe so you believe is a really tiresome argument.
 
Yurt said:
i have no desire to ask her why
Click to expand...
She's still being obtuse. Very uncharacteristic of her. I wonder if this is connected to the group hate-a-thon I received over there because I drowned a bad cat. You know how they are about pussy.
 
Threedee said:
Rationalism, reason, and logic are spinning in their graves. The burden of proof is on religious people (like me) to prove that Jesus Christ is Risen Today (Alelujah!!), and not on atheists to prove it is all bunk. Without objective data, there is no proof (and never will be, until the Second Coming). What you are engaging in is good old-fashioned deflection. You don't believe so you believe is a really tiresome argument.
Click to expand...

someone commits a murder. there is a body. there is a suspect. the prosecution tries to prove the suspect committed the murder. the defense tries to prove he didn't....

but you want to believe it is impossible to prove a negative or prove there is no proof....

go sit in a criminal courtroom or watch tv

copied in other thread so as not to derail this one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top