Oh the irony. How you say for me to go through what you say "poinbt by point" yet you have completely avoided ansering the things you said you would gladly counter that I went through "point by point". -Facepalm-
I'm going to completely dominate you at your own points, because you obviously like to avoid all the main points I made specificly for you to answer that had everything to do with this topic.
You're right, why should anybody pay for a child that isn't theres. Like I keep saying "Child support". People "are" paying for children that aren't theirs because women are deciding to have kids to men that aren't willing or can financially support a themselves, let alone a family, but expect such men to turn in to high powered business men if they fall pregnant. If you even say "you keep repeating that part" to me, I will just go in to a fit of laughter. Because you keep avoiding that I point out how you say tax payers paying for other children is wrong, when most of the child support goes to women and kids that aren't the tax payers. You fail to mention that's wrong. What was it I said? Take the money from the person that gets child benefits, the ones that get money due to having to pay for a single mother's child due to her choosing to keep the child who's father can't or won't financially support the child, expecting to get tax payers money for their choice to keep the child, and give it to financial abortion so they can atleast get the choice females have.
First point? Easily countered.
Wrong, I am not coercing women in to having abortions. The woman gets to choose on her own free will if she'll keep the child or not. I'm saying the male will have the same choice as the female on the "parent's" role. If she wants to keep the child, that's completely up to her, but she should expect to be able to financially support it. This would also maybe make women wanting kids look for actual father material men that want kids that will actually support them and be there for the child, rather than getting pregnant to a man that she knows won't be able to financially support her, then expecting the tax payers to pay her child benefits.
Second point. Easily countered aswell, but I'll do two points, since you still avoid acknowledging that people are already paying for kids that aren't theirs thanks to single mothers that couldn't wait to find a proper father material man to have a child with:
Child support. People are still paying for those kids that aren't theirs, just on the behalf of women. Wrong. If anything, in the long run every form of paying for children that aren't yours will lower the taxes. If women don't get supported by the tax payers money, then they're going to have to get used to the idea that they can't have children with just anyone, they'd have to look for men that want to be a father, can be a father, and financially support the family. When females get it through to them that they need to find a father material man to have a child with, or face not being able to survive without financially supporting the child by themselves, they will look for men that will stick around, and financially support their child, meaning the tax payers won't be paying for the single mother's child due to her having to have a child that will be raised in the proper family setting, and with a parent working to financially support the family.
Third point.
You're right, why should they? "They are". God, fucking read, will you? People already are paying for children that aren't theirs. Do you need it slapped across your face to understand that that's where child benefits come from? Do you need a slide show to help you? God. It's like you need a five hour documentary to understand that one single point.
So yes, "why should they". How about the money that goes to child benefits from the tax payers get their money to go toward financial abortion? So that "their" money goes to "them" and not to a child that isn't theirs.
Yes, people ARE paying for kids that aren't theirs. But...HELLO!! If it was legal for a man to abandon his kid financially for life, then how many MORE kids will other people have to support? MILLIONS. Who can afford that? Why would a state go for that/ They wouldn't, they DON'T currently. There's NO way a state would allow people male or female to NOT support thier kids, how is that logical? The state doesn't want to pay, the taxpayers don't want to pay. The PARENTS should be paying. Period. So, counter that, smartiepants.
But "Hello", that is more so the female's fault for deciding to have a child who won't be able to get financially supported by the man. So instead of having a baby in which the mother knows the father won't support, she should not get pregnant by anyone except a man that she knows will financially support the child. But news flash. "Millions" of kids already are being paid for by the tax payers, all because the woman couldn't wait to look for a man that she knows will financially support the child. Not to mention, alot of females fall pregnant to keep a man in a relationship and get financially supported by child benefits. So in actual fact, a lot of the tax payers money is going to a child that was made for a woman to trap a man in a woman's life, and to claim free money.
But, like I said. "Millions" already is being paid for child benefits. So there goes your "Who can afford that" point.
They don't? Yep, I have a concussion by these facepalms you keep making me do. "They don't go for paying for millions to support kids" Yes they do. Chillllld bennnneeeefiiiiiiiiiits. < That was typed as if I was slowly saying it to you, since you can't understand simple things that have already been said.
There's no way? What? seriously? Adoption and abortion. Say it with me. Adooooption annnnd abortiooooon. Both choices a female has full control over. Oh, and just for the heads up. A lot of females survive on child benefits alone, so in all actuality, a lot of females are doing nothing financially to support themselves or their kids, except going down to an ATM to get the free money handed to them, all because they couldn't wait to find a man that would financially support her. Regardless, like I said in the comment listing the points you say are "retarded", females are leaving education with far more degrees, qualifications, etc. Which means she can get a job to financially support herself and the child on her own. But does she? Nope, she'd preffertaking the tax payers money rather than financially support her child and herself, which is possible, by working. For God sake; my mother supported three children with no benefits, she worked for her money. So if a single mother of three can do that, then how come a single mother of one can't?
The state doesn't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The taxpayers don't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The parents should be paying - Single mothers usually don't. Once again, child benefits.
Oh the hilarity of you saying "So, counter that, smatiepants", as if that was at all a challenge to counter. You didn't honestly think that couldn't be countered, did you?
...Actually, now that I think about it, I countered that point already, about three times now.
You're totally, absolutely WRONG that the state wants to pay for unsupported kids. It's the fucking LAW that people seeking assistance for their children go through CHILD SUPPORT/family court. They will NOT give assistance to people who refuse that. The state wants first and foremost to find the PARENT to see if they can garner support from them FIRST before they hand out money. So, on that 'point' you are absolutely, completely WRONG.
Ask a taxpayer if they want to pay for a deadbeat parent's kid. The answer will always be a resounding NO. Provided that there is a living, breathing parent of the child, any taxpayer would want to see that parent pay for their kid before they shelled out cash for an unsupported kid (that's why it's the fucking LAW to go after birth parents when applying for public assistance). Now, don't read me wrong here, I'm NOT saying people are 100% against govt assistance, not at all. many people are FOR it, there's NOTHING wrong with public assistance. What they are AGAINST is paying for a deadbeat's kids. The parent should pay, if they are alive and kicking.
A female can't adopt out a kid without the father's permission (unless after an exhaustive search, he cannot be found). It's not a one-sided decision. OK? It's not ONLY the female's choice.
You keep talking about welfare fraud or misuse. OK, and what? I, as everyone else, is against that, no one's arguing that welfare fraud is OK. It's illegal to defraud welfare. People do it all the time, and they get arrested for it all the time. But, anyway, it's not like getting welfare is like a fucking bonanza of cash. Bill Clinton changed the welfare laws, did you know that? No one can receive welfare for more than 60 months (5 yrs) in a LIFETIME. Consecutive or not. EVERY member of the household is subject to the time limit. So, a spouse can't collect for 5 years and then have the other spouse collect for the next 5 years, for example. Also, the rules changed on children. People used to actually have babies to get more welfare and to be able to stay on welfare longer. that all changed back in the 90's. Which proves, without a doubt, that taxpayers were fed up with paying for deadbeats and their kids. Taxpayers want people to support themselves, proven by a)just asking them, and b)proven by the changes and legal requirements involved with getting assistance. people on welfare who aren't disabled are also required to go to job training, job workshops, actively look for work, etc. If all that's not proof enough that taxpayers don't want to pay for deadbeats and their unsupported kids, then I don't know what to tell ya.
You are a kid, and you obviously don't know much about the 'system', or law. I'm not trying to insult you by saying that, not at all. I'm just saying you have a LOT to learn, and should definitely do some research before making some of the claims you make.
OK, you win....whatever....when you take this to the legislature, and they are just beaming over your brilliant idea, then give me a holler. I'll be waiting.
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore, you ask a question, people try to show you flaws in your plan and you refuse to even listen. How do you expect to learn ANYTHING if you NEVER listen.
Plus, you're just a kid, you have NO clue how the world works. Give it time.
The fact that you REFUSE to talk to a lawyer proves all points....you know damn well they'd have a good, hearty laugh at your expense because your idea is plain absurd. Scaredy cat. If you have so much confidence in your plan, and think you're SOOOOOO right, then why not talk to lawmakers?
I don't counter all your points because for one thing, they're not points, they're half-baked notions. No need to point out how retarded they are.
Funny how you kiss ass to the 3 idiots who agree with you, yet anyone who goes against you, you tear into instead of listening to their concerns. Don't you know, people who want to innovate or change things NEED opinions of all sorts in order to fine tune their agenda. You lack that skill, therefore you will never get anywhere. Do you think many successful and powerful people got that way by being a close-minded prick? No, they didn't.
So, with that, I'll see ya around, but as for this discussion, I'm out. Learn to read and be more tolerant instead of flying into a rage every time someone disagrees with you. It's black and white with you, if someone agrees, you LOVE them. Disagree, and they've become your worst enemy. That's not how to get tings done. Talk to professionals, find out how successful people 'made it'. That should help you. Of course, maybe not because they'd probably criticize your attitude and mannerisms. You'll never get anywhere in life acting like this.
-Sigh- How am I expected to listen to someone that is refusing to show the "flaws" of the main points I make? Like I said, if you call it a flaw, prove it, don't say it is then avoid proving it, mostly because you can't.
So yeah, I guess it is my fault to not listen to the flaws that you never show... -sigh-
I'm just a kid...Yet you have the hardest time proving this kids idea to be stupid, and fail to do it. Also, I'm not a "kid", I'm a young adult. Granted, I'm not in the adult world yet, but that doesn't make me a kid. Besides, what you reffer to as "Kids" could have more info on this subject than an adult, it just depends on who spends the most time on the subject.
The fact that I refuse to call a layer, ask them to have a two hour plus debate with me, not paying them, expecting them to waste more than two hours of their career time that they could be spending time earning money from, or personal time in which I doubt they'd want to talk to someone asking for a two hour plus debate on something that he/she most likely cares nothing about. So no, the fact that I won't call a lawyer, expecting them to do the above, for no financial gain proves that I have something you don't...Common sense. Like I said, you made my statement in to a debate, you brought the suggestion up, and I'll be happy to talk to them. It's not the talking to them that I feel I will make a fool of myself doing, it's the expecting them to spend so much time out of their day for no gain that will definetly make me look like a fool. The fact that you aren't willing to do so is also an indicator that you yourself know that it's a stupid, illogical thing to do. But hey, better idea. How about "You" phone these people up, and explain the debate on your half? Eh? How about you phone up to prove me wrong? Oh, that's right, because you know it's a stupid idea. -Facepalm-
-Facepalm- Really, you will give me a concussion with the amount of times you're making me facepalm.
You have claimed most of my points "Stupid" yet you were happy to "try" counter them? Then when you say "I'll gladly reply to the points, go ahead and make the list" you completely avoid the questions. Oh, ofcourse, it's my points that are retarded. So no, don't try to say the most patheicly obvious failing argument tactic: "Your points are too retarded to answer". I mean, seriously. Have some self respect atleast. You remind me of those kids that say "I can do that if I wanted to, I just don't want to".
If my points are so retarded, then they'd be easily countered, right? And since you are more tham happy to make six paragraphs attempting to insult, then you should have the time to go through these "reatarded points" and counter them with ease, right?
You're a joke. Fact is, you asked, I delivered, and you didn't like the package. It's not that you won't counter them, it's that you can't counter them, and the fact that you think people are too stupid to notice it is just astounding and pathetic.
I kiss ass? It's called being polite to the people being polite to you, but I like how you "try" to turn that in to someone "kissing ass". I tear in to them? Well, that's because I have heard their points before and countered them before, too.
"The three idiots"? Ah, that's right, after just claiming one has to hear another's opinions to make an accurate change, you call three people that have different opinions as you as "idiots". Practice what you preach. You contradict yourself flopping around for new points, if you can call them that.
Oh, and by the way, it's more than three people, more so about six or seven people that agree with me. I shared this whole thing with the chat, and let me tell you, things such as logical, thoughtful, sense, understanding where "not" the words being described about you. But let me guess, you'll say those people are idiots, too? What's sad is that you most likely would.
A "close-minded prick". It's not "close-minded" when the person is correct in which they're debating. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't take the points that can easily be countered as valuable parts needed for a change...Silly me for thinking useless points aren't a benefit to have. Remember, lawyers are all about being close-minded, fighting for their client, so people do get far like that. -Facepalm-
I like how you say "as for this discussion, I'm out"...Wigsplitz, you were out of this discussion long ago, believe me. Flying in to rage? I'm sitting here with a smile on my face, of how easily dealt you are. I have dissagreed and debated with people that agree with me on this subject, and I have agreed completely with people on other topic that don't agree with me on others. So that whole love them, hate them part is very innacurate.
Yes, because I'm going to take life lessons from you of all people...That's laughable.
Ah yes, you mean like my mother? Someone that has worked with people that would be involved in situations this debate is about? She fully agrees that financial abortion should be allowed. How about people such as the Youtuber "TheAmazingAtheist"? How about the Youtuber "Girlwrites what", a mother of three children, just like my mother?
Only people that will agree with me are morons? I've just proven every popint you have wrong, then when I show you more points that you can't counter, specificly to show you that you can't counter them, you avoid answering them at all. You can't call someone a moron if you can't even counter their points.
Like I said, you set it up, and I'll talk to them. Yes, sit in court, then what? All I can do is sit and listen. If I was to say something that is an accurate counter point, I would be flung out, not because of the point being presented, but because of me speaking in a case that has nothing to do with me. So repeat the bit that comes after that bit, you know, the bit about learning something.
How idiotic, how idiotic, how idiotic, you moron, you moron, idiot, idiot, etc, etc, yada, yada.
Those fricken statements only work and can be taken seriously if you are winning the debate. As I explained, I have already won this debate due to you refusing to answer the main point I presented, presented just to prove you couldn't answer them, in which case you couldn'teven attempt to.
Calling someone who's winning a debate while you lose a debate am idiot, or say their claim is idiotic, even when you're losing the whole debate of whether or not it's idiotic, is just plain stupid. You're an idiot. And see how I am able to do that and it actually can be considered an accurate statement? That's because I won this debate.
The sad thing is, you know you lost this debate, and I know you know it. You just can't admit defeat, even when you have been beaten to the ground in this debate. It's just plain sad. The more you try to make a point, the easier it gets for me, because with each point of yours I counter, you flip flop to an even easier point to counter, or just repeat a point I have already countered.
I introduced this to the nice users of the chat room. Even they are sitting there like "What the fuck?" at your selfproclaimed counter points.
Keep them coming, Wigsplitz. I can counter any point you throw at me, where as all you can do is hide from mine.
But I guess I should apologize, I gave you the false impression that you could win a debate with me due to not making as much effort in my earlier debates with you. You obviously noticed the difference between our debates from now and from last time we debated. Want to know the reason why the sudden change? On how the taxpayers argument was different in our last debate than it is now? Simple, the taxpayers arguement wasn't that changed, I did. When we last had our discussion, I wasn't motivated to put much effort in to proving myself right, but now I am back to the way I used to be, motivated to prove my point right, and even more motivated to smash arrogant, pathetic, sarcastic peoples's egos such as yourself, down to the ground in debates.
There is one thing you can learn from this, Wigsplitz, and that is to not engage in a debate with me again in hopes of proving what little point you think you have, unless you want want a long debate that will result in me winning half way through it, then for the rest of the debate, you trying to hold the broken pieced of your fragile ego to the point of making yourself look like an idiot.
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Oh the irony. How you say for me to go through what you say "poinbt by point" yet you have completely avoided ansering the things you said you would gladly counter that I went through "point by point". -Facepalm-
I'm going to completely dominate you at your own points, because you obviously like to avoid all the main points I made specificly for you to answer that had everything to do with this topic.
You're right, why should anybody pay for a child that isn't theres. Like I keep saying "Child support". People "are" paying for children that aren't theirs because women are deciding to have kids to men that aren't willing or can financially support a themselves, let alone a family, but expect such men to turn in to high powered business men if they fall pregnant. If you even say "you keep repeating that part" to me, I will just go in to a fit of laughter. Because you keep avoiding that I point out how you say tax payers paying for other children is wrong, when most of the child support goes to women and kids that aren't the tax payers. You fail to mention that's wrong. What was it I said? Take the money from the person that gets child benefits, the ones that get money due to having to pay for a single mother's child due to her choosing to keep the child who's father can't or won't financially support the child, expecting to get tax payers money for their choice to keep the child, and give it to financial abortion so they can atleast get the choice females have.
First point? Easily countered.
Wrong, I am not coercing women in to having abortions. The woman gets to choose on her own free will if she'll keep the child or not. I'm saying the male will have the same choice as the female on the "parent's" role. If she wants to keep the child, that's completely up to her, but she should expect to be able to financially support it. This would also maybe make women wanting kids look for actual father material men that want kids that will actually support them and be there for the child, rather than getting pregnant to a man that she knows won't be able to financially support her, then expecting the tax payers to pay her child benefits.
Second point. Easily countered aswell, but I'll do two points, since you still avoid acknowledging that people are already paying for kids that aren't theirs thanks to single mothers that couldn't wait to find a proper father material man to have a child with:
Child support. People are still paying for those kids that aren't theirs, just on the behalf of women. Wrong. If anything, in the long run every form of paying for children that aren't yours will lower the taxes. If women don't get supported by the tax payers money, then they're going to have to get used to the idea that they can't have children with just anyone, they'd have to look for men that want to be a father, can be a father, and financially support the family. When females get it through to them that they need to find a father material man to have a child with, or face not being able to survive without financially supporting the child by themselves, they will look for men that will stick around, and financially support their child, meaning the tax payers won't be paying for the single mother's child due to her having to have a child that will be raised in the proper family setting, and with a parent working to financially support the family.
Third point.
You're right, why should they? "They are". God, fucking read, will you? People already are paying for children that aren't theirs. Do you need it slapped across your face to understand that that's where child benefits come from? Do you need a slide show to help you? God. It's like you need a five hour documentary to understand that one single point.
So yes, "why should they". How about the money that goes to child benefits from the tax payers get their money to go toward financial abortion? So that "their" money goes to "them" and not to a child that isn't theirs.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, people ARE paying for kids that aren't theirs. But...HELLO!! If it was legal for a man to abandon his kid financially for life, then how many MORE kids will other people have to support? MILLIONS. Who can afford that? Why would a state go for that/ They wouldn't, they DON'T currently. There's NO way a state would allow people male or female to NOT support thier kids, how is that logical? The state doesn't want to pay, the taxpayers don't want to pay. The PARENTS should be paying. Period. So, counter that, smartiepants.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But "Hello", that is more so the female's fault for deciding to have a child who won't be able to get financially supported by the man. So instead of having a baby in which the mother knows the father won't support, she should not get pregnant by anyone except a man that she knows will financially support the child. But news flash. "Millions" of kids already are being paid for by the tax payers, all because the woman couldn't wait to look for a man that she knows will financially support the child. Not to mention, alot of females fall pregnant to keep a man in a relationship and get financially supported by child benefits. So in actual fact, a lot of the tax payers money is going to a child that was made for a woman to trap a man in a woman's life, and to claim free money.
But, like I said. "Millions" already is being paid for child benefits. So there goes your "Who can afford that" point.
They don't? Yep, I have a concussion by these facepalms you keep making me do. "They don't go for paying for millions to support kids" Yes they do. Chillllld bennnneeeefiiiiiiiiiits. < That was typed as if I was slowly saying it to you, since you can't understand simple things that have already been said.
There's no way? What? seriously? Adoption and abortion. Say it with me. Adooooption annnnd abortiooooon. Both choices a female has full control over. Oh, and just for the heads up. A lot of females survive on child benefits alone, so in all actuality, a lot of females are doing nothing financially to support themselves or their kids, except going down to an ATM to get the free money handed to them, all because they couldn't wait to find a man that would financially support her. Regardless, like I said in the comment listing the points you say are "retarded", females are leaving education with far more degrees, qualifications, etc. Which means she can get a job to financially support herself and the child on her own. But does she? Nope, she'd preffertaking the tax payers money rather than financially support her child and herself, which is possible, by working. For God sake; my mother supported three children with no benefits, she worked for her money. So if a single mother of three can do that, then how come a single mother of one can't?
The state doesn't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The taxpayers don't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The parents should be paying - Single mothers usually don't. Once again, child benefits.
Oh the hilarity of you saying "So, counter that, smatiepants", as if that was at all a challenge to counter. You didn't honestly think that couldn't be countered, did you?
...Actually, now that I think about it, I countered that point already, about three times now.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're totally, absolutely WRONG that the state wants to pay for unsupported kids. It's the fucking LAW that people seeking assistance for their children go through CHILD SUPPORT/family court. They will NOT give assistance to people who refuse that. The state wants first and foremost to find the PARENT to see if they can garner support from them FIRST before they hand out money. So, on that 'point' you are absolutely, completely WRONG.
Ask a taxpayer if they want to pay for a deadbeat parent's kid. The answer will always be a resounding NO. Provided that there is a living, breathing parent of the child, any taxpayer would want to see that parent pay for their kid before they shelled out cash for an unsupported kid (that's why it's the fucking LAW to go after birth parents when applying for public assistance). Now, don't read me wrong here, I'm NOT saying people are 100% against govt assistance, not at all. many people are FOR it, there's NOTHING wrong with public assistance. What they are AGAINST is paying for a deadbeat's kids. The parent should pay, if they are alive and kicking.
A female can't adopt out a kid without the father's permission (unless after an exhaustive search, he cannot be found). It's not a one-sided decision. OK? It's not ONLY the female's choice.
You keep talking about welfare fraud or misuse. OK, and what? I, as everyone else, is against that, no one's arguing that welfare fraud is OK. It's illegal to defraud welfare. People do it all the time, and they get arrested for it all the time. But, anyway, it's not like getting welfare is like a fucking bonanza of cash. Bill Clinton changed the welfare laws, did you know that? No one can receive welfare for more than 60 months (5 yrs) in a LIFETIME. Consecutive or not. EVERY member of the household is subject to the time limit. So, a spouse can't collect for 5 years and then have the other spouse collect for the next 5 years, for example. Also, the rules changed on children. People used to actually have babies to get more welfare and to be able to stay on welfare longer. that all changed back in the 90's. Which proves, without a doubt, that taxpayers were fed up with paying for deadbeats and their kids. Taxpayers want people to support themselves, proven by a)just asking them, and b)proven by the changes and legal requirements involved with getting assistance. people on welfare who aren't disabled are also required to go to job training, job workshops, actively look for work, etc. If all that's not proof enough that taxpayers don't want to pay for deadbeats and their unsupported kids, then I don't know what to tell ya.
You are a kid, and you obviously don't know much about the 'system', or law. I'm not trying to insult you by saying that, not at all. I'm just saying you have a LOT to learn, and should definitely do some research before making some of the claims you make.
OK, you win....whatever....when you take this to the legislature, and they are just beaming over your brilliant idea, then give me a holler. I'll be waiting.
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore, you ask a question, people try to show you flaws in your plan and you refuse to even listen. How do you expect to learn ANYTHING if you NEVER listen.
Plus, you're just a kid, you have NO clue how the world works. Give it time.
The fact that you REFUSE to talk to a lawyer proves all points....you know damn well they'd have a good, hearty laugh at your expense because your idea is plain absurd. Scaredy cat. If you have so much confidence in your plan, and think you're SOOOOOO right, then why not talk to lawmakers?
I don't counter all your points because for one thing, they're not points, they're half-baked notions. No need to point out how retarded they are.
Funny how you kiss ass to the 3 idiots who agree with you, yet anyone who goes against you, you tear into instead of listening to their concerns. Don't you know, people who want to innovate or change things NEED opinions of all sorts in order to fine tune their agenda. You lack that skill, therefore you will never get anywhere. Do you think many successful and powerful people got that way by being a close-minded prick? No, they didn't.
So, with that, I'll see ya around, but as for this discussion, I'm out. Learn to read and be more tolerant instead of flying into a rage every time someone disagrees with you. It's black and white with you, if someone agrees, you LOVE them. Disagree, and they've become your worst enemy. That's not how to get tings done. Talk to professionals, find out how successful people 'made it'. That should help you. Of course, maybe not because they'd probably criticize your attitude and mannerisms. You'll never get anywhere in life acting like this.
See ya.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-Sigh- How am I expected to listen to someone that is refusing to show the "flaws" of the main points I make? Like I said, if you call it a flaw, prove it, don't say it is then avoid proving it, mostly because you can't.
So yeah, I guess it is my fault to not listen to the flaws that you never show... -sigh-
I'm just a kid...Yet you have the hardest time proving this kids idea to be stupid, and fail to do it. Also, I'm not a "kid", I'm a young adult. Granted, I'm not in the adult world yet, but that doesn't make me a kid. Besides, what you reffer to as "Kids" could have more info on this subject than an adult, it just depends on who spends the most time on the subject.
The fact that I refuse to call a layer, ask them to have a two hour plus debate with me, not paying them, expecting them to waste more than two hours of their career time that they could be spending time earning money from, or personal time in which I doubt they'd want to talk to someone asking for a two hour plus debate on something that he/she most likely cares nothing about. So no, the fact that I won't call a lawyer, expecting them to do the above, for no financial gain proves that I have something you don't...Common sense. Like I said, you made my statement in to a debate, you brought the suggestion up, and I'll be happy to talk to them. It's not the talking to them that I feel I will make a fool of myself doing, it's the expecting them to spend so much time out of their day for no gain that will definetly make me look like a fool. The fact that you aren't willing to do so is also an indicator that you yourself know that it's a stupid, illogical thing to do. But hey, better idea. How about "You" phone these people up, and explain the debate on your half? Eh? How about you phone up to prove me wrong? Oh, that's right, because you know it's a stupid idea. -Facepalm-
-Facepalm- Really, you will give me a concussion with the amount of times you're making me facepalm.
You have claimed most of my points "Stupid" yet you were happy to "try" counter them? Then when you say "I'll gladly reply to the points, go ahead and make the list" you completely avoid the questions. Oh, ofcourse, it's my points that are retarded. So no, don't try to say the most patheicly obvious failing argument tactic: "Your points are too retarded to answer". I mean, seriously. Have some self respect atleast. You remind me of those kids that say "I can do that if I wanted to, I just don't want to".
If my points are so retarded, then they'd be easily countered, right? And since you are more tham happy to make six paragraphs attempting to insult, then you should have the time to go through these "reatarded points" and counter them with ease, right?
You're a joke. Fact is, you asked, I delivered, and you didn't like the package. It's not that you won't counter them, it's that you can't counter them, and the fact that you think people are too stupid to notice it is just astounding and pathetic.
I kiss ass? It's called being polite to the people being polite to you, but I like how you "try" to turn that in to someone "kissing ass". I tear in to them? Well, that's because I have heard their points before and countered them before, too.
"The three idiots"? Ah, that's right, after just claiming one has to hear another's opinions to make an accurate change, you call three people that have different opinions as you as "idiots". Practice what you preach. You contradict yourself flopping around for new points, if you can call them that.
Oh, and by the way, it's more than three people, more so about six or seven people that agree with me. I shared this whole thing with the chat, and let me tell you, things such as logical, thoughtful, sense, understanding where "not" the words being described about you. But let me guess, you'll say those people are idiots, too? What's sad is that you most likely would.
A "close-minded prick". It's not "close-minded" when the person is correct in which they're debating. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't take the points that can easily be countered as valuable parts needed for a change...Silly me for thinking useless points aren't a benefit to have. Remember, lawyers are all about being close-minded, fighting for their client, so people do get far like that. -Facepalm-
I like how you say "as for this discussion, I'm out"...Wigsplitz, you were out of this discussion long ago, believe me. Flying in to rage? I'm sitting here with a smile on my face, of how easily dealt you are. I have dissagreed and debated with people that agree with me on this subject, and I have agreed completely with people on other topic that don't agree with me on others. So that whole love them, hate them part is very innacurate.
Yes, because I'm going to take life lessons from you of all people...That's laughable.
Goodbye, it has been entertaining.
Ah yes, you mean like my mother? Someone that has worked with people that would be involved in situations this debate is about? She fully agrees that financial abortion should be allowed. How about people such as the Youtuber "TheAmazingAtheist"? How about the Youtuber "Girlwrites what", a mother of three children, just like my mother?
Only people that will agree with me are morons? I've just proven every popint you have wrong, then when I show you more points that you can't counter, specificly to show you that you can't counter them, you avoid answering them at all. You can't call someone a moron if you can't even counter their points.
Like I said, you set it up, and I'll talk to them. Yes, sit in court, then what? All I can do is sit and listen. If I was to say something that is an accurate counter point, I would be flung out, not because of the point being presented, but because of me speaking in a case that has nothing to do with me. So repeat the bit that comes after that bit, you know, the bit about learning something.
How idiotic, how idiotic, how idiotic, you moron, you moron, idiot, idiot, etc, etc, yada, yada.
Those fricken statements only work and can be taken seriously if you are winning the debate. As I explained, I have already won this debate due to you refusing to answer the main point I presented, presented just to prove you couldn't answer them, in which case you couldn'teven attempt to.
Calling someone who's winning a debate while you lose a debate am idiot, or say their claim is idiotic, even when you're losing the whole debate of whether or not it's idiotic, is just plain stupid. You're an idiot. And see how I am able to do that and it actually can be considered an accurate statement? That's because I won this debate.
The sad thing is, you know you lost this debate, and I know you know it. You just can't admit defeat, even when you have been beaten to the ground in this debate. It's just plain sad. The more you try to make a point, the easier it gets for me, because with each point of yours I counter, you flip flop to an even easier point to counter, or just repeat a point I have already countered.
I introduced this to the nice users of the chat room. Even they are sitting there like "What the fuck?" at your selfproclaimed counter points.
Keep them coming, Wigsplitz. I can counter any point you throw at me, where as all you can do is hide from mine.
But I guess I should apologize, I gave you the false impression that you could win a debate with me due to not making as much effort in my earlier debates with you. You obviously noticed the difference between our debates from now and from last time we debated. Want to know the reason why the sudden change? On how the taxpayers argument was different in our last debate than it is now? Simple, the taxpayers arguement wasn't that changed, I did. When we last had our discussion, I wasn't motivated to put much effort in to proving myself right, but now I am back to the way I used to be, motivated to prove my point right, and even more motivated to smash arrogant, pathetic, sarcastic peoples's egos such as yourself, down to the ground in debates.
There is one thing you can learn from this, Wigsplitz, and that is to not engage in a debate with me again in hopes of proving what little point you think you have, unless you want want a long debate that will result in me winning half way through it, then for the rest of the debate, you trying to hold the broken pieced of your fragile ego to the point of making yourself look like an idiot.
You lose.