JBlitz404 (43207) pure unadulterated autism

[JBlitz404]

< when you incoherently glue words together to appear intellectual

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So you see evidence against you, ignore it, and continue presenting your argument as if it's completely unchallenged? Yeah, I can see why you support VICE lol.

I never said I supported VICE, though?

[Ad Bot]

[Drydess]

Oh, okay. Let's ignore the fact that several people who are in an argument since the beginning of the thread refuses to actually participate in one. You're only reading cherry-picked responses, that's not how an opinion should be formed, I'm for sure.

to be fair you're not really a good example of someone who can demonstrate how an argument should be formed, considering your main rebuttal strategy is to not make one

[JBlitz404]

to be fair you're not really a good example of someone who can demonstrate how an argument should be formed, considering your main rebuttal strategy is to not make one

You don't know what an argument is?

[Drydess]

You don't know what an argument is?

?

[Punished Toxicology]

You don't know what an argument is?

bruh

[JBlitz404]

?

There are no rules to an argument. An argument that is presented professionally is called a "debate". This is not a debate.  

[Drydess]

There are no rules to an argument. An argument that is presented professionally is called a "debate". This is not a debate. 

granted but if you want to take this to semantics, an argument like yours with no effort and major involvement is surely just a temper tantrum

[Rally]

I never said I supported VICE, though?

< uses a sensationalist bias news source to prove he has the moral high ground
< gets called out for using a sensationalist bias news source in a political argument
< spends several pages of debate arguing in defense of sensationalist bias news source
< "I never said I supported them bro"

Moving the goalposts is one thing, this is just pathetic. So you suddenly disavow VICE's journalistic practices now or something? Probably should've done that before you outed yourself as a handicap.

[JBlitz404]

granted but if you want to take this to semantics, an argument like yours with no effort and major involvement is surely just a temper tantrum

You're entirely clueless about the situation. I may have delved too deep in my own thoughts in the original thread this argument was formed in, but not to the point of OP and his friends themselves.

[Punished Toxicology]

You're entirely clueless about the situation. I may have delved too deep in my own thoughts in the original thread this argument was formed in, but not to the point of OP and his friends themselves.

i am intelligent

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

Oh, okay. Let's ignore the fact that several people who are in an argument since the beginning of the thread refuses to actually participate in one. You're only reading cherry-picked responses, that's not how an opinion should be formed, I'm for sure.

I've been following the politics thread since before you were posting in it. You think you know how to argue but you really, really don't. My advice is to wait on pushing your political views until you're a little older than 15 and have little more social experience under your belt. Give it a rest. You aren't accomplishing anything doing what you're doing.

There are no rules to an argument. An argument that is presented professionally is called a "debate". This is not a debate. 

Just because it's not a debate doesn't mean you don't have to have a coherent point. You've done a lot of stuffflinging, so if that makes you feel good I guess that's your prerogative. For real, chill out.

[beachbum111111]

I may have delved too deep in my own thoughts in the original thread

>Implying that you used any of your brainpower to stuff out your posts in the first place.

This is just sad.

[Drydess]

You're entirely clueless about the situation. I may have delved too deep in my own thoughts in the original thread this argument was formed in, but not to the point of OP and his friends themselves.

alright, ill back off if you're just reiterating the same thing

[JBlitz404]

< uses a sensationalist bias news source to prove he has the moral high ground
< gets called out for using a sensationalist bias news source in a political argument
< spends several pages of debate arguing in defense of sensationalist bias news source
< "I never said I supported them bro"

Moving the goalposts is one thing, this is just pathetic. So you suddenly disavow VICE's journalistic practices now or something? Probably should've done that before you outed yourself as a handicap.

Reading several articles and calling out wrong information presented about them means direct "support"? You're called only VICE biased, even though OP also linked incredibly-biased news sources. I was just showing who was in the wrong right there. OP's claims about those articles could be quickly backfired by a quick read through them all.

[JBlitz404]

>Implying that you used any of your brainpower to stuff out your posts in the first place.

This is just sad.

The irony just doesn't stop coming.

alright, ill back off if you're just reiterating the same thing

That's the point, though. It's all about proving who's wrong and who's right. Isn't that what an argument is? You clearly were participating in one, no matter how much you deny it.