«12. . .764765766767768769770. . .814815»
How about this since I just proved the starting factor of this argument that you were wrong we can either agree that we both have diffrent ideologys and we both disagree and not to argue in this way again or you can say no and be a sore looser who wants their way at everything and ignores someone asking them their proof
I'm not an idiot. I know it's in the constitution. But just because it is in the constitution doesn't make it right.
In what way did you prove that I was wrong xD
Sore loser? you still haven't shown me your evidence. You're the one making claims here, it's your job to prove them. You started this argument, not me.
Post self-deleted by Gotchia.
Yes or no and we can all live in peace say no and your going to have a bad time (or make it worse)
Once again, you began this argument, not me. and I believe I warned you when you came here not to provoke arguments with me. Regardless, I'm fine ending this argument, but I believe you're only doing so because you don't want to reveal your sources.
i see by the way you reply you said no
Don't take that Natan, he's undermining you're authority as our Emperor. Show him your true power!
Plus Australia isn't the ideal country, just their immigration policy. I like to pick and choose the best of all systems, lad - it's called logic.
your* lol
Post self-deleted by Gotchia.
I wanted both of us to stop because this argument is stupid anyways
That was started by you you deny the right you are given the right to vote and you still act like a spoiled brat because you lost and you don't like it. when oboma won we didn't riot and argue so stupidly we accepted it but you plain old don't accept it! You're better you rather live in N. Korea where the same canadate wins every year?
A few things:
1) Do not confuse acceptance with support. While one must accept this election and our next president, that does not mean they have to support it.
2) Natan does not support North Korean politics, and it is absurd to make such a comparison. http://i.imgur.com/eO0O7ER.jpg http://i.imgur.com/u2X5fG3.jpg http://i.imgur.com/DNqClKJ.jpg
3) Natan is not responsible for riots or the actions of SJWs. http://i.imgur.com/eO0O7ER.jpg http://i.imgur.com/DNqClKJ.jpg
4) Gotchia: http://i.imgur.com/ygxP5Ee.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg
5) Obama won the popular vote. Trump didn't. No comparison
6) Gotchia United states of natan: http://i.imgur.com/NJMFz0V.jpg
7) @Natan: http://i.imgur.com/N7X5uRf.jpg
Please avoid all logical fallacies in your arguments. Thanks!
That's a false assumption. You assume that "the way I reply" means I must not agree, despite saying in my post that I'm fine with ending the argument. However, it appears as though you're attempting to dodge my requests for evidence by trying to end the argument, perhaps out of fear you might lose.
In what way am I denying my rights? I voted, and I'm speaking up, as per my rights. And I'm not acting like a spoiled brat. I'm upset and angry. There's a difference, and I'm entirely within my rights to be upset, because a man, who lost the popular vote, who is basically a middle finger to all the values I believe in, is about to become President. I'm sure that if Hillary had won, then you and every other trump supporter would be just as upset, and you would certainly have a right to be upset if your candidate lost.
And when Obama won, you might have accepted it, but I'm certain that you weren't happy with it, nor did you support him.
And by the way, it was you who started the argument:
The argument began when you decided to begin attacking me by calling me a "SJW", claimed we are all "SJW's" and rioters, that we wanted a revote "until we won", and that we're all "crybabies" and that we don't understand we lost. I proceeded to correct you:
And from there, you began making absurd claims, after which, I asked you to provide evidence several times:
To which you responded in part by saying:
Which is an unreliable source, as you can't cite it, nor do I know if you're telling the truth about said source, for all I know, you're making it up. Regardless, you failed to provide so much as a link.
When I continued to question your argument, you then responded with:
Which is pretty much irrelevant to the issue at hand, and is little more than a strawman argument: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
When I made an argument in support of popularly electing the president:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
You then falsely claimed victory, offering to "neutrally" end the argument, calling me a sore loser if I refused:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
To which I responded that I would be willing to simply end the argument there with nobody winning:
You then responded:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
To summarize, You began this argument when I was simply stating my anger with regards to the election, and you then launched into an argument attacking me for being upset about it. when I made a reasonable argument, or requested you show your proof, you engaged in question dodging, or ad hominem attacks to deflect, refusing to simply show even one website validating your claims.
Fair enough. I'll let him provide his evidence. But to be fair, he was specifically refusing to provide evidence, there wasn't a simple lack of it.
How I collect my evedence is confusing time consuming to talk about however there's a place where there are people with the same ideologys as me, infowars.com or look up Paul Joseph Watson on YouTube!
Now I suggest we all act civilized and shut up if they do not shut up about this argument they will be the one to blame.
Infowars! lol! That site literally is fake news! and I've seen that guy on twitter. His account is pretty much fake news, lies, and outright BS.
Regardless, you must provide your evidence, I'm not going to look it up for you. The burden of proof rests with he who makes the claim.
That's not how you end an argument.
Natan you don't know what a ad hominem is. Let me give an example
"You're a stupid loser and therefore are wrong." This is an ad hominem fallacy.
"You're wrong and also a stupid loser." This is not an ad hominem fallacy.
Also he didn't use a no true scotsman. He also didn't ask a loaded question since he didn't imply you'd rather live in a North Korea like society but was asking if you would like to.
Info wars isn't wrong all the time. Why not go fact check info wars yourself instead of saying "it's fake news and I'm ignoring it with out checking that it is." and overgeneralizing a whole site? You're right about burden of proof though. I wish you would do it more often instead of posting a Samantha Bee video like its something sent from heaven.
Oh but you do all the time and have for the past eight months.
Also Gotchia, welcome. I am Slarvainian.
I like political science and philosophy and discuss topics like you have today regularly. I'm a classical liberal and would be interested in hearing and discussing your points of view. Feel free to TG me or post something on here.
Ironically enough, just finished watching a Watson video. I like his style, he makes some really good content at times.
Also Natan, the alt-right is a very small minority of trump supporters. I actually talked to people a year ago (before alt-right was popularized by Hillary's speech) that identified as alt-right, and they are not hardcore trump supporters. Most of them are white-supremacists or white-identitarians and would call trump a cuck.
I've indeed checked out links to that site in the past, and it's pretty much always been fake news. Regardless, he still needs to post the actual link to his claim, not just the site he says it's on.
Yes, that's how I know you don't end an argument like that. See that? I'm learning.
Again, learning.
I've seen his videos. not a fan.
«12. . .764765766767768769770. . .814815»
Advertisement
