A Time for Change

[falco10291029]

Ah crrap i just had a huge argument that it deleted for some reason, something about an invalid thread.....i geuss i have no choice but to remake it :'(

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

How is an attitude false...?

You were using an im smart attitude, im am saying that is wrong which implies you are dumb. Simple XD.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

Except that you're ignoring my points and responding with this incoherent blathering. Hypocrisy? I think so!

I don't. Your points are incomplete and you'd be better off saying "your wrong because im always right!" Basically you just say what a republic is, well Zormite has elected a leader at least once, so it is therefore a republic. Your points are disproved and thereby what i say is not blathering as you call it, but pointing out that you cannot sucessfully defend a point.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

I have already, doofus. My argument is that the name is inaccurate. I provided supporting evidence and an explanation of why it is such. Other folks are introducing other irrelevant information and are misunderstanding my point. Some are confusing me with other people. I'm a patient guy, so it doesn't terribly bother me. Pointing out where people are making this mistake is growing annoying, though.

Ah, upgrading yourself to a you suck argument, ah well. As I just explained, the name is NOT inaccurate. None of the information is irrelevant, you just dont like it because it isnt the same exact thing.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

This is a pretty awesome statement right here. Care to explain?

of course, for any other people who cant comprehend simple things, you may also wanna read this:
Any points you make cannot POSSIBLY have sufficient evidence, unless you find a law that says "Lance is right and you must listen to him", whichj no one intheir right mind would make. Most things you say though are just repeats of what you just sed, all your threads are basically:
Name is wrong, your points are wrong, thats irrelevant.
I consider that to not make sense.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

Then can you please tell me just how is it relevant? That's all I'm asking. If you're so right, it should be relatively easy to explain. Otherwise, you're just slinging baseless statements.

*Laughs and wonders how so much stupidityu ended up in one place*
Anyway, it is showing similar events that have been accepted by the masses, and showing ones that are even more against their names, and that thoise should be argued about before Zormite Republic is. Also the global warming thing, it is basically showing you, the 2% just saying is not over and over, also relevant. You cannot just throw things away and call them irrelevant because they show examples, actually that is the opposite of what any good lawyer/judge/anyone with an iq over room temp, would do.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

You kinda need to work on that 'making sense' part.

As for me not making sense, no, you just cannot comprehend simple things for some odd reason i have yet to find! I am saying someone saying you suck has a better argument than you do, duh!

[Lance]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

ou were using an im smart attitude, im am saying that is wrong which implies you are dumb. Simple XD.

No, you said that my attitude "was the opposite of the truth". An attitude does not possess a truth value.

And, I am smart. Would you say otherwise?

I don't. Your points are incomplete and you'd be better off saying "your wrong because im always right!"

Can you point me in that direction? Else you're just spewing more baseless allegations.

Basically you just say what a republic is, well Zormite has elected a leader at least once, so it is therefore a republic.

Let's examine this statement.

Your statement rests on the premise that a government is a republic if a leader is elected at any point in time, regardless of what happens after that.

Do you see the problem here?

Your points are disproved and thereby what i say is not blathering as you call it, but pointing out that you cannot sucessfully defend a point.

That's nice, but you were blathering incoherently. You still haven't shown where my points were disproved, either. More of these baseless statements - you're good at that.

Ah, upgrading yourself to a you suck argument, ah well.

Not an argument, but a label. My point rests not on that label.

As I just explained, the name is NOT inaccurate.

And as I just explained, your reasoning is so horribly flawed that I will not even begin to comment on it.

None of the information is irrelevant, you just dont like it because it isnt the same exact thing.

Either demonstrate the relevance or stop making these unqualified cliams.

of course, for any other people who cant comprehend simple things, you may also wanna read this:
Any points you make cannot POSSIBLY have sufficient evidence, unless you find a law that says "Lance is right and you must listen to him", whichj no one intheir right mind would make.

So I cannot possibly be right, no matter what I do? Do you see the flaws in this reasoning?

Most things you say though are just repeats of what you just sed,

I really can't help it if some people are too slow to get it the first time.

all your threads are basically:
Name is wrong, your points are wrong, thats irrelevant.
I consider that to not make sense.

Uh, I've justified everything I've said that has been questioned. I cannot, however, say the same for you.

*Laughs and wonders how so much stupidityu ended up in one place*

I wonder, too.

Anyway, it is showing similar events that have been accepted by the masses, and showing ones that are even more against their names, and that thoise should be argued about before Zormite Republic is.

So because other people accepted a possibly inaccurate name, so too should I accept this one? I ask you again, do you see the flaws in this reasoning?

Also the global warming thing, it is basically showing you, the 2% just saying is not over and over,

What?

also relevant.

How?

You cannot just throw things away and call them irrelevant because they show examples, actually that is the opposite of what any good lawyer/judge/anyone with an iq over room temp, would do.

Man, I can call them irrelevant because they are. They're examples of other possibly inaccurate things or examples of other debates. Neither of these things have much of a bearing on the current debate, unless there's some thin connection that someone can actually get around to demonstrating.

As for me not making sense, no, you just cannot comprehend simple things for some odd reason i have yet to find!

No, you simply cannot phrase things in an eloquent manner. Your typing skills could use some work too, but this is just another 'YOU SUcK' argument too, right?

I am saying someone saying you suck has a better argument than you do, duh!

Sigh.