Hey Forsaken

[Uggme]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

Good fucking god, are you seriously trying to assign debate style rules to RnF? I think Sam might be right. You ARE insane.

All you're doing here is dodging. Man up, and speak to the issue at hand. Or perhaps, as we've all seen numerous times before, your reading comprehension skills are so poor you don't even know what's going on and simply can't formulate a coherent reaponse.

I'm betting its the latter.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Uggme [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good fucking god, are you seriously trying to assign debate style rules to RnF? I think Sam might be right. You ARE insane.

All you're doing here is dodging. Man up, and speak to the issue at hand. Or perhaps, as we've all seen numerous times before, your reading comprehension skills are so poor you don't even know what's going on and simply can't formulate a coherent reaponse.

I'm betting its the latter.

It's logical rules. They exist in any medium if you want to debate an issue with any kind of rational ability. I already spoke to the issue at hand. Maybe you should read it and come up with a coherent reaponse.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's logical rules. They exist in any medium if you want to debate an issue with any kind of rational ability. I already spoke to the issue at hand. Maybe you should read it and come up with a coherent reaponse.

And where's the logic in reading a thread starting on page 16? Do you really think that just because you didn't read the other 15 pages you can deny they exist? I think that would be a requirement before you could logically try to argue with someone about it, but that didn't stop you, did it?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Uggme [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alarti doing his best to follow the tutelage of ole' Patches O'Houlihan

“Remember the 5 D's of dodgeball: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.”

Cowardly

Please tell me what I'm dodging?

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And where's the logic in reading a thread starting on page 16? Do you really think that just because you didn't read the other 15 pages you can deny they exist? I think that would be a requirement before you could logically try to argue with someone about it, but that didn't stop you, did it?

Do you really think by saying something exists then it does? You must be very religious too.

Thread is only 12 pages btw I looked through about 5 and didn't find Forsaken members... but then again I have no interest in proving your point for you. My position is valid unless you can prove it otherwise. You want me to debate forsaken members opinions relating to the IB suspension and how it justifies the Forsaken choice. I just want you to show me a Forsaken member posting that or I can't debate it.

I said in an earlier post that a flawed argument is flawed no matter who posts it. It's obvious I don't think the issues are related...you are just more interested in bias.

[Tiggles]

I for one enjoy the cloonies fighting because they pad my thread count.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Tiggles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I for one enjoy the cloonies fighting because they pad my thread count.

Shut up. You're getting in the way.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My position is valid

You have zero validity because you're arguing a tangent. Again. It's what you do. You find what you perceive to be a weakness and zero in on it until a thread is completely derailed. Why don't you tell me about how many pages there are in the thread on your screen again? Because that's what matters here, right?

You have no substance to your discussion, so you have to focus on the little battles. Since you're the one who brought up the debate rules, I'm going to have to say you'd suck at debating.

They don't allow tangents.

Your specialty appears to be filibuster.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have zero validity because you're arguing a tangent. Again. It's what you do. You find what you perceive to be a weakness and zero in on it until a thread is completely derailed. Why don't you tell me about how many pages there are in the thread on your screen again? Because that's what matters here, right?

You have no substance to your discussion, so you have to focus on the little battles. Since you're the one who brought up the debate rules, I'm going to have to say you'd suck at debating.

They don't allow tangents.

Your specialty appears to be filibuster.

Um you brought up the tangent I just went with you. You distracted from the argument by trying to affirm bias. It's not my fault that you couldn't affirm your position. I don't even have to debate you... you debate yourself. MPD?

You should probably take a break you are starting to confuse yourself. Of course if not I'm more than willing to be entertained by your idiocy.