1/15/2013 2:22 PM
Why do you keep repeating yourself and expect to get anywhere when you didn't before?
1/15/2013 2:24 PM
You've never answered that question.

That doesn't seem very honest and open minded of you, to go back and try to erase something that isn't convenient for your argument.

I know it's tough arguing something as stupid as"a young earth is equally as likely as an old one," but you gave it a good try. Good effort, kid.
1/15/2013 2:26 PM
My effort overwhelmed you so badly you gave up. You must feel terrible since you think the argument was stupid. Then again, you're clueless that you even lost.
1/15/2013 2:30 PM
If overwhelmed means responded directly two days later, then yes I was completely overwhelmed.

What words did I change, smart guy? Or did I forfeit that debate too?

By the way, congrats on this genius strategy. Start debate, ignore challenges and responses, declare victory and refuse to continue.

The only part I don't get is why you keep the threads going. You begged me to stop, quit posting on the weekends, but then always come back. 
1/15/2013 2:32 PM
Now you're trying to change the meaning of the word overwhelmed? That's the funniest thing you've tried yet. You really think you're quite the magician.

1/15/2013 2:34 PM
Yes, I was magically able to defeat your young earth arguments. It was SOOOOO hard.
1/15/2013 2:34 PM
That's what she said, by the way.
1/15/2013 2:35 PM
You want to magically make declarations and have them be true even when they aren't, and you just now tried to magically change the definition of the word overwhelmed.

Way to ignore yet another of your failures. Then again, that's what you're good at.

1/15/2013 2:36 PM
There's only one person ignoring reality here. Hint: he thinks a young earth is a possibility.
1/15/2013 3:39 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
We've been through all of this before. I already showed you everything you need if you really want the information you keep asking for.

Your failure to read has led to you losing a debate and revealing several failures I keep pointing out.

dahs,

You seem to think anyone who believes anything you don't agree with and stands up for it must be delusional. Either that or you want to call me delusional in a childish attempt to bully me into giving up. Either way it's ignorant.

It's not that you believe something stupid and scientifically unreasonable.  Or that you "stand up for it."  It's that you repeatedly refer people to posts of yours which do not exist.  And that you repeatedly refer to evidence which, similarly, does not exist.  And that you think you get to make up your own rules for debate.  I judged high school debate for years.  At the end of the round each debater's last act, if they were any good, was to explain why they felt they had won.  But that didn't make it true.  It is a fundamental premise of debate that the participants don't determine who wins, the outside observer decides who has been more persuasive.  In that case, I as the judge decided.  After the first presidential debate the initial statement out of the Obama campaign conveyed the idea that they thought their candidate had done a better job of expressing his views and had effectively "won" the debate.  That didn't make it true.  Even most of the liberal pundits admitted that it wasn't true, from the outside and objective perspective.

If you look back through this and the other threads, before it became completely ridiculous, and anyone other than you and bad_luck bothered to post, virtually everyone thought you not only were wrong but sounded ridiculous, stubborn, and as if you had no real evidence.  That means you lost the debate.  You don't decide that.  They do.  The random people without a dog in the fight who think you not only sound wrong but silly.  You can declare victory all you want, and you do, and that's a big part of what makes me convinced you're actually clinically delusional and not just a stubborn ***.

Unless, of course, you're just a massive troll, but I'm actually starting to find that less and less likely.
1/15/2013 3:43 PM
Also your continuous need to convince everyone that you're somehow "in control" of this discussion.  That's a huge red flag.

And the fact that you think you can convince everyone, somehow, that you aren't arrogant.  As if the mere fact that you had to spend numerous posts explaining it didn't basically prove you were wrong in the first place.

1/16/2013 8:57 AM
It's not that you believe something stupid and scientifically unreasonable.  Or that you "stand up for it."  It's that you repeatedly refer people to posts of yours which do not exist.

The posts I refer people to are there. Refusal to look for them or inability to find them because of less than diligent attempts to search on the part of others does not mean the post doesn't exist.
And that you repeatedly refer to evidence which, similarly, does not exist.
The evidence is there. I provided a tiny sliver of it and watched as ignorant people such as bad_luck tried to twist it into something it wasn't and also launched personal attacks.
And that you think you get to make up your own rules for debate.
I can only guess you are talking about my refusal to re-enter debate with bad_luck.

In that case, bad_luck tried to play games and twist what I had to say (he's done this multiple other times, but he certainly did so in this particular incident). For two weeks he kept insisting I said something I didn't and refusing to look up the actual information even though I told him he should do so on many occasions. He didn't respond to the real information for two weeks, and he has no excuse that he wasn't on the forums or didn't see the topic because he posted in it many times in that span. When I finally pointed out how he had given up and that made him effectively lose the debate, only then did he suddenly jump into action and want to address the real information. He had two weeks - that's more than enough. I'm not playing his games, so I decided I will not be debating him again. That is something which is entirely at my discretion.
It is a fundamental premise of debate that the participants don't determine who wins, the outside observer decides who has been more persuasive. 
There are no objective outside observers here (or at least none who have posted anything).
virtually everyone thought you not only were wrong but sounded ridiculous, stubborn, and as if you had no real evidence.
That's is for no other reason than my position is in the minority among those who viewed what I had to say. When you defend a non-mainstream opinion, naturally many people will disagree and will consider you to be "wrong, ridiculous, stubborn, and as if you (have) no real evidence".

None of it matters. Arguing that something is correct because the majority believe it is correct is a logical fallacy. You of all people should know that.
That means you lost the debate.  You don't decide that.  They do.
This isn't how debate works at all, as I just explained. If it were, then the proponents of majority and mainstream opinions would rarely lose simply because they are in favor of the majority or mainstream.

The real determination of a debate is who is able to successfully defend their own opinions. I have done that.
The random people without a dog in the fight who think you not only sound wrong but silly.
The problem is they DO "have a dog in the fight" if they have any opinion on the matter at all. Since there is virtually no one who can truly be objective, find me someone who agrees with my opinion but thinks I argued it ineffectively and then you can talk about someone who has a right to say I lost the debate.
Also your continuous need to convince everyone that you're somehow "in control" of this discussion.  That's a huge red flag.
The evidence is all there to show I have controlled the entire discussion. I get what I want from bad_luck at every turn. He entertains me while I refuse to do as he asks. This entire discussion has almost exclusively been me stringing him along for my own entertainment because I realize that he has to have the last word and can't help but to respond.
And the fact that you think you can convince everyone, somehow, that you aren't arrogant.  As if the mere fact that you had to spend numerous posts explaining it didn't basically prove you were wrong in the first place.
You can read whatever you want into any post you'd like and it doesn't make you right. I can assume you're a flying devil creature because only one of those would post the way you do, but it doesn't make me right, so I don't make such an assumption.

The fact is the only reason you think I'm arrogant is because I stand up to all the message board bullies when most people cave. You can't fight the mainstream or you must be arrogant. If you dare to defend your unpopular opinions, you are not only subjected to personal attacks and bullying attempts, but you are arrogant on top of it all. Believe me, I get that.

I just don't care. The moment you participated in the name calling and insult hurling bullying attempts of the ignorant portion of the majority, your opinion ceased to matter to me in any way, shape, or form. Your opinion of me is to me the equivalent of a neanderthal, or at best, a 14th century goon with a torch and a pitchfork. 

The same goes for everyone else who has no ability whatsoever to actually argue in a responsible manner without personal attacks and with the ability to agree to disagree. I haven't seen that from anyone on here yet.

1/16/2013 9:03 AM
1/16/2013 9:07 AM
Analyze this, Dr. Freud: **** it.
1/16/2013 9:07 AM
Idiots = Anyone bothering to respond to biz.

He's possibly an idiot also but, more likely, he's just seeing how long he can keep you dumbasses on the hook.

He, alone, is making me believe that this site is populated with drooling morons.
of 37

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.