Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Stealth Moose is someone I put high up there.

King Kandy, Dadudemon, inimalist, and Cartesian Doubt are/were all giants.

Probably Robtard (besides his McClane bias), Stealth Moose, Omega Vision, Stoic, inimalist, and DDM. I would like to include myself but I won't for objectivity's sake.

I don't know about best debater, but inimalist was probably the smartest.

Dadudemon.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't know about best debater, but inimalist was probably the smartest.





One time, I thought I was smart regarding a niche topic and then inimalist starting talking about that niche topic with deftness and clarity. I thought, "Holy shit! This guy is knows stuff about everything!"


Edit - That topic? Keyloggers.

Digi is pretty good. I agree with most (but not all) of the above that they are healthy when making arguments.

Originally posted by dadudemon




One time, I thought I was smart regarding a niche topic and then inimalist starting talking about that niche topic with deftness and clarity. I thought, "Holy shit! This guy is knows stuff about everything!"


Edit - That topic? Keyloggers. You lovable geek.

Quan, hands down.

Do I get brownies for being able to comprehend and challenge the knowledge of some of the best debaters armed only with tons of random facts read, culminated with my ability to take these concepts to higher depths on very few clues?

There comes a point where the only way very pedantic details on a subject can't make sense unless years have been spent on becoming an expert in one thing as opposed to letting everything seep in far below the level of expertise, as I have. To be a polymath is to expand your mind, literally, and become an expert on many matters. You do expand your brain-power, literally, your analytic cognition becomes quicker and sharper as you switch from one way of thinking to another. Fluid intelligence.

The reason inimalist is so intelligent is because his field is intelligence, neuroscience and psychology. The best scientific field, you're learning what intelligence is. Then you have physics in general, heavy utilization of applied mathematics, you get into the mechanics of everything, though not quite as applied as in engineering. Raw mathematics is the most logical of all sciences. As an autist I could probably take that field further than most, as far as expertise is concerned.

Dolos is the best debater.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Dolos is the best debater. On the few occasions in which I have debated both diligently and sincerely, perhaps. I don't do that consistently like the others.

Surprised there are no self nominations yet.

Digi is pretty mych tops in the gen forums. DarkSaint85 in the versus forum...

Based on credentials, Digi is probably both more experienced in and accustomed to analytic argumentation than anyone else here. The more you put in, the more you have to show for it.

There is a by-the-book procedure to argumentation, believe it or not.

Whenever Digi carries out a debate, you can bet he's going by the book.

This is a former English professor, mind you.

Stealth Moose is the same way, as is Astner. Astner's rather sloppy and boisterous about it though.

For that matter, Shakyamunison will catch you on false comparisons, generalizations, and what-not. Often only argues with people who aren't there to argue so much as preach. Which is me most of the time.

Astner along with Nemebro are good at engaging discussions, they size up poor claims rather well and are good at disarming them. I wouldn't say either is necessarily the best, but some people have a rather negative image of them both and won't give them the props they deserve. That is a good reason to be mentioned here.

Digi and Ushgarak as far as active members.

Victor Von Doom would be up there as well, though he's no longer active.

I don't think there's an overall best debater on KMC Forums.
Everyone here has a topic(s) that interests them more than others.
I will list members who I think are the best in some of these fora that I frequently visit.

Mr. Master from the Comic VS forum
Digi in the Computer / Video Games forum
inimalist in the General Discussion forum
Dadudemon in the OTF
NemeBro in almost every forum I visit, who I also consider the best troll

I always found these kinds of thread childish. They seem to mostly crop up in vs. forums, which are already somewhat pathetic in their own regard.

Threads on KMC, exempting perhaps the vs. forums, should not be structured like debates. They are discussions, people with different opinions voicing those, hopefully in an attempt to learn and improve. It's true that they often do devolve into a us vs. them, but in general I don't think what we do is debating in any real, formal sense.

Additionally I don't think that opinions are swayed in single debates, and emphasis on them is misguided.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I always found these kinds of thread childish. They seem to mostly crop up in vs. forums, which are already somewhat pathetic in their own regard.

Threads on KMC, exempting perhaps the vs. forums, should not be structured like debates. They are discussions, people with different opinions voicing those, hopefully in an attempt to learn and improve. It's true that they often do devolve into a us vs. them, but in general I don't think what we do is debating in any real, formal sense.

Additionally I don't think that opinions are swayed in single debates, and emphasis on them is misguided.

Way to go off topic Bardock ermm

I think giving credit to those who have done some enjoyable and entertaining discussions among us is not childish. The replies can be trollish/limited, but it's a misguided notion to put the thread itself in that concept. Just read the previous posts, most of them are level-headed and honest comments.

Single best who's still active? First impression: toss 'tween dadudemon and Digi.

Originally posted by Bentley
Way to go off topic Bardock ermm

I think giving credit to those who have done some enjoyable and entertaining discussions among us is not childish. The replies can be trollish/limited, but it's a misguided notion to put the thread itself in that concept. Just read the previous posts, most of them are level-headed and honest comments.

I reject the premise of the thread though.

And that's what I mean, if we are talking about enjoyable post that's one thing. But threads in the GDF shouldn't be "debates", imo. People here don't debate arbitrary sides on arbitrary topics.

I mean, I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, I understand lots of people enjoy these kinds of threads (best debater in forum x), I just find them silly, and I don't think they adequately reflect forum culture.

They don't reflect forum culture as a whole, but they reflect a part of forum culture. Excluding it by principle would be random.

Again, talking about the best debater isn't necessarily about who has done the best debates, but about who has the qualities needed to be a good debater (being good at expressing point of views, sticking to arguments, refraining from personal attacks). This can be applied to any place fit to have people engaging in discussions. Forums about open topics are more than fit to spot these qualities.

I don't exclude it, I dismiss it as juvenile.

I have further issues with what even constitutes someone who is good at debating. To me, long term sway is by far the most important aspect of discussions on important topics, which I find hard to quantify at any rate.

Like with rating things on a scale, I think the issue is that we are comparing completely different things. Your idea of a "best debater" is not the same as my idea of a "best debater", and yet these threads treat them all the same.

For what its worth i think Bardock42 is doing what should be done in any thread: sparking discussion, voicing his opinion, playing a bit of devil's advocate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't exclude it, I dismiss it as juvenile.

It doesn't need to be. I don't think that's the direction the thread is taking (well, we are kind of deviating from the original spirit), hence my first comment. But obviously you can have a different perception on the subject, I definitively see how talking about "the best" on "any topic" goes quickly to over simplification.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like with rating things on a scale, I think the issue is that we are comparing completely different things. Your idea of a "best debater" is not the same as my idea of a "best debater", and yet these threads treat them all the same.

Yes, but just like in many other subjective discussions, the generalizations are only ridiculous when they detract from the truth. I can tell you that Borges wrote excellent books, and your opinion of what constitutes an excellent literary work may differ from mine, buf if you haven't been paying attention to that particular author, my comment could prove useful.

Comparing debaters or literary works may be vain, or even misleading, but it isn't necessarily meaningless.

Also, I think the idea of us having different considerations and experiences is understood from the get to go when the question is asked. That criticism can apply to any range of discussions.

If I wasn't dealt slices of humble pie on an alarmingly regular basis irl, this thread would probably go to my head. I appreciate the shout-outs, though. Particularly Oneness's post where I'm apparently a professor. Entirely untrue, but nice to know I'm getting imaginary promotions based on my work on an internet discussion forum.

I tend not to think in terms of debate. I talk with people here; nothing more. So I don't have a go-to "this guy was the best." Inamilist has been mentioned a lot, and I'll happily cosign. I'd go into discussions with him knowing he could likely pull me out of my element in a hurry.

The truest debating I've done has been in comic tourneys, where several are my equal or superiors. Leonidas is always excellent. I had a particular envy for Darkcrawler's debating skill in tourneys, though he's not been active for years. Several others with tourney accolades - Scoobless, Blair Wind, Charlotte, Id, Psycho_Gundam, Smurph, others I'm forgetting - as well. I'm not as clever as most of them when it comes to strategies.

I'll be honest and say I don't pay enough attention to vs. battles to have many opinions there. There are likely good debaters I'm leaving out, simply because I'm unaware of their posts.

DDM
The Chill Digi
Omega
Bentley
Dolls
Operator616
Lest

Originally posted by Bardock42
I always found these kinds of thread childish. They seem to mostly crop up in vs. forums, which are already somewhat pathetic in their own regard.

Threads on KMC, exempting perhaps the vs. forums, should not be structured like debates. They are discussions, people with different opinions voicing those, hopefully in an attempt to learn and improve. It's true that they often do devolve into a us vs. them, but in general I don't think what we do is debating in any real, formal sense.

Additionally I don't think that opinions are swayed in single debates, and emphasis on them is misguided.

You are just mad cause you didn't get nominated.

Here: Bardock, the forum's bias liberal poster and resident cultural and racial expert for living in Maine for 6 months.

Thank you, that's all I wanted.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Here: Bardock, the forum's bias liberal poster and resident cultural and racial expert for living in Maine for 6 months.

haha, h-holy shit!


Originally posted by Bardock42
Thank you, that's all I wanted.

You deserved a nomination, imo.



Bardock42, remember this exchange?


Originally posted by dadudemon
The movie goers in New Jersey all clapped when he did the Hulk Smash...it was obviously in there for the fans.


Originally posted by Bardock42
****ING CHRIST, we get it dadudemon. YOU WATCHED THE ****ING MOVIE IN JERSEY. GET ****ING OVER IT!



Top-notch debating skills.

Edit - I was being serious. That was hilarious/awesome.

Going into this thread I thought it would be full of LoLz; it's not full of LoLz, just a few LoLz here and there. KMC, you've disappointed me once again

Originally posted by Robtard
Going into this thread I thought it would be full of LoLz; it's not full of LoLz, just a few LoLz here and there. KMC, you've disappointed me once again

I think the funniest part is that you had expectations to begin with.

Originally posted by Digi
I think the funniest part is that you had expectations to begin with.

The funniest part is clean-up time after Chewbacca gets done pooping.

http://pad2.whstatic.com/images/thumb/7/70/Remove-Gum-from-Carpet-Step-15-Version-2.jpg/670px-Remove-Gum-from-Carpet-Step-15-Version-2.jpg

Pr3sBks5o_8

Originally posted by Digi
I think the funniest part is that you had expectations to begin with.

I'm a LoL-optimist

There are plenty of posters mentioned in this thread that are horrible debaters that couldn't tell the difference between a formal and an informal fallacy to save their lives; and that's not mentioning their constant misuse of fallacies in the first place. On the top of my mind we have Omega Vision who didn't know what a straw man was until a week ago, and dadudemon got so upset after one of our debates that he started to reply to ever post I made to start another debate. It got so bad that I eventually had to block him.

I'm pretty much the only poster here that follows debate decorum and academic rhetoric.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I always found these kinds of thread childish. They seem to mostly crop up in vs. forums, which are already somewhat pathetic in their own regard.

Threads on KMC, exempting perhaps the vs. forums, should not be structured like debates. They are discussions, people with different opinions voicing those, hopefully in an attempt to learn and improve. It's true that they often do devolve into a us vs. them, but in general I don't think what we do is debating in any real, formal sense.

Additionally I don't think that opinions are swayed in single debates, and emphasis on them is misguided. I'm too immature to label threads like these "childish", but I'm not overly fond of them myself tbh. Not enough people name me I'd agree that there's an us vs. them mentality that is anathema to actually generating intelligent conversation, and I'll admit that I'm a victim of this mentality myself (I have often entered threads, looked at the opinions being discussed, and then championed an opinion contrary to most people or a specific person just to **** with them, though that could just be me being a trolling shithead).

I honestly couldn't really name a single best debater (though I really don't think of people as "debaters" anymore, just posters) on the forum because it is impossible to quantify. I tend to think Omega Vision is pretty good. I think Digi's a **** (not really though, I don't know if we've ever interacted beyond me calling him a **** and claiming he would beat the shit out of Delph in a fight), but he usually knows what he is talking about. Robtard is a shitfaced ****er like me but he's also clever and can present his case well when he wants to. Blax is even more of a shitfaced trolling ****er (maybe even more than me), but I've always respected him as a debater more than almost everyone else (this could be because we're dating though). Gideon, though sarcastic and irreverent, has always been good, as is Stealth Moose. I don't always agree with Q99's shitty opinions but she has always presented her case very well, and uniquely she is probably the most polite poster I've personally debated. dadudemon, despite being a ****, certainly knows more about how discussions and debates work than most posters (which is what makes him such an effective troll).

I'm sure there are more I've forgotten over the years (and maybe even some current posters who are good), but those are a few who come to mind. In the forums that I've frequented anyway, I've never really been a big GDF poster because I am mentally off-balance and don't understand other people well enough to comment on discussions about shit that is actually real or important.

Astner of course is the worst debater on the forum, but we all knew that.

Actually, I might credit Galan for his resourcefulness and informal presentations. But I've never really seen him put in a position where he had to debate formally.

I forgot Galan. He's good, yeah.

Not sure but you get points if you can avoid namecalling and memes

There's a new poster named Alpha Debater. Let us see if they can live up to their name.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Robtard is a shitfaced ****er like me but he's also clever and can present his case well when he wants to.

Originally posted by Astner


I'm pretty much the only poster here that follows debate decorum and academic rhetoric.

Your only charm is that you have your own head firmly lodged up your own ass and you're the only one who doesn't see it (cause your head is in your ass, see).

Originally posted by dadudemon
The funniest part is clean-up time after Chewbacca gets done pooping.

http://pad2.whstatic.com/images/thumb/7/70/Remove-Gum-from-Carpet-Step-15-Version-2.jpg/670px-Remove-Gum-from-Carpet-Step-15-Version-2.jpg

Pr3sBks5o_8 Don't make me change my vote.

Originally posted by Astner
There are plenty of posters mentioned in this thread that are horrible debaters that couldn't tell the difference between a formal and an informal fallacy to save their lives; and that's not mentioning their constant misuse of fallacies in the first place. On the top of my mind we have Omega Vision who didn't know what a straw man was until a week ago, and dadudemon got so upset after one of our debates that he started to reply to ever post I made to start another debate. It got so bad that I eventually had to block him.

I'm pretty much the only poster here that follows debate decorum and academic rhetoric.
See I recall knowing what a strawman was and being quoted some kind of Swedish mutation thereof a few weeks ago that sounded bogus. Nice try though.

For the record: a strawman is when a debater construes his opponent's argument in a way that makes it either ridiculous or easy to refute. If you were a native English speaker, you'd understand that this comes from a notion of a person bringing up a straw representation of an opponent and proceeding to beat it around, with the suggestion that this is how the actual fight would go.

You claimed, and I can quote you on this, that the strawman fallacy is the refutation of a misrepresentation, which is a lot like calling a disease an 'antidote.'



So, seeing as you tried to impugn me in this thread without provocation, I might as well throw off civility and tell you to STFU, you ignorant Swede.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
See I recall knowing what a strawman was and being quoted some kind of Swedish mutation thereof a few weeks ago that sounded bogus. Nice try though.
You can defend your ego all day long, I'm not here to make you feel bad. As long as you won't make the same mistake I'm fine.

Both what Astner said and what Omega Vision said are the same thing. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Both what Astner said and what Omega Vision said are the same thing. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is.
How is that the case? He thinks that the fallacy is the refutation of the fallacy.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
ignorant Swede.

Redundant

Originally posted by NemeBro
Both what Astner said and what Omega Vision said are the same thing. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is.
He's misrepresenting what he actually said in that thread. Omega Vision can link it for you, if his ego allows it.

Originally posted by Astner
ego
Says the guy who nominates himself.
Originally posted by Astner
There are plenty of posters mentioned in this thread that are horrible debaters that couldn't tell the difference between a formal and an informal fallacy to save their lives; and that's not mentioning their constant misuse of fallacies in the first place. On the top of my mind we have Omega Vision who didn't know what a straw man was until a week ago, and dadudemon got so upset after one of our debates that he started to reply to ever post I made to start another debate. It got so bad that I eventually had to block him.

I'm pretty much the only poster here that follows debate decorum and academic rhetoric.

I'm going to just anxiously sit here and wait until this thread becomes a fierce debate that proves those nominated deserve the title.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Both what Astner said and what Omega Vision said are the same thing. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is.

This is exactly the kind of posting that makes you one of my favorites. Brilliant.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Stealth Moose is someone I put high up there.

Where exactly did Stealth go?

SM was a sock of mine

Where is the strawperson (strawman is sexist) thread so we can all judge for ourselves?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Where is the strawperson (strawman is sexist) thread so we can all judge for ourselves?

You are that person, now take your clothes off.

Originally posted by Robtard
SM was a sock of mine
Explains the smell.

Originally posted by Astner
Explains the smell.

That foulness you're smelling is the doodoo caked on your upper lip

Originally posted by Robtard
That foulness you're smelling is the doodoo caked on your upper lip
Your toilet humor is as refreshing as ever.

Originally posted by Astner
Your toilet humor is as refreshing as ever.

Remember the last time you tried acting like a smugphag at my expense?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is that the case? He thinks that the fallacy is the refutation of the fallacy.
"You claimed, and I can quote you on this, that the strawman fallacy is the refutation of a misrepresentation, which is a lot like calling a disease an 'antidote.'"

Yes, a strawman fallacy is when someone refutes a misrepresentation that the person refuting made. They created a misrepresentation (a "straw man" of someone's point or argument and proceeded to debate against that (likely because it is easier to do so, as you said), rather than what their opponent actually said.

I still don't see the misunderstanding tbh.

me???? crying1

Originally posted by Astner
Your toilet humor is as refreshing as ever.

iirc toilet water is said to be the cleanest water in a home. Unless you own a brita filter. Either way good analogy.

I like the direction this thread is heading...

Originally posted by NemeBro
"You claimed, and I can quote you on this, that the strawman fallacy is the refutation of a misrepresentation, which is a lot like calling a disease an 'antidote.'"

Yes, a strawman fallacy is when someone refutes a misrepresentation that the person refuting made. They created a misrepresentation (a "straw man" of someone's point or argument and proceeded to debate against that (likely because it is easier to do so, as you said), rather than what their opponent actually said.

I still don't see the misunderstanding tbh.
I've never seen any source that made a distinction between 'strawman' and 'strawman fallacy' (excepting the literal, physical strawman, like a scarecrow). Nor have I ever read that 'fallacy' meant 'refutation.'

All the definitions of fallacy that I can find identify it as faulty reasoning or faulty beliefs based on unsound logic. It would make no sense to describe a logical refutation of something illogical with a word that means 'illogical reasoning.'

It's sort of like all the times people call Frankenstein's Monster "Frankenstein"

I am.

The end.

strawman link plz

Originally posted by Bardock42
strawman link plz

http://independentaustralia.net/wordpress-opt/wp-content/2012/11/Strawman.png

Give it breasts and a womb so that Bardock will be happy.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Give it breasts and a womb so that Bardock will be happy.

I feel as though you are taking a jab at Bardock42's feminism.

cry

Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel as though you are taking a jab at Bardock42's feminism.

cry
It's all in good fun. Bardock is very zealous about his feminism, but I respect him for it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I always found these kinds of thread childish. They seem to mostly crop up in vs. forums, which are already somewhat pathetic in their own regard.

Threads on KMC, exempting perhaps the vs. forums, should not be structured like debates. They are discussions, people with different opinions voicing those, hopefully in an attempt to learn and improve. It's true that they often do devolve into a us vs. them, but in general I don't think what we do is debating in any real, formal sense.

Additionally I don't think that opinions are swayed in single debates, and emphasis on them is misguided. i agree man i feel like a lot of the time people take shit too serious and are more concerned with how they look as opposed to trying to take into consideration what the other person is trying to say to them. any time i have pointed this out i've been greeted with a "you too" type of response because basically nobody is ever willing to lose face but i feel like if prompted i could easily point out examples of where i conceded a serious point and changed my mind cause my opponent actually had the right argument to make me do so.

Any wealthy KMC member could easily become the greatest debater on this website.

Firstly: gain knowledge about a lot of subjects hotly debated about here by reading hundreds of books rich with information on said subjects. Improve reading speed and comprehension.

Secondly: Pay an extremely successful author to train you how to create master essays.

Thirdly: Pay one of the most prestigious and eminent lawyers in the world to take you to advanced expert level debater. Lawyers are among the best debaters in the world.

Originally posted by Oneness
Any wealthy KMC member could easily become the greatest debater on this website.

Firstly: gain knowledge about a lot of subjects hotly debated about here by reading hundreds of books rich with information on said subjects. Improve reading speed and comprehension.

Secondly: Pay an extremely successful author to train you how to create master essays.

Thirdly: Pay one of the most prestigious and eminent lawyers in the world to take you to advanced expert level debater. Lawyers are among the best debaters in the world.

I've achieved all of this and I didn't have to spend dollar one

Originally posted by Robtard
I've achieved all of this and I didn't have to spend dollar one If you don't read you can't acquire the knowledge.

If you don't develop expertise you cannot become an expert, expertise can be self-taught, but more can be utilized when academic instruction is provided, and the best academic instruction comes from the experts.

You can't just know, nor can you be innately skillful; you can develop faster than others, that is called being a prodigy. Some prodigies are even quicker in development than others. However, without putting forth ample active effort, even the greatest prodigy is still in the dark. You did not put forth ample dollars and effort, you did not do enough, you cannot be that good.

I am.

But if you disagree, I'm ok with that...you're probably right.

Originally posted by Oneness
Thirdly: Pay one of the most prestigious and eminent lawyers in the world to take you to advanced expert level debater. Lawyers are among the best debaters in the world.

I have to argue with lawyers regarding contracts and contract law on nearly a weekly basis. So I win, right?

Originally posted by Oneness
If you don't read you can't acquire the knowledge.

If you don't develop expertise you cannot become an expert, expertise can be self-taught, but more can be utilized when academic instruction is provided, and the best academic instruction comes from the experts.

You can't just know, nor can you be innately skillful; you can develop faster than others, that is called being a prodigy. Some prodigies are even quicker in development than others. However, without putting forth ample active effort, even the greatest prodigy is still in the dark. You did not put forth ample dollars and effort, you did not do enough, you cannot be that good.

But Robtard is that good

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have to argue with lawyers regarding contracts and contract law on nearly a weekly basis. So I win, right? You're merely a computer programmer.

You are in a position to make a deal that mass-sells a product (system) in which you developed. In that situation you're likely to be able to acquire the know-how through the three-pronged method I proposed and be well on your way to becoming KMC's greatest debater.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have to argue with lawyers regarding contracts and contract law on nearly a weekly basis. So I win, right?


Oh shut up already

Originally posted by Robtard
But Robtard is that good Never start a sentence with 'but'.

It appears choppy to the reader.

Originally posted by Oneness
Never start a sentence with 'but'.

It appears choppy to the reader. Robbie is not very bright. I don't expect much out of him.

Originally posted by Oneness
Never start a sentence with 'but'.

It appears choppy to the reader.

But it's true

And there's no formal rule that you shouldn't start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction

So Robtard wins again

Originally posted by quanchi112
Robbie is not very bright. I don't expect much out of him.

Staying up late and following me around again. I literally own all your time, you're basically mine to do with as I wish

See what I mean. He is persistent but intellectually challenged. He even forgot a period.

Originally posted by Robtard
Staying up late and following me around again. I literally own all your time, you're basically mine to do with as I wish Oh hush up. I acknowledged that you're an idiot and agreed with him. Take your stupidity out of this thread.

Thank you for proving my point, tiny servant

ps I'm heading over to the TV forum next, you'll follow, you can't resist rage-posting wherever I post

Originally posted by Robtard
Thank you for proving my point, tiny servant

ps I'm heading over to the TV forum next, you'll follow, you can't resist rage-posting wherever I post I agreed with another poster about you. Try not to take it personally, insecure tiny man.

Never thinking for yourself, glad you openly admit it, tracer

Originally posted by Robtard
Never thinking for yourself, glad you openly admit it, tracer I came to the conclusion you weren't that smart a long time ago. I am glad he reached the same conclusion.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I came to the conclusion you weren't that smart a long time ago. It am glad he reached the same conclusion.

Insults someone's intelligence, then types out: "It am glad"

Epic fail again, Oompa

Originally posted by Robtard
Insults someone's intelligence, then types out: "It am glad"

Epic fail again, Oompa I just edited it out. You really are threatened by me and march to the beat of my drum.

Openly admitting you do my bidding, good

"It am glad" -Quanchi112

Originally posted by Robtard
Openly admitting you do my bidding, good

"It am glad" -Quanchi112 Ipad made a mistake. I rarely if ever proofread my posts.

You are so small both in stature and in mind.

Quanchi just can't handle someone else (Dolos) giving Robtard their attention. What a jealous woman.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Quanchi just can't handle someone else (Dolos) giving Robtard their attention. What a jealous woman. Stay out of my affairs, boy.

Robtard is a ***** who gets passed around these parts.

Ease up dude, I wasn't eyeing your man. I don't date filthy spicks married men.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Quanchi just can't handle someone else (Dolos) giving Robtard their attention. What a jealous woman.

#truthistruth

Originally posted by NemeBro
Ease up dude, I wasn't eyeing your man. I don't date filthy spicks married men. He is quite filthy and rather short for a man(if that is what you want to call it).

Originally posted by Robtard
there's no formal rule that you shouldn't start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction What is your point?

A correct usage of grammar can appear sloppy.

Originally posted by Oneness
What is your point?

A correct usage of grammar can appear sloppy.

Exactly what I said, that

A way to remember them:

For
And
Nor
But
Or
Yet
So

I do not believe that you're entirely sober right now, "Robbie".

I don't drink alcohol, do drugs, vape or smoke. Also not on any meds, "Dolie"

Robtard licks toad ass.

He was able to remain incredibly calm about my isolated incident of manic rage which was centered around him for no apparent reason, calmer than he was with Quanchi just now.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You claimed, and I can quote you on this, that the strawman fallacy is the refutation of a misrepresentation, which is a lot like calling a disease an 'antidote.'

What he meant (I think) is that Strawman takes the form of a refutation (an uncalled one). The person that tries to use the fallacy "to their advantage" is proposing an argument that the other person never sustained and refutes it as if it was to prove something and one up the other debater. You misrepresent the argument of the other side and then proceed to refute the misrepresentation.

This is perfectly consistent on what a strawman is.

Originally posted by Robtard
And there's no formal rule that you shouldn't start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction Here we see someone using a loosely related fact to justify his usage of sloppy grammar.

Exemplar strawman.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's all in good fun. Bardock is very zealous about his feminism, but I respect him for it.

If strawmen were oppressed I'd support them as well!

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't drink alcohol, do drugs, vape or smoke. Also not on any meds, "Dolie"

Butt you beat the meat to Rico daily.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't drink alcohol, do drugs, vape or smoke. Also not on any meds, "Dolie"

CM Robtard

Originally posted by Quincy
CM Robtard

Certified Midwife?

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't drink alcohol, do drugs, vape or smoke. Also not on any meds, "Dolie"
So you're like me, except for the fact that I'll one-up you with the fact that I've never had a drop of alcohol, a whiff of a cigarette, etc. oh, and I'm a pescetarian.

Originally posted by Oneness
You're merely a computer programmer.

Lol, no. I have employees that do application development, sure. But I am not a programmer.


Originally posted by Robtard
Oh shut up already

313

You're just jealous because I meet Oness' arbitrary definitions of a good debater and you don't.

Originally posted by Robtard
Certified Midwife?

No, Cock Muncher, clearly. awesome

Originally posted by dadudemon
Lol, no. I have employees that do application development, sure. But I am not a programmer.

Even better.

Originally posted by Astner
So you're like me, except for the fact that I'll one-up you with the fact that I've never had a drop of alcohol, a whiff of a cigarette, etc. oh, and I'm a pescetarian.

I'm sure you've had alcohol in some fashion, many foods contain it in some quantity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
313

You're just jealous because I meet Oness' arbitrary definitions of a good debater and you don't.



No, Cock Muncher, clearly. awesome

Wut? Oneness thinks Robtard is the Kwisatz Haderach of debaters.

Well I've never.

I'm not an arbitrator, I merely create that which arbitrators enforce.

I'm a gift-giver, like Kris Kringle and Saint Nicholas. I give the gift that keeps on giving. The gift of knowledge. Everyday is Christmas in my basement secret base.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm not an arbitrator, I merely create that which arbitrators enforce.

I'm a gift-giver, like Kris Kringle and Saint Nicholas. I give the gift that keeps on giving. The gift of knowledge. Everyday is Christmas in my basement secret base.

I don't want no trouble, give me that base.

Originally posted by Digi
Oneness thinks I'm a professor. So...agreed in full.

Or was it former high-school English teacher?

At least I have some idea of the credentials of KMC's most prestigious debaters for some reason. Probably because they're the only ones with credentials and therefore enjoy flaunting them around around like the tools they are.

I lack credentials but make up for it in deductive and inductive reasoning. I possess true analytic power.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't want no trouble, give me that bass. Xk-n1zrPkIo

So who are the top three at least? Let's have a debate-off. We'll all debate each other so hard and post sexy polls and then have us a good smoke.

Except Aestner because I want to keep up his record of never having a whiff of cigarettes going

I only smoke green k.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm a gift-giver, like Kris Kringle and Saint Nicholas.

Those are the same person...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Those are the same person... Kringle=/=Nicholas...

Jesus=/=Yahshua...

Jehova=/=Yahweh...

One cannot worship Santa as both Kringle and Saint Nick...

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/Bardock42/stewieheadtilt_zpshytbxrlu.gif

mDefcV8ufJg

Originally posted by Oneness
Or was it former high-school English teacher?

At least I have some idea of the credentials of KMC's most prestigious debaters for some reason. Probably because they're the only ones with credentials and therefore enjoy flaunting them around around like the tools they are.

I lack credentials but make up for it in deductive and inductive reasoning. I possess true analytic power.

Well, you got it right this time, but I'd hardly calling it flaunting credentials. I know 2-3 other teachers on KMC as well. It's a profession, but not a whole lot else. By this standard, anyone who admits to having a job is flaunting. And, for the record, you were one who bolded professor. Even if I had a more traditionally enviable position, I wouldn't make a habit of leveraging it on the internet.

I have my own place too. I suppose that puts me in Astner's tier of self-absorption.

I find flaunting generally distasteful.

Originally posted by Digi
me in Astner's tier of self-absorption. No, just no.

That dude is just about at the top of the hierarchy.

However, he's no megalomaniac like me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I find flaunting generally distasteful. Generally it's an example of crying wolf when one's bark ends up being much worse than his bite.

So I'll be honest, I'm the inactive prodigy I was telling Robtard about earlier.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I find flaunting generally distasteful.

I agree and whilst I suspect I have more degrees from better Universities than most, including probably this Digi, Why would I want to flaunt that, if indeed it is the case. This is a small web forum with few active members, it means nothing to anyone and nobody cares.

Oh sod on, man

Originally posted by Alpha Debater
I agree and whilst I suspect I have more degrees from better Universities than most, including probably this Digi, Why would I want to flaunt that, if indeed it is the case. This is a small web forum with few active members, it means nothing to anyone and nobody cares.

Yeah, I too, think that I have a higher income, better car, bigger penis and prettier neighbors than anyone here, but I'd never just casually mention this to make other people feel worse.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I too, think that I have a higher income, better car, bigger penis and prettier neighbors than anyone here, but I'd never just casually mention this to make other people feel worse. Well said, believe it or not my partner is much younger than me.

Are you trying to get us to approve of your much younger partner by showing the merits of a fully grown adult dating a 16 year old? Bit of a soft prep for the big reveal, dave?

Originally posted by Quincy
Are you trying to get us to approve of your much younger partner by showing the merits of a fully grown adult dating a 16 year old? Bit of a soft prep for the big reveal, dave? No, she's an adult, no paedo here.

xgYk11HvBx4

Originally posted by Bardock42
xgYk11HvBx4 Scared to click the link......

Originally posted by Alpha Debater
Scared to click the link......

Don't. BardyBoy doesn't give 2-shits about some things he posts.

Originally posted by Alpha Debater
I agree and whilst I suspect I have more degrees from better Universities than most, including probably this Digi, Why would I want to flaunt that, if indeed it is the case. This is a small web forum with few active members, it means nothing to anyone and nobody cares.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I too, think that I have a higher income, better car, bigger penis and prettier neighbors than anyone here, but I'd never just casually mention this to make other people feel worse.



Though if you just take this:
Originally posted by Alpha Debater
This is a small web forum with few active members, it means nothing to anyone and nobody cares.

I'd agree.

Outrageous!

I also probably have more stamps on my passport.

What makes you declare these things?

Irony, satire and a sense of the ridiculous.

Humour perhaps...

crackers



Carry on

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I too, think that I have a higher income, better car, bigger penis and prettier neighbors than anyone here, but I'd never just casually mention this to make other people feel worse.

No. My penis is the best penis.

Originally posted by BackFire
No. My penis is the best penis. I have bigger balls...

Backfire's penis is the best penis. Balls too. Trust me on this.

Originally posted by Digi
Backfire's penis is the best penis. Balls too. Trust me on this. Ha, is your evidence quantitative or qualitative?