|
On February 14 2009 06:14 fanatacist wrote:
"Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition you used."
On February 14 2009 06:14 fanatacist wrote:
seems like someone isn't very ARTICULATE, which usually implies their LACK OF MASTERY of the English language at best, although a LACK OF A LITERATE BACKGROUND is more probable in your case.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Lol way to cut off half the sentence. See that comma there? It means that there's more to the sentence, possibly parts that tie it all together! It will make sense after you read it, trust me! Isn't reading fun?!
|
On February 14 2009 06:14 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:07 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 06:00 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 05:54 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 03:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
How can i argue for the opposite of your statement when I don't even know how you arrived at your statement in the first place?
You need support to argue a statement? Don't be silly. The sky is green. I don't tell you how I arrived at said conclusion but you can sure as hell argue it. Seriously lol. LOL THEN IT WOULDNT BE CALLED ARGUING YOU DUMB FUCK LOL YOU ARGUE THE STATEMENT I COUNTER YOUR ARGUMENTS DIPSHIT ROOOOOOOOOFL HEWWO it wouldn't be called counter arguing, it would be called arguing, comprende?
Hey hey let me help you out, I will show you how it's done:
Me: The sky is green.
You: I disagree, the sky is blue, although dependent on the time of day and weather conditions. Here are my reasons why:
1. __
2. __
3. __
Me: (Here I either argue my point, or I concede defeat)
What you did:
Me: The sky is green.
You: ROFL CAN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU DID NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIM, CANNOT PROCESS ALT F4 ALT F4 CTRL Q
EDIT: I admire your ability to copy and paste the same thing over and over again for a few consecutive posts, you are clearly as master of debating and deserve a star for your contributions to this website. Maybe a cookie for your ever-expanding post count.
|
np i added it, now it sounds perfect, FANATACIST WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN IN MY TL LIFE
|
On February 14 2009 06:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:
np i added it, now it sounds perfect, FANATACIST WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN IN MY TL LIFE
Reading your posts, seeing other people ridicule you, and laughing as I scroll further down the page because nothing I have seen you post has been worth more than a shit on a plate.
|
On February 14 2009 06:25 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:14 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 06:07 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 06:00 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 05:54 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 03:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
How can i argue for the opposite of your statement when I don't even know how you arrived at your statement in the first place?
You need support to argue a statement? Don't be silly. The sky is green. I don't tell you how I arrived at said conclusion but you can sure as hell argue it. Seriously lol. LOL THEN IT WOULDNT BE CALLED ARGUING YOU DUMB FUCK LOL YOU ARGUE THE STATEMENT I COUNTER YOUR ARGUMENTS DIPSHIT ROOOOOOOOOFL HEWWO it wouldn't be called counter arguing, it would be called arguing, comprende? Hey hey let me help you out, I will show you how it's done: Me: The sky is green. You: I disagree, the sky is blue, although dependent on the time of day and weather conditions. Here are my reasons why: 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ Me: (Here I either argue my point, or I concede defeat) What you did: Me: The sky is green. You: ROFL CAN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU DID NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIM, CANNOT PROCESS ALT F4 ALT F4 CTRL Q EDIT: I admire your ability to copy and paste the same thing over and over again for a few consecutive posts, you are clearly as master of debating and deserve a star for your contributions to this website. Maybe a cookie for your ever-expanding post count.
fanatacist that wouldn't be a counter argument, a counter argument by definition requires an argument that can be countered, since you already admit to not having provided any arguments, what the fuck is your problem?
|
On February 14 2009 06:28 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:
np i added it, now it sounds perfect, FANATACIST WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN IN MY TL LIFE Reading your posts, seeing other people ridicule you, and laughing as I scroll further down the page because nothing I have seen you post has been worth more than a shit on a plate.
oh shit all of my posts suck
|
On February 14 2009 06:29 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:25 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 06:14 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 06:07 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 06:00 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 05:54 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 03:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
How can i argue for the opposite of your statement when I don't even know how you arrived at your statement in the first place?
You need support to argue a statement? Don't be silly. The sky is green. I don't tell you how I arrived at said conclusion but you can sure as hell argue it. Seriously lol. LOL THEN IT WOULDNT BE CALLED ARGUING YOU DUMB FUCK LOL YOU ARGUE THE STATEMENT I COUNTER YOUR ARGUMENTS DIPSHIT ROOOOOOOOOFL HEWWO it wouldn't be called counter arguing, it would be called arguing, comprende? Hey hey let me help you out, I will show you how it's done: Me: The sky is green. You: I disagree, the sky is blue, although dependent on the time of day and weather conditions. Here are my reasons why: 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ Me: (Here I either argue my point, or I concede defeat) What you did: Me: The sky is green. You: ROFL CAN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU DID NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIM, CANNOT PROCESS ALT F4 ALT F4 CTRL Q EDIT: I admire your ability to copy and paste the same thing over and over again for a few consecutive posts, you are clearly as master of debating and deserve a star for your contributions to this website. Maybe a cookie for your ever-expanding post count. fanatacist that wouldn't be a counter argument, a counter argument by definition requires an argument that can be countered, since you already admit to not having provided any arguments, what the fuck is your problem?
The statement itself provides a concept that is arguable.
ar⋅gue
/ˈɑrgyu/ [ahr-gyoo] verb, -gued, -gu⋅ing.
–verb (used without object)
1. to present reasons for or against a thing: He argued in favor of capital punishment.
2. to contend in oral disagreement; dispute: The Senator argued with the President about the new tax bill.
–verb (used with object)
3. to state the reasons for or against: The lawyers argued the case.
4. to maintain in reasoning: to argue that the news report must be wrong.
5. to persuade, drive, etc., by reasoning: to argue someone out of a plan.
6. to show; prove; imply; indicate: His clothes argue poverty.
"However it has now become more of a burden in its quintessential form (God created the world in 6 days, garden of Eden, Jesus being the son of God, etc.). Provide a counter-argument for this statement."
If I had said "provide an argument FOR this statement," it would have inferred that I would like you to support it. By saying "provide a COUNTER-argument for this statement," I have made it clear that I would like you to denounce the statement.
|
no man, then you should've said, please provide an argument against this statement, not "please provide a counter-argument for this statement."
|
On February 14 2009 06:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
no man, then you should've said, please provide an argument against this statement, not "please provide a counter-argument for this statement."
Both have a single negative, therefore the meaning remains the same. The statement itself provides an argument, the argument being that religion is a hindrance on modern society. The counter-argument would be that it is beneficial to modern society, with whatever reasons you choose to provide.
Now I'm really out, I don't see how much further this can go.
|
counter argument is not the same as arguing against a statement, i honestly thought this would be obvious but I guess not, to each his own. Thanks for correcting my grammar though, I bow to your mastery of the english language.
|
I think it's a matter of perception.
Thank you, I bow to your mastery of the caps lock and your debating prowess.
Now, care to argue against the statement? (lol)
|
On February 14 2009 07:37 fanatacist wrote:
I think it's a matter of perception.
Thank you, I bow to your mastery of the caps lock and your debating prowess.
Now, care to argue against the statement? (lol)
its not a matter of perception its a matter of simple definition which you either don't want to understand or are too retarded to admit you're wrong. The very fact you think because both terms contain a double negative means they are the same is fucking ridiculous. You then insist you provided an argument with your statement which you obviously did not. Debating prowess lol, you don't know what an argument is, why do you throw around words like debating prowess
|
Oh shit did your local grocery store run out of tampax? I'm sorry baby <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
