I challenge just ONE person to beat me in a debate

I challenge just ONE person to beat me in a debate.

You pick the topic and i'll pick your coffin

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

i'm a meme master, prove me wrong

freewill does not exist

do this one

I challenge you to debate on the doubles you got m8

Every post on Sup Forums is either roleplaying or schizophrenia.

It does exist. You have the power and ability to do anything that your body is capable of doing (i.e obviously no absurdities like shooting a nuke out of your ass).

You just choose not to do it.

NEXT
E
X
T

I'm a post on Sup Forums and I am neither roleplaying nor do I suffer from schizophrenia (have been tested numerous times on various mental illnesses, schizophrenia included).

NEXT
E
X
T

77 >>>> 22

how can you have free will if you have no will?

Good game m8
prove to me that pig and dog isn't haram for muslim

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Definition of Free Will - "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

You can act out whatever your will pleases, you just don't because you youself might not have freewill whereas others have had it (people who commit mass atrocities and give in to their impulses)

NEXT
E
X
T

How can your will be free if your eyes aren't free?

The pig and dog itself is not haram but rather what you do to those animals.

"By the mercy of ALLAH and His kindness towards us, ALLAH has permitted us to eat all good things, and He has not forbidden anything but those that are impure. ALLAH says (interpretation of the meaning):
“…he allows them as lawful At‑Tayyibaat (i.e. all good and lawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons and foods), and prohibits them as unlawful Al‑Khabaa’ith (i.e. all evil and unlawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons and foods)”
[al-A’raaf 7:157]"

NEXT
E
X
T

Your eyes are free.

If they are not then please tell me how much you paid to purchase them and in what universal currency

The universe will never be described perfectly with a finite list of axioms.

I'm wearing a black shirt

PROVE that this post is not an argument.

Who says there are a finite list of axioms

>You can act out whatever your will pleases
That doesn't mean that you will ever succeed though.

We may think that we can do whatever we please but in reality our entire fate is laid out by things entirely undecided by us,

Stalin did nothing wrong

...

Wrong

There is no argument, in order to win something there must be a set list of steps that need to be completed in order to be victorious (i.e win).

Win in the context of that picture is a blanket term. What exactly is there to win? Win in a fight? Win in a meme war?

Topic: OP is a faggot
You take the affirmative position.

Nice one. I have no more topics to argue. You are a master debater OP

Based Varg

t. 7th grader

Not an argument

Burgers are the best food in the world.

It is impossible to prove the existence of God(s)

my nigga

This statement is false.

Trump won the election with the help of internet memes.

Are you Tay? if not prove it.

I am, in fact, NOT Donald J. Trump.

How do you make Australia great again?

If you're working within a two truth valued system, that statement is meaningless and must be excised from a logical framework

it's called satire, i suggest you google it : ^ )

pssst. by removing kebabs

Which came first de chicken or de egg?

>That doesn't mean that you will ever succeed though.

Will and success are not mutually exclusive.

Your will could be to fail.

I do suck dicks

Wrong, I am a weak debater. Nice try though

I'm a 6th grader, btfo

Correct, what you said was not an argument

I'm white and I do not know you. Therefore I am not your nigga

True

Nope

This is literally 2ez

What defines a "logical" framework?
Just because you can give rationalization to an argument doesn't mean you can provide evidence to win the debate.

I won't go roman style questioning either.

Trump won the election because of electoral votes
>ftfy superstitious cunt

Embarrassing, to be honest.

Neither

Failzors. Must choose one

za warudo da

You just lost friendo sorry. Argument was destined to be lost due to paradox. There's no simple resolution to this debate.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

>Hitler did nothing wrong
Prove me wrong

>Jet fuel can't melt steel eams
Prove me wrong

>Meme magic is real
Prove me wrong

>Trump won
Prove me wrong

>this arbitrary man made descriptor proves you wrong because my feeble mind is too intellectually bankrupt to be able to work on astral planes

There is a simple resolution, you're just too simple minded to understand it

If a tree fell in the forest and no one was there to hear it would it still make your mother die if you don't reply to this post

>Prove me wrong

You don't actually exist therefore neither does your argument

Which came first de chicken or de egg?
Pick one you

The southern US border should be secured. We legitimately do not know who is entering and exiting the nation.

why I am such a faggot

Is this bait?

Why the fuck did the UK abandon Singapore when they outnumbered the attackers 3 to 1?

Are they just worthless cucks like you?

>Will and success are not mutually exclusive.
True, but will is an illusion created from your genetics, parental guidance andf affection (or lack of), where you were born, or some other bullshit that was not caused by your choosing. Were boxed in from the moment we are born and unable to stray from the invisible walls.

Neither

Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell, two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

islam is the true redpill, lets debate

>fucking goats
>redpill
get debated

No, it's the catch

Because they're chinks

Completely false. Sorry

Because you are attracted to members of the same sex.

You say de neither then say de egg. I prove you not trump cuz you got stumped fool

>Completely false. Sorry
And why is that cunt?

I like your thread.
I'm checking your digits.
also bumping something that isn't a LARP thread.
Peace be with you, user.

The holocaust happened. Debate me.

The earth is round

Islam came out long before the notion of red pill was ever mentioned in that shitty Matrix movie.

Islam might be the truth but it is not the red pill as its existence long predates such a modern term.

...

Do subatomic particles behave orderly or chaotic

Trump is already a currupt president

...

>"Epimenides the Cretan says, 'that all the Cretans are liars,' but Epimenides is himself a Cretan; therefore he is himself a liar. But if he be a liar, what he says is untrue, and consequently the Cretans are veracious; but Epimenides is a Cretan, and therefore what he says is true; saying the Cretans are liars, Epimenides is himself a liar, and what he says is untrue. Thus we may go on alternately proving that Epimenides and the Cretans are truthful and untruthful."
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox
>too intellectually bankrupt
>feeble mind
>to work on astral planes
>yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I hope this is bait ahmed.

and that's why.

>You pick the topic and i'll pick your coffin

Do we get to pick which side of this debate we are on?

>I like your thread.

I disagree, you do not like this thread.

Nope, it is spherical

1-The post WW2 books written by the wartime leaders Churchill, Eisenhower, and DeGaule never mentioned any gas being used or any planned, systematic extermination of anyone.

2-In Eli Weisel's book titled 'Night' he doesn't mention gas being used and when the choice came that he would retreat with the Germans or stay and be under the Soviet umbrella he chose to retreat with the Germans.

3-if there would have been millions of people murdered then there would have been tons of human remains buried somewhere and it would be way too much to hide for very long. No tons of human remains were ever found. And if they would have been cremated then there would have been tons of ashes and no ashes were ever found.

4-Auswitcz was a place where synthentic rubber was being produced and U.S. intelligence was focused on Auswitcz for that reason. No U.S. intelligence reports ever gave any indication of gassing or mass extermination.

5-Jews took a census of their people before WW2 and after and in order for there to have been 6 million people killed each and every jewish female on this planet would have to given birth to something like 13 children and that never happened.

I already beat him wit de chicken and egg. First he said neither. Then totally changed his answer. He never even let me argue. Fool

Literally the most profound thing I have heard. Proove it wasn't

A gun has the power and ability to do anything that its barrel is capable of doing (i.e obviously no absurdities like shooting water out of its grip)
It just chooses not to do it.

Agreeing with me isn't winning the arguement

tell me why the jews shouldn't be gassed

I think it's racist to say de blacks have big lips. Prove it's not

If I exist to write my argument then my argument does exist.
Also not proving those memes wrong.

Complete false, your study makes two huge mistakes that instantly discredits the findings.

1. It lumps Northern Africans (despite them being more genetically in common with Middle Easterners and Southern Europeans than actual blacks) with Central/Southern Africans
2. It shows correlative evidence rather than causative

Northern Africans were some of the most advanced ancient races that completely dwarfed Northern Europeans in terms of human technological advancement (Phoenicians/Egyptians/Moors).

Lumping all Africans together is the same logical fallacy as lumping Northern Europeans along with Southern Europeans.

>still forcing a man made paradox

Paradox's in themself are inherently flawed because they only expose the individuals inability to process such dilemmas rather than humans in general.

Basically, you need to git gud

Wrong. single-celled organisms came first.

fuck. Obviously I'm not op, but can I stab at this?

Atomic is a naturally occurring substance that craves to be regular. It's why it's volatile. It gives energy, trying to be normal.
It is normal, in a chaotic involvement, as to it's environment.
>nerdspeak2jock, it's trying to be normal when it's ADHD

I don't care, I'm just bored and have a basic understanding.

Spherical is not equal to round. One is a scientific term with clear dimensions and properties which make it so and the other is a generalized descriptor with no properties used to define it.

Do you really exist to write your argument though? Or is your argument being written to juxtapose your existence?

Wrong fool. His second answer was de correct one. Ultimately de egg

debate me, OP. DEBATE ME

That's like pre school level of understanding.

>Do we get to pick which side of this debate we are on?

Repeated for posterity.

Schrödinger's cat is a red herring because

1)particles do not act randomly and

2)whether or not something has been observed does not determine whether it has happened

The southern US border should not be secured because it is better to no know who is entering or exiting the nation

And yet it's a higher level of understanding than anybody else on this planet.

I stumped you wit de chicken and de egg. You took 2 tries

>And yet it's a higher level of understanding than anybody else on this planet.
Completely false, sorry.

>they only expose the individuals inability to process such dilemmas
So you're saying I need to provide a non-paradoxical question to you in order for you to be able to effectively debate?
>yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
>yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
>yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
>yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

Lastly.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
That's the most important.
You presume that because you can't understand what I'm talking about or discredit it that because you presume you're smarter than me that you can discredit my argument.

To end my argument.
>The Epimenides paradox is the same principle as psychologists and sceptics using arguments from psychology claiming humans to be unreliable. The paradox comes from the fact that the psychologists and sceptics are human themselves, meaning that they state themselves to be unreliable. The same goes for any statements that laws are necessary due to human nature, since the laws are written and enforced by human beings and so if that was the case the alleged human flaws would have been built into the laws and exaggerated by the enforcement into something worse than nothing.

>Basically, you need to git gud

It took me much less time to beat him with de chicken and de egg. Fool

What do I have in my pocket?

Arguments about free will are mostly semantic arguments about definitions. Most experts who deny free will are arguing against peculiar, unscientific versions of the idea, such as that “free will” means that causality is not involved. As my longtime friend and colleague John Bargh put it once in a debate, “Free will means freedom from causation.” Other scientists who argue against free will say that it means that a soul or other supernatural entity causes behavior, and not surprisingly they consider such explanations unscientific.

These arguments leave untouched the meaning of free will that most people understand, which is consciously making choices about what to do in the absence of external coercion, and accepting responsibility for one’s actions. Hardly anyone denies that people engage in logical reasoning and self-control to make choices. There is a genuine psychological reality behind the idea of free will. The debate is merely about whether this reality deserves to be called free will. Setting aside the semantic debate, let’s try to understand what that underlying reality is.

*leans forward
Wrong.