Ask classthe_king a Question Thread

[Satire]

So, you admit that this thread isn't gonna be nothing big just like I originally said?

We aren't fucking arguing that? Or atleast I wasn't.

[Master Chief]

So, you admit that this thread isn't gonna be nothing big just like I originally said?

We aren't fucking arguing that? Or atleast I wasn't.

I was and you said I was right. Therefore, I win.

1.5 Master Chief - 0 Satire?

[Satire]

So, you admit that this thread isn't gonna be nothing big just like I originally said?

We aren't fucking arguing that? Or atleast I wasn't.

I was and you said I was right. Therefore, I win.

1.5 Master Chief - 0 Satire?

Are you stupid or just really bad at this? Serious question.

[Master Chief]

Are you stupid or just really bad at this? Serious question.

I can't be that bad if I won again, can I?

[Mahmoud48]

Satire is scolding MC it's like father and son

[Satire]

Are you stupid or just really bad at this? Serious question.

I can't be that bad if I won again, can I?

Except you are, because you dwindled on semantics (and lost at that by "concession", so even if this 'it's not going to be big' argument existed, we would have won completely different arguments, but that's not how a fucking debate works), and then started arguing a claim that I haven't been trying to make or defend since the idea actually started taking off.

That's like me claiming that your posts are retarded because they're not longer than mine. Obviously you would admit that, but that's not concession or me winning, because that's not the point or intention of your posts in the first place. It's completely random and missing the basis.

This is why trying to kick off discussion by arguing semantics is pitiful and pointless, the argument leads nowhere.

[Master Chief]

Except you are, because you dwindled on semantics (and lost at that by "concession", so even if this 'it's not going to be big' argument existed, we would have won completely different arguments, but that's not how a fucking debate works), and started arguing a claim that I haven't been trying to make or defend since the idea actually started taking off.

That's like me claiming that your posts are retarded because they're not longer than mine. Obviously you would admit that, but that's not concession or me winning, because that's not the point or intention of your posts in the first place.

This is why trying to kick off discussion by arguing semantics is pitiful and pointless, the argument leads nowhere.

Stop typing, man. This argument is sealed. I know you meant the thread to be big when I called you out on "takeover". Then, you "changed your intentions to make it seem like I was arguing the wrong things (BS).

This argument led me to victory though

[Satire]

Stop typing, man. This argument is sealed. I know you meant the thread to be big when I called you out on "takeover". Then, you "changed your intentions to make it seem like I was arguing the wrong things (BS).:

Alright now you lost. Now you're just trying to twist my words when I already explained them and you even admitted that you took them too literally. I know this is a fallacy diction, which one is it?

[dead prez]

Alright now you lost. Now you're just trying to twist my words when I already explained them and you even admitted that you took them too literally. I know this is a fallacy diction, which one is it?

Strawman, but it's obvious Chief is trolling now.

[Master Chief]

Stop typing, man. This argument is sealed. I know you meant the thread to be big when I called you out on "takeover". Then, you "changed your intentions to make it seem like I was arguing the wrong things (BS).:

Alright now you lost. Now you're just trying to twist my words when I already explained them and you even admitted that you took them too literally. I know this is a fallacy diction, which one is it?

Explain your definition of takeover again, please.

[Satire]

Stop typing, man. This argument is sealed. I know you meant the thread to be big when I called you out on "takeover". Then, you "changed your intentions to make it seem like I was arguing the wrong things (BS).:

Alright now you lost. Now you're just trying to twist my words when I already explained them and you even admitted that you took them too literally. I know this is a fallacy diction, which one is it?

Explain your definition of takeover again, please.

You're trying to lead this argument back to the beginning of the debate.

diction says you're trolling, concession accepted (See, I can use it improperly too).

Satire - Chief
1 - .5

[Master Chief]

The first time you explained what you meant in takeover, you didn't express yourself clearly. I'm giving you another chance, faggalo.

Don't try to run, you little pansy.

[Satire]

The first time you explained what you meant in takeover, you didn't express yourself clearly. I'm giving you another chance, faggalo.

Don't try to run, you little pansy.

It's too late. You went in a completely different direction with the argument, committed a fallacy and are still trying to bring it back to semantics.

Better luck on getting that .5 next time, Chief.

[Master Chief]

Since when does committing a fallacy mean I lost the argument? You're just running away from the argument that I'm still willing to take part in. We haven't reached a conclusion yet and I still haven't conceded. You on the other hand, conceded BUT I'm giving you another chance because I'm a nice guy.

But, go ahead. I'll just take that as a forfeit and as a .5 win for me.

[Satire]

Since when does committing a fallacy mean I lost the argument? You're just running away from the argument that I'm still willing to take part in. We haven't reached a conclusion yet and I still haven't conceded. You on the other hand, conceded BUT I'm giving you another chance because I'm a nice guy.

But, go ahead. I'll just take that as a forfeit and as a .5 win for me.

I didn't say it was, I was describing the argument.

I didn't concede anywhere because we were arguing two completely different things. That is not how you "debate", and that is not how you "win". You're trying to bring it back to the beginning of the argument where we argue over semantics, and if you haven't realized by now, that is pointless and just ends up going in circles (Evident, because you're about to plummet us into the same bullshit again).

So no, that was not a forfeit. Avoiding going in circles where we repeat everything we just said is not a "forfeit", because right now we're swinging at each other but aiming at the walls for some reason. Putting a stop to a stupid game =/= forfeit, but if you want to continue playing a stupid game, then either way that means you're retarded for wanting to play a stupid game so if refusing to punch a wall is "concession" it equals me getting what I want anyways.

So yeah, you get +.5 points in down syndrome if that's what you're aiming for.