I will debate anything
Forums › General Discussion › I will debate anything-
I will debate you about anything (within reason of course, excluding things of sensitive nature).
You think the sky is blue? I beg to differ!
You think fire is hot? Actually it’s cold!
George Washington was the first president? Define president! -
why do you park in a driveway and drive in a parkway?
-
I definitely didn't sleep with your mom last night.
-
Cockroach𖢥 wrote:
😂😂😂😂😂I definitely didn't sleep with your mom last night.
-
─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic having a presidential government. b. : an elected official having the position of chief of state but usually only minimal political powers in a republic having a parliamentary government.I will debate you about anything (within reason of course, excluding things of sensitive nature).
You think the sky is blue? I beg to differ!
You think fire is hot? Actually it’s cold!
George Washington was the first president? Define president!You can debate it all you want. That's the definition. But it's been 2 hrs and you haven't debated any of the other topics.
-
ṩҜɪɲɳץ €ℌɪçҜع₦ wrote:
Well technically you do have do drive up a driveway, then you park. Parking is not the only thing that a person does on a driveway.why do you park in a driveway and drive in a parkway?
Also parkway is a term that can be used for a scenic route someone would drive on and occasionally “park” to stop and see the sights. -
Cockroach𖢥 wrote:
“Wow… you talked to my mom? I have to call my dad! She has been missing for years! We thought she was dead!”I definitely didn't sleep with your mom last night.
-
I don’t think Ivory Harris should ever bring back the King Keller character ever again. “King Keller” never ruled these forums, and “King Keller” should not be given daily praise in these forums by you or anyone.
-
Ivory Harris wrote:
See, YOU are choosing to use that definition. But another definition for “president” is someone who “presided or oversees” something. There are many people in the past that presided over America before Washington was “elected”. King George III technically was the president over America since he oversaw all the doings of America before Washington did─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic having a presidential government. b. : an elected official having the position of chief of state but usually only minimal political powers in a republic having a parliamentary government.You can debate it all you want. That's the definition. But it's been 2 hrs and you haven't debated any of the other topics.
-
Mickey McFly wrote:
Keller was one of the greatest characters in the history of the forum. To rule something is to have power over something. If there is one thing Keller did, he had the power to unite the forum against him. He was a breath of fresh wind to an otherwise dead forum.I don’t think Ivory Harris should ever bring back the King Keller character ever again. “King Keller” never ruled these forums, and “King Keller” should not be given daily praise in these forums by you or anyone.
-
─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
Mickey McFly wrote:
Keller was one of the greatest characters in the history of the forum. To rule something is to have power over something. If there is one thing Keller did, he had the power to unite the forum against him. He was a breath of fresh wind to an otherwise dead forum.I don’t think Ivory Harris should ever bring back the King Keller character ever again. “King Keller” never ruled these forums, and “King Keller” should not be given daily praise in these forums by you or anyone.
But you did not address the point that he does not deserve daily praise, so I am to assume you agree with me on that point.
-
Mickey McFly wrote:
I think anyone who puts turf wars on their back for the greater good is worthy of daily honor. Keller, we toast you this morning! May the king rest in peace─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
Mickey McFly wrote:
But you did not address the point that he does not deserve daily praise, so I am to assume you agree with me on that point.
-
King Keller, Lord Garrett, Cleveland Slim, BLUEEULB, et al, love or loathe them, all brought life to the GD.
One comes along every now and then. -
Uglyladdie is so hideous
-
The Finlays are terrible people. They should not be treated with the highest level of deference and respect, as if they were the new rulers of Turf Wars.
-
Uglyladdie wrote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, external standards of beauty does not determine if someone is hideous or not. I’ve met some beautiful people that had hideous personalities. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned about laddie, his personality is anything but hideous 🙂Uglyladdie is so hideous
-
Mickey McFly wrote:
Ok that’s just crossing a line. I could never debate in favor of the finlay scum 😤The Finlays are terrible people. They should not be treated with the highest level of deference and respect, as if they were the new rulers of Turf Wars.
-
─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
Mickey McFly wrote:
Ok that’s just crossing a line. I could never debate in favor of the finlay scum 😤The Finlays are terrible people. They should not be treated with the highest level of deference and respect, as if they were the new rulers of Turf Wars.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yes!!!! -
If you could be wrong about anything you claim to “know”, then it logically follows you can not claim to know anything, including the statement.
-
─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
So in other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re ugly. You’ve got a great personality. That is brutal ronin 😂Uglyladdie wrote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, external standards of beauty does not determine if someone is hideous or not. I’ve met some beautiful people that had hideous personalities. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned about laddi, his personality is anything but hideous 🙂Uglyladdie is so hideous
-
★ΛUGUSTINΞ★ wrote:
The possibility of being wrong about any claim does not negate the ability to know things; it simply means that knowledge is provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence or reasoning. Knowledge can still be justified and reliable, even if it’s not infallible. The statement itself presupposes that one can recognize uncertainty without dismissing the concept of knowing altogether.If you could be wrong about anything you claim to “know”, then it logically follows you can not claim to know anything, including the statement.
-
Uglyladdie wrote:
Well I have never seen your face so I technically can’t argue on if you are hideous or not. I’m just arguing the point of the concept of being “hideous” in general 🤣─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
So in other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re ugly. You’ve got a great personality. That is brutal ronin 😂Uglyladdie wrote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, external standards of beauty does not determine if someone is hideous or not. I’ve met some beautiful people that had hideous personalities. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned about laddi, his personality is anything but hideous 🙂Uglyladdie is so hideous
-
─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
LolUglyladdie wrote:
Well I have never seen your face so I technically can’t argue on if you are hideous or not. I’m just arguing the point of the concept of being “hideous” in general 🤣─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
So in other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re ugly. You’ve got a great personality. That is brutal ronin 😂Uglyladdie wrote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, external standards of beauty does not determine if someone is hideous or not. I’ve met some beautiful people that had hideous personalities. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned about laddi, his personality is anything but hideous 🙂Uglyladdie is so hideous
-
did you use open IA to debate or did you really take time to think at all this?!?
-
Bloo wrote:
I have a lot of spare time 😁did you use open IA to debate or did you really take time to think at all this?!?
-
YOU wrote:
I will say for one of these I did need some assistance (not saying what resource i used). But everything else is original context from in between my ears 🤣Bloo wrote:
I have a lot of spare time 😁did you use open IA to debate or did you really take time to think at all this?!?
-
─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
Why does this masterful character not grace us with 1 last run? Maybe he truly hasn't died. Maybe he went on the greatest adventure of all time. He could tell us all about it.Mickey McFly wrote:
I think anyone who puts turf wars on their back for the greater good is worthy of daily honor. Keller, we toast you this morning! May the king rest in peace─╤╦︻ ƦōƝɪℕ ︻╦╤─ wrote:
Mickey McFly wrote:
But you did not address the point that he does not deserve daily praise, so I am to assume you agree with me on that point.
-
Wu-Tang is forever
-
Rͣeͩeͩferjuana wrote:
Most non arguable fact out thereWu-Tang is forever
-
Ivory Harris wrote:
14 hours and no response, must mean wu tang IS forever. Nothing has changed.Rͣeͩeͩferjuana wrote:
Most non arguable fact out thereWu-Tang is forever
-
Rͣeͩeͩferjuana wrote:
Sorry my reeferific friend, I had an insane day yesterday traveling.Ivory Harris wrote:
14 hours and no response, must mean wu tang IS forever. Nothing has changed.Rͣeͩeͩferjuana wrote:
Most non arguable fact out thereWu-Tang is forever
Let’s discuss the concept of “forever” and in which the context of the word is used in.
If we are talking about the music produced by wutang. There will invariably one day be an end when either they disband, fade from the consciousness of society, or by natural causes one day when there is the inevitable destruction of our solar system, with mankind ceasing with it.
Wutang may last in the hearts and mind of society for a long time, possibly decades or even millennium. But statistically, Wutang in fact is not forever.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC