The Democratic party is the enemy

WitoldPilecki said:
Lol, Fascism founded by former Marxist Mussolini & Neoconservativism founded by former Marxist Irving Kristol.
Click to expand...

basically, but the quest to rule the world is as old as time.

pinky: what are we going to do tonight, brain?

brain: same thing we do every night, pinky, try to take over the world!
 
Dark Soul said:
Yeah you see it doesn't work that way, you putting up a link and thinking that proves your position. I asked YOU to explain the simple mechanism of what YOU claimed. The deflection and insult to the President simply adds more points to your fail in a simple debate.
Click to expand...

Links from scientists vs Capitalists who lie.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
A scientific link is sufficient proof.

The fail points are from you.
Click to expand...

No it's not. That's a debate technique called "flooding", where you attempt to make your opponent read a big pile of crap to waste his time and distract him. A more common term is called "appeal to authority".

Tack on another fail point for me having to point that out to you.
 
Dark Soul said:
No it's not. That's a debate technique called "flooding", where you attempt to make your opponent read a big pile of crap to waste his time and distract him. A more common term is called "appeal to authority".

Tack on another fail point for me having to point that out to you.
Click to expand...

Links to scientific studies are called evidence.

Your biased Capitalist regurgitation is biased,,especially without a source.

Real academic arguments require evidence.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Links to scientific studies are called evidence.

Your biased Capitalist regurgitation is biased,,especially without a source.

Real academic arguments require evidence.
Click to expand...

It's not a valid debate technique unless you quote directly or paraphrase. If you want to do that then you should provide a link to back up what you said. That in fact would be good practice, which would earn you positive debate points.

Since I describe the mechanism in my own words following simple rules of logic and well known laws of physics or scientific principles, I am not required to provide a source because I am the source.
 
Dark Soul said:
It's not a valid debate technique unless you quote directly or paraphrase. If you want to do that then you should provide a link to back up what you said. That in fact would be good practice, which would earn you positive debate points.

Since I describe the mechanism in my own words following simple rules of logic and well known laws of physics or scientific principles, I am not required to provide a source because I am the source.
Click to expand...

Lmfao. You can't source a study because you can't.

Pathetic.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And people will need to be trained to keep that automation running, unless you've been watching way to much Sci-Fi and actually believe that they will be self-replicating.
Click to expand...

Automation creates jobs. You are correct. Someone has to build and maintain that new equipment, and that someone will be coming out with improvements and new models all the time. Hey...just like today, isn't it?
 
Into the Night said:
Not the definition of 'pollution'. Define 'pollution'. Describe these magick 'particles'. Describe what wildlife is destroyed. Be specific.
Click to expand...

Natural things can pollute too.
Even if they change in concentration too fast & cause harm or toxicity.

Keep in mind uranium occurs naturally too.

As if a nuclear melt down doesn't pollute?
Oh its natural.

Give me a break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top