The Instigator
Anonymous03
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
InfakeWars
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

InfakeWars is triggered

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2019 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 326 times Debate No: 123136
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Anonymous03

Pro

This man went to the trouble of making a debate just to rant about a troll doing troll things.

What is someone as immature as you doing on the internet?
InfakeWars

Con

The debate presented in front of me is to talk about how immature I am because I have debated someone about an inferiority complex. This, In turn, Had not involved my opponent, And instead, Has decided to name me, "immature. " This has nothing to do with the topic, So if being immature is the resolution presented, I will debate the topic with the following points presented:

First, My debate was a joke, Which shouldn't have to be explained to far. And,

Second, Stating that if someone, ". . . As immature as you doing on the internet? " is hypocritical.

First, I did this as a joke. A troll debate, Against a troll. That's kinda the point. If you didn't understand that, Not only does that prove you shouldn't debate, But directly linking in my second point.

The hypocrisy stated is that you have now directly proven yourself immature by not understanding this was a joke. I was doing this as an ironic debate, One you took a bit too seriously.
Debate Round No. 1
Anonymous03

Pro

It looks like we're talking in circles here but I'll try and make sense of it.

Your debate didn't really look like a joke seeing the sorts of responses you provoked and the ways in which you went about responding to those responses. It really looks like you spent a lot of time typing out those individual debates. But seeing as you said that the whole thing's a joke, I'm sure you'll be okay with me quoting your other debate.

You said:
"You clearly have an inferiority complex. You say that you win every debate, Or will school people. However, You have never won a debate. The times you have one the person misvoted and meant to vote for the other. The other times the person was very biased toward your beliefs. "
Nowhere in this initial response can ANYONE glean the idea that you oh-so-obviously started the debate as a joke. It looks like you wrote the debate in a fit of passion, In a rage and with the sort of vengeful satisfaction that 'finally I'd silence this man that oh so deserves the arse-kicking I'm about to inflict'.
I mean I can kind of see your point here - it's absurd to the point of laughable to say that 'the times you have one [sic] the person misvoted misvoted' and it looks like you're trying to provoke a response. The issue though is the fact that you go on to really kind of look like you're pretty invested in kicking the troll's balls:
"Had you actually refuted my points, You would have disproven my resolution, Thus winning the debate. However, Being arrogant, And out of points, As someone finally tells you the truth, You instead use slanderous terms to attempt to describe me. "
I can't tell if you're being serious. This is debate. Org and there's the fair share of 15-year old keyboard warriors like yourself falling to the bait of trolls, But then again there's also the fair share of people trying to troll the obvious trolls with mind-games of their own.
My evidence for your inability to detect a troll is thus: I see only a serious nature in every one of your concise, And well-thought out responses. It looks like I'm complimenting you but really it's evidence that helps me.

Now onto your second point.
'If you didn't understand that, Not only does that prove you shouldn't debate, But directly linking in my second point.

The hypocrisy stated is that you have now directly proven yourself immature by not understanding this was a joke. I was doing this as an ironic debate, One you took a bit too seriously. '

But my argument was that you didn't understand that a troll was being a troll. As I've said above, Regardless of your intentions, You come across as someone taking a troll too seriously. Who says 'inferiority complex' when they're 'playing along' with the troll? How do I prove myself immature when I, Like FanboyMcTroll, Did the obvious and deduced that you were serious about debating a troll based on what you posted? Here's what I think:

You're the triggered kid who steps too far and realises that they're making a fool of themselves and with a blush and a crack in their voice they adjust their greasy hair and say 'Heh. I was just playing along too. I was a part of the joke! Never would I EVER fall for an obvious troll like that. ' That's what you're trying to do now.
I think in R2 you need to prove that what you were saying was a joke. I don't see why in God's name you'd possibly take this debate seriously too.

I LoOk foWarDs tO aN enlIghTenIng dEbaTe! 111! 1! 11
InfakeWars

Con

First, I'm pointing out that it was a joke. But - even if it were a joke - I take debates to the top. That was kind of the point of the joke. I'd debate super seriously on a stupid topic. I did it quite often when I joined. . . If you remember me from then.

Second, I'd like to point out that if I'm so triggered, Why are you the one with a half-page essay to read in front of me? Sounds like you're the one ranting, Not me.

Now, To move on to the case I've been presented.

For your first point, I do agree with it in it's entirety. "But then again there's also the fair share of people trying to troll the obvious trolls with mind-games of their own" This was what I was trying to provoke. Mind games, Combated with Mind-Games.

This may sound like an inability to detect a troll with how serious I was, But, As I stated earlier, That's the joke that I personally get out of it. I like to be very serious in a debate, Regardless of how pointless it may seem.

Now, For your second point. I understand exactly what I'm doing, I created the debate. You aren't exactly the first person I've seen to make a debate about me.
" Who says 'inferiority complex' when they're 'playing along' with the troll? " Yet again, Everything is explained with the problem that I find it amusing to take something stupid so seriously. It's amusing to see people get heated about something so trivial, When there are more underlying causes that we could spend our attention on. So, Seeing people like you talk about me being triggered for making a debate about the [fourth] biggest troll here, FanBoyMcTroll, Does exactly what I was hoping for: People to react to something taken as a joke.

"You're the triggered kid who steps too far and realises that they're making a fool of themselves and with a blush and a crack in their voice they adjust their greasy hair and say 'Heh. I was just playing along too. I was a part of the joke! Never would I EVER fall for an obvious troll like that. ' That's what you're trying to do now.
I think in R2 you need to prove that what you were saying was a joke. I don't see why in God's name you'd possibly take this debate seriously too. "

First, I wear Buzz-Cut (ROTC standard requires it)
Second, If I made a fool of myself, I'd point it out. Making mistakes is human, No one should be ashamed of making mistakes. If they try to act like they aren't making any, They shouldn't be a debater.
Third, I told you, I take debates seriously, Including stupid, Or funny, Topics. I do it a lot IRL, And I do it a lot in DDO.

So, Other than the mud-slapping, I hope that in the Third Round I am presented further cases, Rebuttals. I'd like to see what you have left up your sleeve, Because it feels like you went all out this round!
Debate Round No. 2
Anonymous03

Pro

For starters I'd like to mention that I see no way this debate ends with a reasonable conclusion to whether InfakeWars is triggered as in order to do so InfakeWars would have to concede this point; my opponent seems to be wanting to pin something on me when the debate topic was on the triggered nature of my opponent. I'll elaborate on how they do so from now.

First, My opponent mentions that they take debates seriously regardless of whether it was on a serious topic. This point is quite confusing as it initially appears that my opponent has conceded that they're triggered. However this is a bit of a loophole that my opponent can always use to skirt around the debate. If I point this out, My opponent can just say that 'my debates look like they're serious because I've done so for a while. However my intention was to joke around with my opponent' - and basically this cycle can continue on forever as my opponent is not restricted from changing their mind regarding what certain aspects of their debate reveal about their state of emotion.

Secondly, My opponent makes quite an absurd point in saying that 'if I'm so triggered why do you have a half-page essay? '. This is quite the laughable argument because whether or not I'm triggered doesn't determine whether you are (hope that made sense); my opponent skips over this argument of their being triggered quite a bit in this debate. I don't believe I said that I wasn't triggered. I don't believe that the argument of hypocrisy means absolutely anything as the whole debate revolves around you and your state of being triggered. I think that this is a misleading point.

My opponent makes several arguments that are of the same nature at their core. Their first point of rebuttal says that they were in fact trying to react with a troll's mind games with mind-games of their own. They then rebut my argument of 'why psychoanalyse your opponent when you're not serious about the debate at all? ' by saying that 'That's just me, I'm quirky that way, that's the joke that I personally get out of it. ' I am frustrated at my inability to counter this argument in any way as after all, How you feel is entirely up to you and not something I can reasonably talk about or counter in a debate.

To reiterate one of your arguments, What if I told you that writing my own 'half-page essays' is just MY mechanism of baiting even further responses from my own opponent? It's a point that would work, And the core of my substantive for this round. Literally anyone can just say 'Oh, It looks like I'm serious but in reality I'm just special haha'. It works, Too. The point is that as you've also conceded, Any reasonable person would see your massive block of writing psychoanalysing FanboyMcTroll and think that you're triggered which is the entire reason for this debate. I've lost the debate because, As I've said, You're free to just dismiss anything as one of your personality quirks. However my opponent should understand that what I did was a reasonable assumption to make based on the evidence provided.

Just a little bit of nitpicking of a point I'd just like cleared up for the round:
'First, I wear Buzz-Cut (ROTC standard requires it)'
I feel like this is a cultural reference of some sort; might I ask how this is relevant to the debate?

I'm looking forwards to a conclusive R3.
InfakeWars

Con

Okay, I'm tired rn, It's 12:00. I'm going to very briefly refute my opponent with resolution.

First, My opponent calls my arguments laughable, As being triggered has nothing to do with him, And that this debate is about me. However, I'd like to point out that being triggered usually makes people less likely to listen to reason in the first place. Most people refuse to listen to argument, And refuse evidence for the sake of believing what they believe to be true. In this case, You believe I'm triggered, And in such case, You being triggered yourself, Will not accept the evidence presented in front of you.

Now, Before you try to rebut, Stating the same is with me, Keep in mind I already stated that I listen to argument, I listen to reason, And that I listen to my annoying habits. I take mind of my mistakes. However, You have not specified that you do, Leaving my point standing.

To attack the First rebuttal, I'd like clarification as to how I conceded anything. Just because I debate doesn't mean I'm triggered. I debate everything, Regardless of how serious, Because it's a joke I find amusing when people try to debate stupid topics, And get a response like yours out of it.

"However this is a bit of a loophole that my opponent can always use to skirt around the debate. "
I see no merit that you gained by saying this. Keep in mind that loopholes are allowed in debate, And that I don't just lose for saying this. If you have no refute to my point, By NSDA standards, You agree with it. If you can't find a proper refute to it other than that it's, "A loophole. . . " then you've conceded the point to me. That's not my standard, That's NSDA standards.

Now, For the quotes used in "nature at their core. " Argument 3.
First, Don't quote people without it being directly in my speech. That makes it false, AKA Clipping, And is Prohibited in formal debate settings. What you CAN do, Is take my speech and use it directly, But take out parts that aren't needed. Changing the actual speech is prohibited.

Second, If you feel that you are, ". . . Frustrated at my inability to counter this argument in any way. . . " Then why make a debate about feelings. Feelings change, That's kind of the point of them. They are made specifically to change depending on the situation. You described feelings to me. That's not an persuasive speech at this point, It's expository.

Third, If baiting people with essays is your mechanism, Then I'm fine with it. As I have told you before, I like debating topics, No matter how stupid. If this sparks further response, It just further's both of us. You want a further response, And so do I.

As for the relevancy: I'd like to ask how your analogy had anything to do with the debate as well. My response to something odd and off-topic was to create another equally off-topic response.

I expect Round 4 to be a better closing argument, And not just a skirt around how you can't find a way around my debates. Hint: I always take debates seriously.
Debate Round No. 3
Anonymous03

Pro

R4's just gonna be a bit of summarising and rebuttal.

My opponent first makes the statement that my being triggered is relevant to the debate because my being triggered makes people less likely to listen to reason and refuse evidence. My opponent believes that since I believe that he is triggered, I will not accept the evidence presented in front of them.
There are several flaws in this statement. My opponent has only tried to justify this point now instead of a round ago in R2, Where the argument about becoming triggered seemed entirely out of the scope of the debate (and still does now). In the context of that round, My opponent stated:

'If I'm so triggered, Why are you the one with a half-page essay to read in front of me? Sounds like you're the one ranting, Not me. '

Although my opponent tries to make it out to be that the above quote was made in order to point out that people that are triggered don't listen to reason, Therefore making a triggered Pro a less reliable debater, It is very obvious that they are trying to manipulate their illogical point to seem more logical. My argument in R3 stands: my opponent very laughably tried to pin the focus on me without at all proving it. My opponent has no proof that I am triggered either. Their point in R3, That triggered people aren't gonna listen to reason, Is completely disconnected with their previous point - that my writing a debate is proof that I am triggered.

My opponent followed up the statement that they 'stated that [they] listen to argument [sic], [they] listen to reason, And that [they] listen to [their] annoying habits. [They] take mind of [their] mistakes. ' My opponent continues to claim that this somehow goes against me because I have failed to do the same thing - of claiming that I listen to arguments, Reason and pay attention to habits.
This is quite absurd. My opponent lists claims that cannot be proven true. Just because my opponent finds things serious doesn't mean that they are somehow a debater of integrity. Plus, I never had to prove my integrity in order to counter your argument. My opoponent pushed the absurd notion that I had to somehow prove that I listen to arguments in order to prove that I am not triggered, And in extension, That I will listen to reason. None of this is true; I am not triggered myself. My opponent has not only failed to prove that I am triggered, But they have also linked this very weak argument to the fact that they themselves aren't triggered because. . . They think they listen to reason?

My opponent's next point has flaws too. They seem confused and would like clarication how they conceded anything, As 'just because [they] debate doesn't mean [they're] triggered. [they] debate everything, Regardless of how serious, Because it's a joke [they] find amusing when peole try and debate stupid topics. . . ' and goes on and on taking the chance to for some reason reiterate just how SERIOUS they are about debates just in case future voters didn't pick it up in the previous rounds.
However if my opponent had read my point properly they'd know that I didn't say that they had conceded anything. I said that it appears that my opponent has conceded that they are triggered however they have tried to use a loophole to skirt around any counter-arguments.

My opponent then argues correctly that my inability to address a point means that I've conceded it, And for some reason wants to insist that this is 'NSDA [National Speech and Debate Association]' standards, As if somehow debate. Org is adhering to set standards set in a particular country, When debaters across the world hail from different countries which recognise different debating standards. Their point still stands though. However, This point does not add anything to their argument as it is a claim, The claim being 'I like taking debates seriously. '

My opponent appears cross at my use of quotes in Argument 3. They say that quoting something that isn't directly in someone's speech is clipping and is prohibited in debate settings without providing a source that supports this. However my opponent does not seem to understand that apostrophes are not used exclusively for quotes; my 'quote' was not a quote but was instead a summary of your argument, A basic literary technique known as 'reported dialogue' in your average 8th-grader creative writing class. I concede that my use of the apostrophes was confusing and appears as though I was directly quoting my opponent. Henceforth I will put [reported dialogue incoming] before use of such a simple technique in order to not confuse my opponent who seems to insist I adhere to rules placed by an association debate. Org does not recognise nor fall under the juristiction of. I was summarising your point not quoting it.

After that argument my opponent says [and this is a direct quote in case you didn't know] 'If you feel that you are '. . . Frustrated at [their] inability to counter this argument in any way. . . ' then why make a debate about feelings. Feelings change, That's kind of the point of them. They are made specifically to change depending on the situation. You described feelings to me. That's not an persuasive speech at this point, It's expository. ' Just to respond to that point I would like to argue against some of the substantive provided. My opponent thinks that the entire premise of the debate, On the fact that InfakeWars was triggered when they made a debate about fanboymctroll's supposed contraction of inferiority complex, Was on 'feelings' which change over tme therefore making it redundant. First of all, If you happened to read my R1 arguments correctly, The feelings you had when writing up a debate arguing against McTroll wouldn't've changed because i was arguing that that debate was written in that moment of rage. This is a state of mind that doesn't really depend on how you suddenly changed your mind on it later.
My opponent then shows their impressive use of a dictionary by saying that because I described feelings it was no longer a persuasive speech, It was expository. Ooh, Big word. I hope my opponent understands that expository means 'to explain or describe something' according to Google, Which really does not describe my debate in any way; describing feelings does not change the premise of the debate at all. Just to add some context in InfakeWars fashion, it was a figure of speech. I found myself confounded at the sheer amount of skirting around topic matters that you were doing and wanted to point that out in my debate. In addition, Explaining my inability to counter a point is only a device I use in a rebuttal point and does not change my debate from something that was persuasive. It still is persuasive.

Throughout the debate my opponent has done the playground toddler's tactic of saying [reported dialogue] 'It looks like I said one thing but I intended to do that because of [random unrelated or otherwise absurd point]'. Similarly to R1, R2, R3 and now R4, My opponent quite petulantly claims in their final argument that their analogy was off-topic but [reported dialogue incoming] 'that's okay because your point was off-topic too. ' Remind me of what analogy you were countering? How was said analogy off-topic? Without anything stated as evidence I just conclude that you're floundering around trying to justify absurd out-of-the-scope points by saying [reported dialogue] 'I did this x because you did it too and that makes it okay'. What kind of justification is that? My opponent has never even tried to approach this argument because they cannot properly address it. My opponent does not understand that having half your debate consist of 'I changed my mind' is not a proper debate.

Just to conclude: in R1 I interpreted Con's debate against fanboymctroll to be of a triggered nature. In R3 I said that the debate seems to have come to an end since I cannot logically rebut my opponent changing their mind: my opponent missed the point entirely and went on a rant about plagiarism and standards.
InfakeWars

Con

For the final round, I will explain not only my points, But how they have won over my opponent.

First, I will start with the conclusion.
He states that he interpreted my debate, And proved me to be wrong. Then, He states that He, In Round 3, Had proved the debate ending in R3 because he couldn't properly rebut me. Then states that I, "missed the point entirely and went on a rant about plagiarism and standards. "

First, I'd like to state that his Round 1 was the instigation round, The opening round. The beginning arguments should not be reason as to how this is his winning factors. Keep in mind the things I don't say, Are more looked at in who had the better arguments. That's like saying opening statements are the only way to tell a winner, Then overlooking the last near 70%

Second, My opponent refuses, Yet again, To evidence. Ignoring most of my points, And attacking brutally the one's I purposefully set up as bait. He took the bait.
Anonymous003 has spoken of what I will call the, Half Page Essay, Issue he has with my debate. He continues this for an entire paragraph, Making an entire argument about it.

Now, Keep in mind, This is the same person, Who stated purposefully slanderous statements like, "You're the triggered kid who steps too far. . . And with a blush and a crack in their voice they adjust their greasy hair and say 'Heh. I was just playing along too. . . "
I LoOk foWarDs tO aN enlIghTenIng dEbaTe! 111! 1! 11"

Anonymous003 makes a paragraph statement about my one-sentence conduct, But then makes a paragraph response consisting of only slanderous terms. He's contradicting himself at this point.

Third is considering what he said in that paragraph, "I think in R2 you need to prove that what you were saying was a joke. "
I have, Multiple times, If you've seen me on this site. Had you looked up my previous debates, Or debates on debateart, A few debates I've done, Purposefully controversial as I specifically state, Were done for fun. That's the point of debate. Org, To have fun. If this is how I have fun, Finding a response from other's, There's nothing you can do to contradict this point.

As for his NSDA standards attack, I'd like to point out that this point is ABSURD. NSDA is an international program, And I was stressing this because, Not only have you conceded according to most state rules, But also the INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PROFESSIONAL DEBATING STANDARDS. And yet he rebuts this stating that, "As if somehow debate. Org is adhering to set standards. " They're internationally accepted for a reason, As even places not, "under the juristiction of, " adhere to the rules of NSDA.

Then, Anonymous003 decides yet again, In this next paragraph, Use slanderous terms, Call me essentially stupid for not knowing the basic literary terms. Using quotation's means that you are quoting the person's debate. . . That's not my fault that you literally shot yourself in the foot there. Had you used almost anything else, Or better, Not using anything at all, This entire situation would have been avoided.

As for the next paragraph in the Round posted, There was the debate he decides to use in the summarizing round, But must instead rely on using his rebuttals in this, As he can't summarize from being attacked, And having to defend his points. I'm summarizing how every attack he uses has a direct counter, And easily proven wrong from his own conduct, Or contradictions.
He yet again contradicts himself this attack. He assumes that the debate is written in, "a moment of rage, " yet refuses all else, Believing he knows my thoughts and action's more than I do myself. Had I written it in rage, I wouldn't have written a plotted out, And planned debate, And finished it to completion with finesse, As I had done.

Then, He yet again, Goes on to more slander, Because he can't seem to stop mud-slapping me trying to look better in front of the audience.
"My opponent then shows their impressive use of a dictionary by saying that because I described feelings it was no longer a persuasive speech, It was expository. Ooh, Big word. I hope my opponent understands that expository means 'to explain or describe something' according to Google, Which really does not describe my debate in any way; describing feelings does not change the premise of the debate at all. "

To give context to this quote, I had explained that his point wasn't an argument at all, And was rather a fact. The difference between expository and persuasive writing is applying the knowledge of expository writing and using it to try to prove an opinion right or wrong.

Had my opponent known 8th grade writing themself, They would have noticed that the 3 forms of writing are also presented in the class. Expository, Persuasive, And Narrative. I used both terms in that paragraph, Thus explaining why I used the word Expository. It was the context of why I used persuasive, Giving me reason to use expository, As they are both from similar section's. I had to clarify that, As my opponent refuses to get away without throwing harmless, Thought-out, Terms that he wastes time on, Instead of debating formally.

Then, More slander, As there is literally one almost every paragraph. This time, It's the, "playground toddler's tactic, " stating that I was intending something when it looks like I said another, Right after he HAS to just call every point of mine absurd. It's getting ridiculous at this point, And I love it. Bad conduct should be a reason toward a ballot for the Negation of today's debate.

So, In conclusion, My opponent tries at first to debate me, Then concedes their debate, And winds up using slanderous terms as attacks for the excuse of a summarization in the Conclusion Round. Had this debate used more evidence, There would be a much higher chance of success, And a much more organized debate. But hey, We can't all be winners.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InfakeWars 2 years ago
InfakeWars
It's a debate about feelings. There is no, "logical conclusion. "
Posted by Anonymous03 2 years ago
Anonymous03
Well first of all I believe I *said* that my comment was post-r4 and explicitly out-of-the-scope (of the debate), Because I found it out later but felt as though it should be brought up some time. You're trying to say that the whole thing was a joke the entire time. . . It's entirely relevant to bring up a debate you had 3 months ago and say that this person was previously angry at fanboymctroll, Which might've affected their response and is something that people might have to take into consideration.

Secondly, (and this is something I still don't understand) what does my making a lot of comments have anything to do with your being triggered? I get that being triggered is by itself detrimental to thinking and being reasonable overall, But where do you think that I'm 'ranting'? One of the comments was clarifying a few typos too. Logical fallacy that you make yet again.

You're so transparent. You're definitely not what you make yourself to be. You put up a persona that you're cool and unaffected but it's just so obvious that it's not the case when you have to repeat said fact over and over in literally every debate. It's almost like you want to convince yourself. Who else commits so hard to a debate when they're also 'joking around'? Who else gets triggered when I bring up evidence saying 'That's from a while ago, Therefore it's not relevant, And I'm gonna bring up some random company saying that this is entirely prohibited'?

I mean, Wouldn't someone remaining neutral about the whole situation be able to not complain about slanderous terms, Taking random stuff out of context and twisting them around to make them seem hurtful? I respect that you've figured out that being the bigger person makes you look good but you're trying at it too hard.

It's a shame. I hope you find out how to fake an unaffected persona in future. I think we had a great debate but I really don't think we came to a logical conclusion.
Posted by InfakeWars 2 years ago
InfakeWars
Also, This debate I went on was completely different from the anti-fbmt movement debate. First, That wasn't just a couple debates ago, That was when I first joined. I took more than 3 months of a break. Don't take things that are outdated as sources.
Posted by InfakeWars 2 years ago
InfakeWars
*comments that I'm triggered. *

*Proceeds to make 4 comments ranting about why I'm triggered*
Posted by Anonymous03 2 years ago
Anonymous03
And just note that anc2006 just full on said 'vote con' before the debate even started, So should he decide to vote on the debate, Maybe take that into consideration and judge accordingly.
Posted by Anonymous03 2 years ago
Anonymous03
Thanks fanboymctroll.

I feel like my first paragraph was a little convoluted so I'll make a few adjustments in case my opponent is confused (and I feel like they might be).

My opponent first makes the statement that my being triggered is relevant to the debate because my being triggered makes people less likely to listen to reason and refuse evidence. My opponent believes that since I am triggered, I will not accept the evidence presented in front of me.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
FanboyMctroll
Excellent debate guys, Good reading material, Good debate!

Two thumbs up!
Posted by Anonymous03 2 years ago
Anonymous03
Out-of-the-scope quotes and post-R4 substantive incoming.

https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Anti-FBMT-Movement/1/
I know links are broken, Just press backspace on the spacings and decapitalise everything that comes after a dot. My opponent had previously had a debate where they went on a rant about fanboymctroll.

'FBMT constantly: Spams, Ignores evidence, Harasses other members. Acts selfishly, Many more, Socially unacceptable acts
He needs to stop being one of the many trolls, Bots, And haters of this place that could be great, And just realize that he doesn't belong, And
NO.
ONE.
CARES. '

This seems to be written in a bit of emotion.

Can Con really say that they took fanboymctroll as a joke when they so clearly went on a bit of a fit about them a few debates back?
Posted by InfakeWars 2 years ago
InfakeWars
Also, This isn't a case point, But I forgot that I remembered you from Iconoclast, When he was talking about you on the site, And I decided to debate him over it. Remember how serious I got about that? That's what I mean. I get dead-serious, Regardless of how stupid it is.
Posted by anc2006 2 years ago
anc2006
vote con
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.