Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Convince Me

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:03:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

because the bible says so.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:43:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A God? The God, or a god?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:44:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Countered, or encountered?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:46:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

What for? You have all the answers. You just seek to contradict for the sake of contradiction. You have no interest what so ever of even knowing about or knowing what it is to know god.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Fatihah
Posts: 7,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:50:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

Response: You've heard plenty of rational arguments for God that refutes the notion that he does not exist. Thus it is and has always bern an emotional attachment to disbelieve in God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:53:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:46:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

What for? You have all the answers.

I am aware of all the failed arguments from theists who try to establish the existence of God. If that is what you mean, then I would say you are correct.

You just seek to contradict for the sake of contradiction.

No, I seek for one solid theistic argument that convinces me God exists. Have you not been paying attention?

You have no interest what so ever of even knowing about or knowing what it is to know god.

I have an interesting in knowing whether this God character exists or not. As it stands, I see no good reason to believe God exists. This means, I do not believe God exists. I am just seeking for good reasons to believe he exists and is there, as I have not stumbled upon any. I believe theists are adhering to weak arguments based on unjustified presuppositions and assumptions. Also, your whole post was just presuppositions, accompanied by a shameless personal attack for no good reason other than I do not believe what you believe.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:53:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:46:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

What for? You have all the answers. You just seek to contradict for the sake of contradiction. You have no interest what so ever of even knowing about or knowing what it is to know god.

A god, or God?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:54:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:03:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

because the bible says so.
/thread
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:55:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:50:28 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

Response: You've heard plenty of rational arguments for God that refutes the notion that he does not exist.

No, I have heard the rebuttals to those arguments (and have came up a few of my own) which refute those arguments you speak of. Meaning, those arguments do not actually establish God's existence.

Thus it is and has always bern an emotional attachment to disbelieve in God.

Two can play this game. You just don't accept the rebuttals to the arguments for God, because of your emotional attachment to theism. I have no emotional attachment to Atheism. You are just committing the fallacy of presumption.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:59:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:50:28 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

Response: You've heard plenty of rational arguments for God that refutes the notion that he does not exist. Thus it is and has always bern an emotional attachment to disbelieve in God.

The only argument for the character God, with all the rules and rituals that entail, is that a book says so. All the rational arguments attempt to show a powerful, clever, timeless and consciousness being exists. Just because this God supposedly has these characteristics doesn't mean that if these arguments were indeed sound, that this God would be shown to be true.

Were in these arguments does it mention Moses, Jesus or Muhammad?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:00:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Where*
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:09:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:59:22 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:50:28 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

Response: You've heard plenty of rational arguments for God that refutes the notion that he does not exist. Thus it is and has always bern an emotional attachment to disbelieve in God.

The only argument for the character God, with all the rules and rituals that entail, is that a book says so. All the rational arguments attempt to show a powerful, clever, timeless and consciousness being exists. Just because this God supposedly has these characteristics doesn't mean that if these arguments were indeed sound, that this God would be shown to be true.

Were in these arguments does it mention Moses, Jesus or Muhammad?

Theists provide their arguments in a cumulative case.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:17:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:09:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:59:22 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:50:28 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

Response: You've heard plenty of rational arguments for God that refutes the notion that he does not exist. Thus it is and has always bern an emotional attachment to disbelieve in God.

The only argument for the character God, with all the rules and rituals that entail, is that a book says so. All the rational arguments attempt to show a powerful, clever, timeless and consciousness being exists. Just because this God supposedly has these characteristics doesn't mean that if these arguments were indeed sound, that this God would be shown to be true.

Were in these arguments does it mention Moses, Jesus or Muhammad?

Theists provide their arguments in a cumulative case.

I've never seen a theist even attempt to link the rules, rituals and supposed actions of God into these arguments without using scripture, maybe that's too far even for them (and I mean even the strangest ones).
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fatihah
Posts: 7,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:19:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:55:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:50:28 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

Response: You've heard plenty of rational arguments for God that refutes the notion that he does not exist.

No, I have heard the rebuttals to those arguments (and have came up a few of my own) which refute those arguments you speak of. Meaning, those arguments do not actually establish God's existence.



Thus it is and has always bern an emotional attachment to disbelieve in God.

Two can play this game. You just don't accept the rebuttals to the arguments for God, because of your emotional attachment to theism. I have no emotional attachment to Atheism. You are just committing the fallacy of presumption.

Response: No game at all. You are the one with a "convince me" thread, knowing full well that you've been in several debates on the topic already and still have the same views, presenting the same weak arguments for them.

Furthermore, if you are truly looking for evidence, then you should be able to state exactly what evidence is required, yet you do not. And when similar evidence for evolution is presented to prove God, you reject it, thus showing an emotional attachment to disbelief.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:24:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:17:31 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:


I've never seen a theist even attempt to link the rules, rituals and supposed actions of God into these arguments without using scripture, maybe that's too far even for them (and I mean even the strangest ones).

Response: thus showing the hypocrisy in your argument. For I have never, ever, ever, used scripture to prove the existence of God. Yet, if asked to an atheist to prove evolution, you refer to science books. That's hypocrisy. You refer to a book as true because it says so. You have no proof that the author is speaking the truth, yet requiring the same for religious books. Hypocrisy at its highest order.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:05:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:53:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:46:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:01:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why should I believe that a God exists? I just want good reasons. I have no beef with God existing, or any emotional attachment to his non-existence. I just want a solid argument, or reason to believe this God character is actually there. I have never countered a successful theistic argument.

What for? You have all the answers.

I am aware of all the failed arguments from theists who try to establish the existence of God. If that is what you mean, then I would say you are correct.


You just seek to contradict for the sake of contradiction.

No, I seek for one solid theistic argument that convinces me God exists. Have you not been paying attention?

You have no interest what so ever of even knowing about or knowing what it is to know god.

I have an interesting in knowing whether this God character exists or not. As it stands, I see no good reason to believe God exists. This means, I do not believe God exists. I am just seeking for good reasons to believe he exists and is there, as I have not stumbled upon any. I believe theists are adhering to weak arguments based on unjustified presuppositions and assumptions. Also, your whole post was just presuppositions, accompanied by a shameless personal attack for no good reason other than I do not believe what you believe.

"I have an interesting in knowing whether this God character exists or not."

You most certainly do not. People will never convince you of anything. Hopelessness and despair will.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:07:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:24:29 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:17:31 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:


I've never seen a theist even attempt to link the rules, rituals and supposed actions of God into these arguments without using scripture, maybe that's too far even for them (and I mean even the strangest ones).

Response: thus showing the hypocrisy in your argument. For I have never, ever, ever, used scripture to prove the existence of God. Yet, if asked to an atheist to prove evolution, you refer to science books. That's hypocrisy. You refer to a book as true because it says so. You have no proof that the author is speaking the truth, yet requiring the same for religious books. Hypocrisy at its highest order.

Then how do you "prove" it? Science books can be checked using reason, evidence and verification. Not hypocrisy. I trust the book is true because if it wasn't, there's a good chance many people would be showing how it isn't true, using reason, evidence and verification.

This is where scripture falls short. No more than a reflection of a shadow of God can even be argued for without using scripture.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:12:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Theists get so touchy when something makes them realize they have no rational reason beyond their own emotions for their beliefs...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:33:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here goes,

If you believe that the universe requires a cause at its beginning then you already believe that it has a creator. If its creator is also subject to cause then it also requires a creator. If this goes on into infinity then it violates the law of cause. If it does not go into infinity then there is an eternal creator. If this eternal creator did cause then it can cause. If this creator is eternal and can cause then wouldn't being eternal and causing be God?

Let us assume that this eternal thing which can cause was merely a primordial soup. If this can cause then this can change. If this can change then this would lead to a higher state of order. If this is eternal then this would be at the highest state of order. If the highest state of order is being, self aware, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal being is that God?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:51:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:07:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Then how do you "prove" it? Science books can be checked using reason, evidence and verification. Not hypocrisy. I trust the book is true because if it wasn't, there's a good chance many people would be showing how it isn't true, using reason, evidence and verification.

This is where scripture falls short. No more than a reflection of a shadow of God can even be argued for without using scripture.

Response: And there we have it. The same hypocrisy. What we are about to witness now is you and a bunch of atheists defend your hypocrisy of saying something is not proof because a book says so, yet every claim you have about science is because a science book says so.

Then you say it can be checked with reason. Okay. Yet you provided no reason or evidence, thus proving nothing. So your evidence is hypocrisy, for in the end, you claim evolution is true because a book says so. Yet when a religious person does the same, you say it's not evidence.

You have evidence and proof that the scientists are telling the truth Prove it. And do it without providing a link, a quote, or another book. Watch you Fail.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:58:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:51:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/22/2013 5:07:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Then how do you "prove" it? Science books can be checked using reason, evidence and verification. Not hypocrisy. I trust the book is true because if it wasn't, there's a good chance many people would be showing how it isn't true, using reason, evidence and verification.

This is where scripture falls short. No more than a reflection of a shadow of God can even be argued for without using scripture.

Response: And there we have it. The same hypocrisy. What we are about to witness now is you and a bunch of atheists defend your hypocrisy of saying something is not proof because a book says so, yet every claim you have about science is because a science book says so.

Then you say it can be checked with reason. Okay. Yet you provided no reason or evidence, thus proving nothing. So your evidence is hypocrisy, for in the end, you claim evolution is true because a book says so. Yet when a religious person does the same, you say it's not evidence.

That's because the science book was written suing information that had been vetted, and the religious book was written with information that was made up. You can tell this, because science textbooks have sources, from where you can determine for yourself whether you believe each claim, while religious textbooks have plainly false claims, such as the Christian bible's claims about the efficacy of prayer.


You have evidence and proof that the scientists are telling the truth Prove it. And do it without providing a link, a quote, or another book. Watch you Fail.

Again, you're equating two things that don't equate at all. That's like saying "I also use words to make my point. So even though my argument is "You're a doodyhead, therefore everything you say is stupid", it's just as valid as yours. If you think your argument is better, make it without words! So there!

If there's anything we question in a science textbook, we can duplicate the tests that gave rise to the explanation; if we have a better one, soon WE'LL be in the textbooks. And the old ones will be thrown out. With religions, since they're based on the kind of plainly fallacious reasoning you're exhibiting here, you don't get truth. You get opinion asserted as truth, which is in part why there's so many different religions that all claim they're "right".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fatihah
Posts: 7,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:20:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:58:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:


That's because the science book was written suing information that had been vetted, and the religious book was written with information that was made up. You can tell this, because science textbooks have sources, from where you can determine for yourself whether you believe each claim, while religious textbooks have plainly false claims, such as the Christian bible's claims about the efficacy of prayer.



Again, you're equating two things that don't equate at all. That's like saying "I also use words to make my point. So even though my argument is "You're a doodyhead, therefore everything you say is stupid", it's just as valid as yours. If you think your argument is better, make it without words! So there!

If there's anything we question in a science textbook, we can duplicate the tests that gave rise to the explanation; if we have a better one, soon WE'LL be in the textbooks. And the old ones will be thrown out. With religions, since they're based on the kind of plainly fallacious reasoning you're exhibiting here, you don't get truth. You get opinion asserted as truth, which is in part why there's so many different religions that all claim they're "right".

Response: Another atheist comes along and proves my point. Here, we see another atheist claiming that they have this and they have that as evidence, yet presented........NOTHING.

Once again, want to see that you are not a clear hypocrite. You say quoting religious text is not proof because saying so is not proof that it is so, then turn right around and quote a science statement as fact because a science book says so. That's hypocrisy. Again, bring forward evidence that the author of the science source is telling the truth without quoting a text. You can't. So atheism is based on hypocrisy and no evidence, the same evidence you criitique for religion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:01:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

The issue here, is that it is just the same old regurgitated arguments. The only difference is that they are presented by extremely skilled debaters. However, even if you wrap it in a pretty little bow, a pile of crap is still a pile of crap.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:02:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:41:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:01:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

The issue here, is that it is just the same old regurgitated arguments. The only difference is that they are presented by extremely skilled debaters. However, even if you wrap it in a pretty little bow, a pile of crap is still a pile of crap.

I'd agree with you, with respect to TAG and Contradiction's teleological argument, that the debater is probably better than the argument. The other arguments, particularly the argument from contingency from Pruss, are a whole different ball game.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:11:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:02:20 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:41:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:01:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

The issue here, is that it is just the same old regurgitated arguments. The only difference is that they are presented by extremely skilled debaters. However, even if you wrap it in a pretty little bow, a pile of crap is still a pile of crap.

I'd agree with you, with respect to TAG and Contradiction's teleological argument, that the debater is probably better than the argument. The other arguments, particularly the argument from contingency from Pruss, are a whole different ball game.

That contingency argument is one of attempting to use big words to say something that, if said more simply, is plainly not necessarily true.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:14:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:11:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:02:20 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:41:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:01:42 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

The issue here, is that it is just the same old regurgitated arguments. The only difference is that they are presented by extremely skilled debaters. However, even if you wrap it in a pretty little bow, a pile of crap is still a pile of crap.

I'd agree with you, with respect to TAG and Contradiction's teleological argument, that the debater is probably better than the argument. The other arguments, particularly the argument from contingency from Pruss, are a whole different ball game.

That contingency argument is one of attempting to use big words to say something that, if said more simply, is plainly not necessarily true.

I'm gonna go 'head and call BS on you.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!