Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Sep '16 04:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    If nothing else, I bet the house when they stand at the podium, Hillary will be the same height as Trump even though she is much shorter in stature.

    That will be a given.

    It's all about perception and deception.
    It seems you were wrong; when they entered and went to their respective podiums there was no stand or anything. Hillary didn't even appear to have heels on (granted I didn't really look that hard).
  2. Standard memberlemon lime
    ookookachu
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    27 Sep '16 05:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It seems you were wrong; when they entered and went to their respective podiums there was no stand or anything. Hillary didn't even appear to have heels on (granted I didn't really look that hard).
    Most of the time I was looking at a split screen of their heads... that's how the height difference was delt with, by showing two large heads that appreared to be very close together. If I knew it was going to look that way I would have moved the couch back further away from the TV.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    27 Sep '16 22:483 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    LMAO! It's naturally off-topic and "all about you" (as to be expected from a mentally unhinged narcissist), but for you to dare complain about anyone's supposed "aggressive and abusive actions" on this Forum is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

    The last paragraph is your usual lies, distortions and trolling.

    The idea that I deny sexism exists in the US is so ridiculous it does not require comment.
    First of all, I note that the troll No1Marauder completely ignored (and did not dispute) my
    criticisms of his misunderstanding or distortion of Vistesd's apparent point about sexism.

    The pathological liar No1Marauder keeps shamelessly lying as usual.
    In fact, No1Marauder created a thread apparently for the sole purpose of trolling me.
    After that did not work as well as he had hoped, No1Marauder asked RHP to delete his thread.

    As usual, the pathological liar No1Marauder puts more words into my mouth.
    I did *not* write that No1Maruader has *explicitly denied* the existence of all sexism in the USA.
    My position is that No1Marauder has done his disingenuous utmost to deny or to
    minimize sexism as an influence in the cases of rape or sexual assault in which he
    has zealously defended the men accused or convicted of it. No1Marauder sometimes
    has appealed, in effect, to rape myths (which are sexist), while opposing expert
    testimony to educate juries about such rape myths.

    Even Zahlanzi (who's no friend of mine) apparently regards No1Marauder as a sexist troll.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Sep '16 23:34
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    First of all, I note that the troll No1Marauder completely ignored (and did not dispute) my
    criticisms of his misunderstanding or distortion of Vistesd's apparent point about sexism.

    The pathological liar No1Marauder keeps shamelessly lying as usual.
    In fact, No1Marauder created a thread apparently for the sole purpose of trolling me.
    After that did ...[text shortened]... hs.

    Even Zahlanzi (who's no friend of mine) apparently regards No1Marauder as a sexist troll.
    More lies and distortions. But that really is what you are all about.

    But the thread isn't about you though you seem to think virtually every thread is.
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    28 Sep '16 00:42
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    People should vote.

    People should get informed.

    Reading townhall, the daily caller and the other sources you rely on is not the way to get informed.
    I kind of agree, but just as a debating question...

    Why ought people make themselves better informed, it may suit your purposes, but why is it a moral imperative or if not a moral imperative at least in their interests? Why should they vote if they feel they do not know enough to vote and even if they do why should they vote?

    You might not have meant it but I think there's something of an is-ought problem with your argument and I'm interested in your justification. I'm looking stuck for a party to vote for in the next election. I just can't vote for anyone to the right of Labour or the Greens but both of those parties are either unilateralist or moving in that direction, or worse still have a policy where they are not disarmed but a leader who clearly will not retaliate against first strike leading to an utterly incoherent nuclear weapons policy. This leaves me with no one to vote for. So I'm left wondering if I have a moral obligation to choose a party even if I disagree with them on things I think important.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    28 Sep '16 22:331 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    More lies and distortions. But that really is what you are all about.
    But the thread isn't about you though you seem to think virtually every thread is.
    Obviously, the pathological liar No1Marauder's sticking to his Big Lie technique of posting.
    Has the abusive troll No1Marauder yet been able to quote any statement by me to support
    his cocksure claim that I am (or must) be white?
  7. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1420
    29 Sep '16 00:374 edits
    No1Marauder's many extremely aggressive and abusive actions against me show his hypocrisy. -Duchess64

    Many extremely aggressive and abusive actions?? This is a debate forum, nothing physical is happening here. This sounds like someone who has lost quite a number of debates to the same person and is letting frustration and emotion do the typing. 😀😀😀
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Sep '16 22:281 edit
    Originally posted by mchill
    No1Marauder's many extremely aggressive and abusive actions against me show his hypocrisy. -Duchess64

    Many extremely aggressive and abusive actions?? This is a debate forum, nothing physical is happening here. This sounds like someone who has lost quite a number of debates to the same person and is letting frustration and emotion do the typing. 😀😀😀
    The troll Mchill already has quite a record of spewing lies to attack me personally.
    Mchill has liked to reiterate the lie that I personally attack everyone with whom I disagree.

    My usage of 'aggressive' came from *quoting* No1Marauder's earlier usage of
    'aggressive' referring to Donald Trump's potential debating tactics against Hillary Clinton.
    Obviously (except to a fatuous troll like Mchill) being 'aggressive' refers to *verbal aggression*
    rather than *physical aggression*. If one calls Donald Trump 'aggressive' toward Hillary
    Clinton, one's obviously *not* accusing him of approaching her on the debate stage and
    attempting to punch her in the mouth or rip off her clothes.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    30 Sep '16 15:54
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    When someone's uncle Fred starts talking about the implants the aliens who abducted him left in his brain, others often won't "challenge" him either.

    That doesn't mean they think such beliefs have any basis in reality.

    The percentage of crazy conspiracy nuts who aren't already voting for Trump is probably quite small and the average undecided (betw ...[text shortened]... a General Election Presidential Debate it's likely to be damaging, if not fatal, to his chances.
    So Bill firing the director of the FBI the day before Foster's body was found is a mere coincidence? LOL!!!!!!!!

    By the way, my prediction was right.
Back to Top