₦airaland Forum

maasoap:
Public service? He wasn't doing that for them as a public servant.
Who is crying now? Who is suffering? Case closed. Everyone should lick their wound. He wasn't a public servant when helping them. He needed their help after 20 years of helping them and they just realised that he wasn't good enough for them, that's okay. What are we discussing again here exactly?

I'll try to make this as simple enough for you to understand: whether he was elected or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that he was never sincere with his intentions. He chose to destroy the very resources that were meant to benefit the people all because he's a sore loser. Read that again very carefully. His actions scream "self-serving" louder than a playground tantrum, so spare us the semantics. The issue at hand is not about his title or position, but about his actions.

CyrusVI:
Omg! I'm afraid of you now

How do you find it so easy to recognize me even when i use other monikers

I have only tagged you once with this username and I'm surprised you recognize who I am

Same way u did when i used EmperorC and DevilsE

Please, do you track peoples IP or what

I'm actually worried o

And as for that DNA stuff, I didnt respond yet cause you've not been really stable here. I no wan dey wait for your reply every 3weeks. It kills the vibes and energy. Before now, you havent been around for like 3weeks. Thats too much of a wait

And the bolded, I'm actually under obligation to respond cause I'm not just debating for the sake of it but to win you and I mean it. My education is a waste if a person that doesnt major in any science field can defeat me in a science-based argument with their Socratic method of argument that uses multiple questions to shred peoples points into scattered pieces

God Forbid!!!

It's good you didn't try to deny it. You could have fooled anyone here but definitely not me.

To answer your first question -- No, I don't track people's IP addresses. I guess I'm just good at recognizing the aroma of pseudo-intelligence and stale excuses. It's not hard to detect when someone like you posts in this forum with the way you make snide remarks in a thread before scampering off like a child playing truancy. I have tried countless times to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your constant episodes of dishonest evasions and petty side comments have led me to believe that you're just a rabble rouser trying to start a fight with me for no reason other than the fact that you clearly feel threatened by me, and I can't help but wonder why.

And your excuse for not providing evidence is laughable. I mean, you're the one creating multiple usernames to avoid accountability. My sporadic presence here is not the fantastic excuse you think it is for you to dodge my questions continually, especially since you've had ample time to craft a substantive response. If you can't handle the wait, then maybe you should reconsider engaging in discussions that require intellectual honesty and rigor, instead of you to keep making excuses in a thinly veiled attempt to mask your inability to provide a coherent argument.

As for your "degree", maybe you can give me a very solid reason for why I should care? How does your education obligate you to respond to me? Is it a requirement to salvage your wounded ego? You sound too desperate here, like someone really struggling to save face.

Look, if you're not going to address the simple questions you've been asked, but keep up with your unnecessary and childish antics instead, then you've only confirmed what I've suspected about you all along. You're a fraud who has confused himself with an enlightened individual, and who boosts his ego by making surface level references to academic materials he doesn't understand. In that case, you can just spare us both the time and find something better to do.

maasoap:
You type too much bullshitt my friend. What crime has the gentleman committed here? How coukd I be with you for 20 years. And not only that, showing you that I cared through my resources and you still didn't trust me enough to represent your interests? Then, what exactly am I doing in your midst?

Sorry chump, but this isn't about your feelings or your perceived slights. So cool it with the tantrums and pay close attention. We're talking about basic human rights, which for some odd reason, you seem to think are optional, when they're absolutely not. They're not even up for debate in the first place.

And as for your question about what crime he committed, how about reckless endangerment? Vandalism? Abuse of power? But hey, I'm sure you think those are just mere foibles, huh? I'm sure his 100 million years of "caring" through "resources" (read: trying to buy loyalty) has totally earned him a pass on accountability, right? Wrong!

As a public servant, if you want to represent people's interests, maybe you should try prioritizing their needs over your own ego. That way, we don't get grown men crying about hurt feelings when things don't go their way.

maasoap:
They don't owe him even after 20 years of being their helper and he has equally told them that he doesn't owe them too. What's so difficult for you to understand? If he's not good enough for them, may be they too don't deserve his generosity.


Life is all about give and take dear friend. At least, he's not their government or representative now

This is very funny. Do you even understand the concept of public service? My dear, elected officials are not charity givers who bestow favors upon the deserving. They're only representatives, entrusted with the duty to serve all constituents, regardless of political affiliation or perceived loyalty. Being "good enough" or deserving of their "generosity" is not the point here. The point here is fulfilling your sworn obligations to the public as a representative. Once again, you need to learn the difference between democracy and feudalism, then figure it out by yourself, which of the two systems this case is more applicable to.

Your sanctimonious drivel about people deserving of favors from politicians is dead on arrival in any functioning democracy. In a true democracy, public servants prioritize the well-being of all citizens, not just their sycophants. Anything less is a dereliction of duty. Got that, amigo?

CyrusVI:
Ahhh...You don go call horror

She go drag u till u run away

I wish u well

Hi there

I know there's no obligation for you to respond, but I'm still curious to see your demonstration of how the DNA's complexity evidences intelligent design. Thanks.

https://www.nairaland.com/8148371/dna-test-results-lies-there/1#131225246

ThothHermes:
Jessica.Rabbit, I'm in the mood for an argument, I want to see you defend this in the name of love and freedom.

Lol. My old friend. Doesn't it exhaust you constantly trying to dictate how others experience or express their own identity?

maasoap:
Water from who? From their government or the one they trusted enough to give their majority votes to or from the private individual gentleman they rejected at the ballot after 20 years of him identifying with them?

Don't be ridiculous. Basic human rights aren't conditional rewards for political loyalty. Access to water is a fundamental necessity, not a partisan favor. Your mental gymnastics are unimpressive, and more importantly, they do not help your case here in the slightest. And please miss me with that "private individual gentleman" nonsense. It's funny watching you desperately trying to humanize a politician who's clearly more interested in consolidating power than serving the people.

I have an idea for you to consider. Why don't elected officials prioritize the well-being of all citizens, regardless of their voting choices? After all, that's what public service is supposed to be about serving the public, and not just your political cronies.

They let him down, he owes them nothing. Now, they have the government and their own representative. Let's stop this emotional blackmail, every choice and decision has consequences.

If a politician's only obligation is to those who voted for them, then we're not living in a democracy my friend, we're living in a feudal system with better marketing. I think the real problem here is that you think democracy is a zero-sum game. Newsflash, kiddo, it isn't.

Too much English my friend, no emotional blackmail.

Hey, you're absolutely right! I'll be sure to use more monosyllabic words in the future, like "duh" and "um". Perhaps that will make my utterances more intelligible to your limited vocabulary. 🙄

They made it clear that they didn't owe him and he equally made it clear that he doesn't owe them.

It's funny watching your logic in action - it's like a messy combination of circular reasoning and callousness. Expecting basic human rights to be respected is a fundamental entitlement for all individuals. Human rights, such as freedom from discrimination, torture, and arbitrary detention, are universal and inalienable. Demanding their protection and respect is essential for a just and equitable society, and should not be subject to political manipulation or coercion. So no, it's not emotional blackmail to expect basic human rights to be respected, regardless of political affiliation. But hey, I guess in your world, clean water is just a participation trophy.

FxMasterz:
Oh, just seeing this mention right now. I met a lot of mentions at my return tonight. As I responded to them, more mentions came in and I missed your mention as a result. I thought you didn't reply.

As I said earlier, I only enlisted StillDtruth for my personal assistance. He has nothing to do regarding the debates we're having. He was to just alert me whenever you break a rule. That's all. Why are you intimidated by that? Moreso, he has rejected the invitation.

You're proposing we include people that can interject in our discussion and possibly even derail it. If you're so worried about breaking rules, then that's why we'll have the jury. They're the ones who will be keeping score. And like I said in my latest suggestion, they'll be free to make whatever comments they want in the "commentary thread", but we need a main thread where it's just you and me contributing with no one else posting on that thread. Basically two threads.

As for StillDtruth, rejecting him as a judge or referee was simply based on his past dishonest behavior and conduct towards debates, and the fact that I don't think he's competent enough to even understand the concepts we'll be discussing. It will be like calling a petulant 6 year old child to referee a political discussion between two scholars. He has no expertise to be making any sort of contributions there, and nearly everything he says would be straight up wrong and misleading.

Rejecting him as a lawyer though is simply because I see no need for a lawyer in this debate. What's the point? It will no longer be a 1v1, it will become a 2v2. And if it's going to be a 2v2, we might as well just allow everyone else to chip in instead of making the debate exclusive. If you've ever seen a real debate, you'll know that the only parties involved are the two individuals debating. I understand that he has fed you with baseless unevidenced lies about me, but I would hope that you're an adult who can think for himself and not let others think for you.

You're planning to spend the rest of your life with someone who refuses to apologize or show vulnerability? That's a recipe for disaster my dear. You can't possibly accept this kind of behavior from her. She sounds like a walking red flag to me, and you sound like someone being subdued. It's not even about being right or wrong. Two crucial pillars in any relationship is empathy and respect and she doesn't seem to embody either of the two.

But all of that is neither here nor there. What you can control right now is how you respond to the situation. Continuing to absorb her behavior and always being the one to apologize will indeed weaken you much more than it already has. You can't fix her ego or force her to apologize.

It's time to reevaluate this relationship and consider whether this is the kind of dynamic you want in a partner. You need to ask yourself if you are willing to tolerate this behavior for the rest of your life. Are you certain this pattern of behaviors will not erode your self-respect and mental health?

Don't write checks you cannot cash my dear. If you'd like, maybe you can call her aside and tell her how you really feel. But if it still doesn't feel right for your mental health, I'd advise you to cut your losses and dip.

FxMasterz:
If you reject the format then you're not being sincere about engaging in a honest debate. This shows you really want to break the rules and get away with it.

You're really one to talk about honesty demanding that a user with a long history of dishonest arguments should be your lawyer. You must really lack self-awareness.

If you don't want a debate, then you can run off with your tail between your legs.

FxMasterz:
Thanks for the heads-up. I understand the situation about you rejecting my invite.

I'll be very much at alert against her antics since I'm now aware of them. The Spirit of God would raise a higher standard against her.

I have challenged AI before challenging Atheists here. Even AI gave in. Screenshot posted below. Atheism is just lies upon lies upon lies. The more you're able to quickly spot the lies and deceits, the quicker atheism falls.

Thanks again.

Well, well, now if this isn't a beautiful irony. Uhm.. I thought you were the same guy who tried to punk Jaephoenix and say he ran away from a debate with you. You're chasing fishes in the sky my dear. This is starting to look like a scene in a 90s sitcom. 😂

I'll tell you what, let's do it like this. It may seem far fetched because it depends on the willingness of people to participate, but if you really want to prove the unfalsifiability of your argument, I'm sure you may agree.

Let's create a thread where you highlight the arguments you presented here, and we'll debate it over there. No other person besides the both of us is allowed to comment on that thread.

Then we'll open yet another thread for 13 other monikers who will comprise the jury. I'll try and come up with a method to select the jury in a way that will be fair to both parties. Just to give you a head start, I'll give you StillDTruth as one of the members of the jury, which means we'll have to find 12 more. They're not going to comment on the main thread, but they can comment on the commentary thread where they will eventually cast their votes on who possesses the superior logical argument.

If you don't accept, then it's a shame we won't be having any debate.

By the way I can't stop laughing at your screenshot of the AI conceding your point. You do realize AI is designed to avoid confrontational language and arguments revolving around faith and politics, right?

Everyday247:
. Haba oga!!! This is too much Na. Why are you making her seem as if she's some kind of boss character that requires an entire trained squad to take her on?

🤣🤣

I must have gotten into his head. He can't seem to get over the fact that he lacks the intellectual competence to keep up in a mature debate. I exposed him in our last debate and he didn't take it so well. He's been trying to troll me ever since. 😂

FxMasterz:
StillDtruth is my own personal referee. Not yours. He alerts me when you break a rule. He's not here to judge us or decide the outcome of the debate. Hope I'm clearer now? You might need someone Ike him beside you too who'll alert you when I break a rule.

Well then, I reject this format.

The idea is to have referees who have no stake in this debate. StillDtruth is not one of those people. If I wanted, I could call in Maynman or AntiChristian or Judas1x. But I don't need them here. If I need someone who leans more to one side of the debate than the other, then what's the point of making it an exclusive debate? We can as well make it a free for all where everybody can just butt in and argue against each other.

I personally don't need a lawyer. I'm more than capable myself of pointing out fallacies in others' argument without having someone else do it for me. That's the point of having referees, or a jury if you will. They will vote in the end to decide a winner based on the logical framework of their argument.

If you're not willing to reconsider this, then I'm not having this debate.

FxMasterz:
Mine is just a lawyer to check you when you break the rules. Nothing more. You might need someone to check me too.

I've not yet nominated a judge. You can try again with others on your list.

This is not what we agreed on my dear.

We agreed to have two or three unbiased referees to supervise the debate. Think of it like a jury. None of them should be allied to one side to check the other, because that's what a lawyer is: someone arguing for one party alone. You're trying to make this a free for all where any and everybody can shoe in his unsolicited opinion, and I'm not having it. This is strictly between the both of us.

And DeepSight is also a lawyer. If you really need a lawyer to be involved, why involve one who has a history of dishonesty and incompetence (StillDtruth), as opposed to one who is probably one of the most revered and respected intellectuals to ever grace this forum in DeepSight.

StillDtruth is heavily biased, and if you think he isn't, then I might have to start wondering if YOU are actually interested in having this discussion. DeepSight and budaatum to the best of my knowledge are objective commentators, but if you reject them, fine. You'll also have to respect my decision to reject StillDtruth as well.

FxMasterz:
Your nominees are in no way neutral. I reject them.

Well I reject yours too. Can we try this again?

I have many more to pick from.

FxMasterz:
You're a lawyer. You can join the debate and be our referee. I'll try my best to spot infractions as they come.

Thanks in advance.

Emphasis on unbiased referees.

You really believe that a guy who desperately hates atheists is a right choice? Really? 😂😂😂

FxMasterz:
Yes to all.

All arguments must be contained within the limits of the stated facts. No derailment.

Okay.

As for the independent referees. I nominate budaatum and DeepSight.

Budaatum is unallied to both Christians and Atheists to the best of my knowledge. Plus he frequents these parts a lot and definitely won't have any stakes in the outcome of this debate.

As for DeepSight, I've never interacted with him personally, but I follow and observe his posts. I believe he's a deist (correct me if I'm wrong DeepSight 😁). Plus he's a fierce intellectual who's been active since around the early Nairaland days and has a track record of arguing with both Christians and Atheists alike.

I'll try and reach out to them, and if they decline. I have a couple more people to call upon as referees.

You can also make two nominations if you want.

StillDtruth:
You have already started with everything you say he shouldnt do with bullyings and intimidation of your opponent and trying to cover your ass when you run away to come back with an "After thought" because you could not answer at the material time.😆

See am debate never start and you already don dey violate the rules of debate which you.say he should keep but you will never keep it. 😆😆😆

(imagine, people have to wait months for your reply. You must be living in Jupiter)😆

Even in just courts there are time frames parties must respond if they do not want to lose their respective cases, how much more in a public debate. You are not serious at all and you are just trying to cover up the fact you know you will fail.

Runaway means runaway you know do not have any valid answer to give and so you know you are losing or going to lose, so you run as you are supposed to do when losing.

Also, you did not add "No Lies" and Twistings and Perversion of an opponents statements.

Go sit in the corner, child. And let the adults talk. 😂

FxMasterz:
The rules are already my unannounced rules. Matured reasonings. You're welcome to the challenge.

No, no, no, no. Lol. I'm not taking this highly ambiguous response from you as a concrete agreement. Forgive me if I sound pedantic, but I'm trying my best to avoid a debate that might devolve into trolling or pointless back and forths here. "Matured reasonings" is a phrase that sounds profound but means precisely nothing. It's just a placeholder for actual substance. Be direct with your words. Are you accepting the conditions I outlined, or are you simply paying lip service to the idea of "matured reasonings"? Can you respond with a simple "yes" or "no" to the following questions?

1) Do you agree to avoid logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and straw men? And are you willing to address them properly if you're called out for committing any of the above?

2) Do you agree that empirical evidence and scientific consensus are acceptable benchmarks for truth claims?

3) Do you agree to refrain from sentimental arguments, red herrings and unprovoked personal attacks?

4) Are you willing to have our debate moderated by objective, intellectual referees to ensure fairness and call out fallacies?

Let's establish a clear understanding before proceeding please!

StillDtruth:
Clearly, you are the queen of lies and your true nane is Lilith, Satan's wife, 😆

So jessica is even a Lie. Mrs Satan, the Liaress and queen of denial in nairaland .😆😆😆😆

I'm sure you would still win World Champion Queen of Lies 😆😆😆😆

Liaress Forever! 😆😆😆😆😆

Denial is a bold word coming from someone who outrightly refused to address any of my actual arguments and resorted to pointless trolling instead. 😂

StillDtruth:
(Yo', woman) Yo' (Open up, woman)
What do you want, woman?
(My guy just caught me)
You let him catch you?
(I don't know how I let this happen)
With who?
(The guy next door, you know) woman
(I don't know what to do)
Say it wasn't you (it was him)
Alright! 😆😆😆

Honey came in and he caught me red-handed
Creeping with the guy next door
Picture this, we were both butt-naked, banging on the bathroom floor

How could I forget that I had
Given him an extra key
All this time he was standing there
he never took his eyes off me

How you can give your man access to your villa?
Trespass and a-witness while you cling to your pillow
You better watch your back before he turn into a killer
Let's review the situation that you caught up in a

To be a true player you have to know how to play
If he say a night, convince him say a day
Never admit to a word what he say
And if he claim, ah, you tell her, "Baby, no way" 😆😆😆

But he caught me on the counter
(It wasn't me. It was you) 😆😆😆
[Saw me bangin' on the sofa
(It wasn't me, it was you) 😆😆😆
Saw me kissin' on the sofa
(It wasn't me.It was you) 😆😆😆
I even had her in the shower
(It wasn't me. It was you) 😆😆😆
She even caught me on camera
(It wasn't me it was you) 😆😆😆

She saw the marks on my shoulder
(It wasn't me. It was you) 😆😆😆
Heard the words that I told her
(It wasn't me. It was you) 😆😆😆
Heard the scream get louder
(It wasn't me. It was you) 😆😆😆
he stayed until it was over 😆😆😆😆

Liaress forever! 😆😆😆😆😆😆

I get it. You're good at reciting songs but are terrible at having intelligent and honest discussions. I totally understand your challenges. At the very least, I'm happy you finally found your intellectual level. Lol

FxMasterz:
The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

I had an argument with Jaephoenix a few days ago. He was completely floored and ran away from the discussion. I observed that unlike what used to be the norm, none of his fellow atheists came to his rescue. I have presented the argument in a more organized way and hereby table it as an open challenge to all atheists worldwide.

Now, let's begin:

Atheism posits that complex designs and functionality in the natural world can be explained without the need for a Creator. However, I argue that certain features of the natural world demonstrate intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity, necessitating the existence of a Creator.

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.

You do realize that most atheists have better things to do than to sit on their ass all day to engage in eternal rounds of "prove the existence of God" bingo? We have lives, we have careers, and we have Netflix shows to binge. Me personally, I have a work calendar that's more crowded than a wedding reception in Lagos. In past debates, I've taken up to a month to respond to my opponent, not because I was "floored" or "ran away," but because I have priorities. Nevertheless, if you want to dance, we'll dance, but under the following conditions. Logic will be our guide: No logical fallacies, no emotional appeals, no straw men. Also, and this is very important: we must stick to the rules of reason and evidence. Empirical evidence and scientific consensus will be our benchmarks for truth claims. No sentimental arguments, and no unprovoked personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion in any way, shape or form.

For the sake of fairness and to prevent butthurt or dishonest narratives from being peddled, I would propose that we enlist at least 3 mature, intellectual and objective monikers as our referee and judge. Someone with no stakes in this argument and who can call out fallacies, ensure we stick to the rules, and declare a winner (or a stalemate, if that's where the evidence leads). So, if you're ready to put your argument through the wringer, I'm game. But don't expect any free passes or special treatment. I'm as strict as they come when it comes to upholding the rules of logic and the scientific method.

Please respond accordingly to this post, accepting the aforementioned conditions. If you accept, then give me a mention and I'll proceed to respond to the arguments presented in your OP. Thanks.

Gerrard59:
Those are apps meant for sexual rendezvous. Why did you go there if not to look at the bare bodies of beautiful women? This una hypocrisy get as e be to me. I know prudish folks who will never open those sites or even know they exist. I respect them because they practice what they preach. As I have stated countless times, the men who criticise sexually liberal women tend to be very poor.

I enjoy reading comments like this that call out men who criticize women for using hookup apps while using these same apps themselves. The only thing I detest more than moral police officers who engage in petty moral grandstanding online, is ignorant clowns who don't bother to take a closer look in the mirror before spewing their nonsense.

That being said, I have a weird ick for reading sweeping statements which might not be applicable to all individuals. While I support your position, I have an issue with your last statement. I think you might be oversimplifying the complex motivations behind people's attitudes towards sex and relationships by attributing it solely to economic insecurity. Surely there could be other factors at play too.

maasoap:
I don't think he's coming back anyway knowing fully well the kind of people he had been with and helped for over 20 years. I only hope that the one they sold their votes to really remembers them and their needs because they have made their choice

It's very disturbing that you're all too willing to completely neglect the human cost of political vendetta here just to make a flat point about "not selling your votes". I don't know if you're aware, but just in case, I'll clue you in anyway: In a proper democracy, the voting public do NOT deserve to be treated like pawns in a game of political patronage.

Are you seriously making the argument that water, a basic human right, is now a luxury for those who dared to exercise their democratic franchise? Seriously? So what about those who actually cast their votes for this entitled piece of shit politician? You think they too are complicit in their own disenfranchisement? You think they don't deserve good things because this guy lost? It's odd that you can easily condone this egregious display of political narcissism.

That man is NOT the sole arbiter of progress, and by that logic, his constituents can not merely just be seen as beneficiaries of his so-called magnanimity. He is just another example of the paternalistic tendencies that plague African politics, where the leaders foolishly believe that their personal interests are synonymous with the public good.

Africa definitely has a long way to go.

Another day, another childish dick fight between Nigerians and the Southies. What else is new?

CyrusVI:
Bro,you really tried handling that lady o but I'm more happy that u also could see through her

She'd bully u to accept her opinion

She'd blast and attack u and telling u it's not an insult but a fair assessment and when u try doing same, she'd accuse u of being insulting and say it's because you lost

She'd attack u on multiple fronts that you'll be tired to even defend any or retaliate with same energy as she prolly has superior use of English and could type a lot more



Lastly, she'd always accuse u of being incoherent and making u feel like you're talking off-point, even when she herself will never present any verifiable proof for her own arguments


She go manipulate u tire inside the argument


I'm glad u stood your ground... Resist the bully abeg

This is quite an amusing post. 😂

As far as I can tell, I've never had any interactions with this moniker so I'm not sure how you can make all these hilarious judgements if we haven't conversed on previous occasions. I find it quite interesting. No offense, but you do come across as insecure in this comment you put up here. For instance, why are you bothered with how I use my words? Don't you think it's unnecessary to bother yourself with the way I write as opposed to the content of my posts? This is textbook tone and grammar policing, which is a typical strategy for people who are out of their depth in a discussion and are far too sensitive to admit it.

As for the alleged "insults" that you claim I always mete out on people I argue with, that's just you being sentimental again. Please try to learn the difference between an ad hominem and actual criticisms of a given argument. I call things the way I see it. If your argument is stupid, then it IS stupid. It's not the same thing as calling YOU stupid. That would be a direct, unprovoked insult. Now that you have been sufficiently educated, can you now go ahead and point out any insult I actually directed at anyone here? I bet you can't. Can you go ahead and outline what the discussion was about? What were the points I made and has he even bothered to address them? You don't have a clue. I don't even believe you truly followed the argument to see how it really went down. I'm not sure you even knew what was being discussed. It sounds more like you've encountered my moniker in the past through one of your alternates I might have debated before, or you're a disgruntled Christian who has been reading my posts and you so badly wanted to see someone "win" me in an argument, even if it means through pointless trolling, red herrings and an active refusal to engage in an actual logical discussion.

By the way, I think it's flattering that you think I manipulate people. I didn't realize my powers of persuasion were so formidable. Nevertheless, what I do in these discussions is not manipulation. What I do is simply use facts, logic and evidence to make people uncomfortable with their own flawed and uninformed opinions. Sadly, people are thin skinned and can't handle the truth. Look at StillDtruth (ironic choice of username since he clearly hates to hear the truth). He tried his best to poke holes in my position, but he couldn't hack it, so he broke down and went on a trolling rampage to cover his embarrassment. The only manipulation that is happening here is your attempts to deflect from the fact that my arguments have left yours wanting.

StillDtruth:
Jessicarabbit! Oya opportunity don come o. 😆

Come and reargue your case and see how you will still lose again because it does not stand and it can never ever stand 😆😆😆

CC: CyrusVI, AlbertNewton,..

Tsk, tsk... sadly, I don't debate with sore and dishonest losers. But don't worry, I'm sure there are plenty of other users on this forum that might be willing to satisfy your uncanny urge for self-embarrassment. Furthermore, I crave intellectual stimulation in my debates, and I don't imagine I can achieve that with someone whose conduct and post content on this forum clearly shows evidence of his poor cognitive capabilities. My time is too precious for that.

Once again, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

DevilsEqual:
I'm back today and I've modified it
Seeing now that you 'didnt major in a specific scientific field' and since all my arguments from Day1 has been based on experimental results, scientific articles and everything around that sphere, its gonna be very hard debating with you

That was also the initial issues we had then. You were always quick to runaway from those to dwell on philosophy and Arts and with those, its always about imaginations and propositions that can never be verified or denied

How do i discuss Gene coding,Replication and Cellular Evolution with a Novelist?

Many brilliant scientists throughout history have made significant contributions without having formal degrees, so while formal training can be helpful, it's not the only way to gain knowledge.

And your reductionist revision of philosophy and logic to "imaginations and propositions" is ridiculous. You do realize that they provide the tools for evaluating all arguments, including scientific ones?

When are you going to start presenting anything concrete to discuss here? Or are we just going to be stuck on this (un)merry-go-round?

JessicaRabbit:
It's just target practice for me really. Speaking for myself, I enjoy arguing with people who I believe are clearly bent on winning by any means necessary, even through sheer duplicity, because I want to give their ego a run for its money. In my experience, these kind of people can't deal with someone who's willing to go back and forth with them for lengthy periods, while casually stripping their simplistic and sentimental arguments and philosophies, leaving them without any cogent basis to keep trolling.

More importantly, I'm also arguing for the sake of the innocent, and impressionable readers who might stumble upon this online kerfuffle. His conviction might persuade them into the false notion that he's making sense, and I want to ensure that he stays looking stupid.

I understand your concerns, but don't fret. For someone of his cognitive level, It really doesn't take me more than 15 minutes to dismantle any pathetic argument he tries to present, so it's no skin of my nose.

---

---

---

JessicaRabbit:
Just because I'm still engaging in this conversation doesn't mean my self-worth is tied to it. [...] My self-worth isn't defined by "winning" or "losing" this debate. I'm simply enjoying the exchange of ideas and pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Your conclusion that I'm a "Liar" because I'm still participating in the debate is a stretch, even for a contortionist. It's called enjoying the process, not being defined by it.

cc. AlbertNewton

StillDtruth:
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 See Miss Super Liar, the Bullyiana in Pain 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆.

Firing more and more insalts because all her stupid Lies and desperate tricks and insalt did not work 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

Now, she shows she is the devil's wife as t is only lies and insalts she is able to produce. 😆😆😆😆
So no brilliancy is expected from Miss Loser, the Super Liar, the Bullyiana, 😆😆😆.😆😆😆

So Keep the despetate Lies and insalts cummin Loser! 😆😆😆 We know you women are like thst and you show you are demons whenever you Fail and Lose. So BYE LOSER!!! Hahahahahahahaha 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

All this clownish tomfoolery will not conceal the stench of your intellectual laziness and dishonesty. Your deep-seated fear of being proven wrong is strongly evidenced by your refusal to provide evidence and engage constructively in good-faith discussion. You never engaged with any of my counterpoints. You fabricated lies and strawmen and then tried to attribute them to me, but it didn't work.

From the first page to the last, this thread stands as clear evidence in posterity that you're the one who's been dishing out the caustic remarks and unprovoked insults, not me. I have only pointed out the flaws in your logic and thinking. The fact that you're clearly offended about my assessment of you is completely irrelevant to me. You can keep spamming laughing emojis all over the thread till your fingers bleed, but at the end of the day, reality still stares you in the face: your failure to provide evidence for your god only lends more credence to the claim in OP's thread title that there is no god. Finito.

Anything else you want to add, junior?

AlbertNewton:
You're really really falling my hand, Jessica.Rabbit 😢.

I'm not bothered about "falling your hand", and I'm definitely not seeking validation from you or anyone else.

I did not expect you to allow this fellow to drag you to the level of trading insults with him, over and over again.

Maybe you should see my recent responses to Negroid001 partially addressing this complaint. As for your claim that I'm "trading insults", I can totally understand how or why you may see it that way, but I'm afraid I have not insulted anyone here unprovoked. Note the word I qualified my assertion with. If you truly feel that I have done so, I would invite you to quote a passage from everything I've written here to prove your point.

There's a world of difference between dishing out unnecessary insults and criticizing someone's poor behavior. I know you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about. I said it before, and I will maintain my position: I only make conclusions about people based on their pattern of logical thinking. If I suspect that you're incapable of stringing arguments in a coherent order to prove your point, or you're too quick to dish out ad hominems in a debate, I can only conclude that you're inept at having matured and reasoned logical discussions. It's not an insult. If it looks like a monkey, and acts like a monkey, then pray tell, what else would it be?

From the abnormally large number of laughing emojis he includes in his replies, I can tell he's having a good time engaging you in such derogatory banter.

Lol, please. You must be new to the internet.😂

This is base level human psychology. If you carefully followed this discussion from its starting point to this very moment, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. StillDtruth's excessive use of emojis in every response is actually the single most damning evidence that he has a very fragile ego, which has been shattered to pieces in this thread. He came to me, pretending to be a rational codiscussant. Observe his tone and temperament when he first quoted me and compare it to his responses now. When I started to poke holes in his feeble argument, he started to crumble.

Compare the two paragraphs below from StillDtruth

Exhibit #1
"Evidence, Logic, sound reason, all dictate that co debators must argue on the issue of the debate, So, this is you,.moving from topic to topic all because you could not reasonably attend to the issue on point, so you atheist shift the post as you have now done in complaining about contradictions and inaccuracies whereas, we are waiting on you to attend to nostra and prophecies. In violation of logic, reason and evidence."

Exhibit #2
"Firing more and more insalts because all her stupid Lies and desperate tricks and insalt did not work 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
Now, she shows she is the devil's wife as t is only lies and insalts she is able to produce. 😆😆😆😆
So no brilliancy is expected from Miss Loser, the Super Liar, the Bullyiana, 😆😆😆.😆😆😆"

If you can't see the clear dissonance in composure and temperament here, then I don't know what else to tell you. His antics here have been nothing but transparent attempts to mask his lack of substance with a cacophony of forced hilarity, so I find your assertion that he is having fun here quite amusing. Do you suppose that flooding the thread with an absurd number of laughing emojis inspires the demeanor of someone who's confident and emotionally stable?

The only thing I see here is a weak loser overcompensating for his low self-esteem and lack of intellectual substance. It's almost as If he is trying to drown out the sound of his own emptiness with a deafening chorus of artificial laughter. How is this authentic to you?

Or perhaps you're enjoying this too 🤔, because I would have expected you to stop replying him several replies ago, when the arguments turned to insults.

Addressing this point would be tantamount to me repeating a point I've made abundantly clear in this very same thread. Please see my responses to Negroid001 to get a better understanding of why I persist in these kinds of situations.

Not that it really matters to me how you spend your time here, but I see this as a waste of valuable energy on a nonentity.

To be frank, I don't exactly appreciate your subtle attempts to police my responses or prescribe to me how I ought to engage with users on a public forum. That's entirely my choice and my business.

And maybe, as I sometimes suspect based on the seeming impeccability of the grammatical composition of your post and the thoroughness of your logic, you're using some sort of AI assistance to generate your responses, in which case I will assume you're having fun doing this too.

From the moment I started using this forum up until now, various people have had various sorts of opinions about me, my personality, my argumentative methods etc. Ultimately, how people choose to perceive me on an anonymous chat forum isn't something I ever lose any sleep over.

StillDtruth:
😆 😆😆 Now it's insalt time! 😆😆😆

And thanks for confessing that you have being bullying since..😆😆

So, now you are a Liar and Bully..😆😆

All for Losing this simple debate 😆😆😆😆😆😆

Phew! You're not even trying to hide the fact that you've got nothing left in your arsenal. Yes, I'm feeling like a bully because it's clear that I'm dominating this discussion and everyone knows this. Everyone except you, of course, because we all know you're thicker than two short planks. It's as simple as that. It's not an insult. It's just a simple fact that has been established after observing your posts and patterns of logical thinking. I don't think any rational mind would read a post from you here and not come to the conclusion that you are a few screws loose. You sound so stupid to the point people might assume you're mentally ill. I'm sorry to say that, but I prefer to be honest and factual.