₦airaland Forum

StillDtruth:
You are the one committing the red herring fallacy for you raised the issue of vagueness and i have addressed it and now that you couldn't counter it, you are trying to redivert attention back to the vagueness as if you never raised it or it was left not answered

Allow me to disentangle the mess you've created here. Firstly, I didn't shift any posts -- that's entirely your own wish or imagination. I have maintained my original argument that prophecies are often vague and open to interpretation. Your attempt to clarify vagueness doesn't suddenly make the original prophecy less vague. You are trying to put toothpaste back into the tube. It doesn't work that way. The vagueness has already been squeezed out, and we can all see it, so stop chasing your own tail. You've continued to cherry pick instances that seem to fit your narrative while ignoring the countless other times when prophecies have failed or been grossly misinterpreted. That's not evidence my dear. That's selective attention.

I must say that I'm impressed by your audacity in accusing me of committing a red herring fallacy when, in fact, you're the one who's trying to divert attention from the original argument, like a magician using a sleight of hand. Not only was your address of "vagueness" pointless, the elephant in the room - the inherent malleability of prophecies - remains unattended to. Vagueness is still an issue, hindsight is still 20/20, and your attempts to deflect and divert attention only serve to strengthen my original argument. Well done, I suppose?

Meanwhile, the records here prove i addressed it and your complainings here and your attempt at red herring proves that you have no valid argument to make.

I suspect that you're having difficulties following the thread of logic here and I sympathize with you on that, but in all honesty, your responses have been about as convincing as a kindergartener's drawing of a unicorn -- colorful, perhaps, but not exactly based in reality. I'm not the one who's trying to retrofit a square peg into a round hole here. If your prophecies are truly as clear and direct as you claim, then perhaps you can explain why they require so much creative interpretation in the first place? Shouldn't a genuine prophecy be more like a precise arrow shot, rather than a shotgun blast of vague statements that can be applied to any old thing? If events are still "playing out in our presence," as you put it, then doesn't that just prove my point that we're still waiting for clarity on these supposedly clear prophecies? It's like waiting for a bus that's perpetually "just about to arrive" - at some point, you start to wonder if the bus even exists in the first place.

You are just seeking how to re-argue what you have already argued and lost.

Sure, call it re-arguing. I call it reminding you of the basic facts you wilfully and conveniently ignore.

If there was any contradictory evidence you would have presented it if you had it.

You think I'm obligated to spoon-feed you counter-evidence, as if I'm your personal research assistant? Newsflash: the burden of proof lies with the one making the claims, not the skeptic. So please bring actual evidence, if you hope to convince anyone with a functioning critical thinking muscle.

But you had none which was why this case closed!

Nope. Reverse card on that logic, buddy. I know I just addressed you on this, but once again, allow me to introduce you to the burden of proof. In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute. The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" [Wikipedia]. The lack of counter-evidence from my end simply means your own evidence, which you've presented, is as flimsy as a wet tissue. Your turn.

This is a court of reasoning and each side was given an equal opportunity to make their case freely.

In the "court of reasoning," merely asserting that prophecies came to pass doesn't magically confer divine provenance. That's like saying, "I predicted it would rain, and it did! Therefore, I'm the meteorological messiah!"

If you really think that both sides of this discussion carry the same weight, then that's just another testament to your ignorance of the subject being discussed. There exists absolutely no equality between testable evidence and unverifiable claims. It's like pitting the scientific method against a crystal ball and expecting them to carry equal weight.

When you're ready to present some actual evidence that withstands scrutiny, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it would do you good not to pretend as though declaring "case closed" constitutes a logical conclusion. At best, it's just a smoke bomb to obscure the lack of substance in your argument.

And you made yours and i responded to it and you even admiited and confessed the Truth of my case, hence the case got settled. So, no wrong was done to you.

The fact that I acknowledged the occurrence of an event doesn't mean I conceded the divine origin of said event. I even pointed out that these events have natural explanations, a point you are yet to address or respond to. From what I can see here, you're just trying to play fast and loose in the most blatant case of intellectual dishonesty I've witnessed this year. Your entire argument relies on a textbook case of four well known logical fallacies:

1) False dichotomy: assuming that if I don't attribute the event to divine intervention, I must be admitting it's a miracle.

2) Lack of evidence: providing zero concrete proof of divine involvement, just hand-waving and "trust me, bro."

3) Moving the goalposts: first, you claim the prophecy is the important thing, then you shift to "it happened, therefore God" without establishing a causal link.

4) Cherry-picking: selectively highlighting convenient events while ignoring the countless unfulfilled prophecies and contradictions in your holy book.

This is not how logic is done. The fact that you refuse to even recognize and admit to your obvious shortcomings only indicates that you have ulterior motives in this discussion and are not interested in debate for the sake of arriving at the truth. Quite an irony, if I might add, given your username.

You just lost because "THERE IS NO.VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH" And this is an unbreakable law (Aside: which is why criminals need to bribe and put corruptable judges in the courts of men else, they will always be found guilty)

Non-sequitur. You've successfully changed the subject while pretending to score a point. Truths are not established by stamping feets, declaring "truth!" and expecting the universe to nod in agreement. Your "unbreakable law" sounds suspiciously like a get-out-of-jail-free card for your own cognitive biases.

You already that predicting a fact that is known or foreseeable is no prophecy.

Now this is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. Remember that you initially claimed that the fulfillment of prophecies is evidence of divine intervention, but look at you here qualifying it by saying that predictable events don't count. I find this to be a very convenient escape clause. At any rate, if we're discounting predictable events, then shouldn't we also discount the "prophecies" that are similarly predictable or have obvious historical and political explanations? Like the cyclical nature of empires rising and falling, or the inevitability of human conflict and societal upheaval?

It's so obvious that you're not being consistent with your standards here -- another telling sign that you're not having this discussion in good faith. If we're going to play the "prophecy fulfillment" game, we must apply the same standards across the board, otherwise it's just a shell game where you get to declare "prophecy fulfilled" whenever it suits your narrative. The question remains: what makes a prophecy truly prophetic, and not just a predictable event or a clever interpretation of existing trends? Give me a clear criterion, and let's see if your "prophecies" still hold up to scrutiny.

The quality of a prophecy is that it must be one which no one can speculate or foresee and the best one is the one which no one could even have in mind, which was what God did.

Look at how far back God gave this prophecies, when the world was very sweet and good and green and people had love and family and moved about freely.

Even in 1980 to 2010 no one could still see or calculate that life as we have always known it would have scattered so terribly as we have now seen. No body knew this neither did anyone see it.

MEANWHILE, GOD THROUGH HIS SERVANTS, HAD ALREADY OVER LONG FORETOLD US THESE THINGS AND YOU AND I AND OTHERS.HAVE SEEN THEM HAPPEN.

AND GOD, WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID SO.

So, come do that and come up.with something no.one can come up that will happen tommorrow, then we shall all see if you are a prophet.

So if I predict something obvious, like the sun rising tomorrow, that doesn't count as a prophecy. But if someone makes a vague claim about future calamities and hatred, that's a "real" prophecy? Okay then, I'll play along. Here's a prediction that meets your criteria: I foresee a future where humans will continue to both cooperate and conflict with each other, leading to a mix of progress and challenges. Wow, I can see the shock and awe on your face already!

As for the "no one could have seen it coming" argument, that can easily be explained with hindsight bias. Humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize and make sense of past events. No point appealing to divine intervention here.

JessicaRabbit:
Allow me to disentangle the mess you've created here. Firstly, I didn't shift any posts -- that's entirely your own wish or imagination.

You are just trying to keep.us talking so that it would look like we are still arguing. Whereas, You did commit fallacies and i pointed them out at their material times and the argument moved on to where you were you admitted and confessed that you saw God's prophecies come to pass.

All these things are clearly recorded here. So you are just trying to find a way to.reargue this matter since you see that you lost.

JessicaRabbit:
I must say that I'm impressed by your audacity in accusing me of committing a red herring fallacy when, in fact, you're the one who's trying to divert attention from the original argument, like a magician using a sleight of hand.

No princess, you did that. All my response flow from eveything and anything you said. So, its you dear.

And sorry the remainder of your comments are invalid for being afterthoughts and fesh arguments and reatguments eg i have already given you examples of vlear and precise prophecies which you admiited and confessed tthat you saw them happen like the rest of us.

So, clearly you just cannot believe that you had no valid counter to this issue, thetefore you trying to create ways you could.reargue it.

But dear, there is none BECAUSE, IT IS A LAW, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.

So, you would lose everytime, if you doubt it create a thread on it and see if you would not still fail again... and again.... and again

JessicaRabbit:
You think I'm obligated to spoon-feed you counter-evidence, as if I'm your personal research assistant? Newsflash: the burden of proof lies with the one making the claims, not the skeptic. So please bring actual evidence, if you hope to convince anyone with a functioning critical thinking muscle.

Nope. Reverse card on that logic, buddy. I know I just addressed you on this, but once again, allow me to introduce you to the burden of proof. In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

Sorry dear,the claim is proof of God and the Sparrow gave evidence of prophecy, which caused the burden to shift to you, which is why you countered with general vagueness and i recountered, that specific and precise prophecies, which.means the burden shifted to you again

And you could not counter it. You even admitted the truth of seeing the prophecies happen. So, sorry, you lost!

JessicaRabbit:
In the "court of reasoning," merely asserting that prophecies came to pass doesn't magically confer divine provenance. That's like saying, "I predicted it would rain, and it did! Therefore, I'm the meteorological messiah!"

In a court of reasoning prophecy and the coming to pass of the prophecy is proof of God for it is known that prophecy is not within the ability of humans.

And saying it would rain tomorrow is not a prophecy. But if you said the Sahara would be a mighty sea like the Atlantic, now, thats a prophecy, everyone would look out to see if it would happen. And you already know this but your just being petty in your desperation to change your loss.

JessicaRabbit:
The fact that I acknowledged the occurrence of an event doesn't mean I conceded the divine origin of said event.

Sorry dear, if your husband acknowleges an unknown child from your house girl as his, he also acknowledges sex and adultery with the housegirl.

As i.said earlier, You would lose everytime,

if you doubt it create a thread and see if you would not still fail again... and again.... and again BECAUSE, IT IS A LAW, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.

JessicaRabbit, StillDtruth AKA Dtruthspeaker is our resident lunatic. I have volunteered a thousand times to pay for his treatment but for some reasons he keeps declining.....
Just let him be for your own sanity...

Whether you say God exist or that he does not exist. You are right...


There is an old Hindu saying that if God wished to hide, he would hide in man. Because that is the last place man will ever look to find God...

What the Bible was referring to as God is the universal (divine) consciousness.. Not a Jewish man up in the sky. Different tribes call it by different names...
The igbo s..........Chineke.
The yorubas ......Olodumare
The Binis.............Osanobua
The isokos..........Ogene
The ishans...........Osanobua
The ibibios...,........Abasi
Etc.
The Jews........Hashem
The Babylonians......Marduk
The Egyptian.....,....Ra
The Romans...........Jupiter
The Greeks.......Kronos

Etc.
God is pure/divine consciousness...it is the source of all life on earth. We are all connected by this consciousness. We are all pure consciousness experiencing life in multiple ways...
I used to have a friend in the UK who could remember the first day of creation. She was so woke.
We are the God we keep talking and arguing about here day in day out. We can't see that because we are all covered in different flesh.
We are one seeing ourself divided.

You are the creator! We all are! We are eternal beings! We all created everything together. Then gave ourselves amnesia so that we could live learn and explore everything that we created! We are God experiencing itself! We live and die through incarnations coming back and forth learning and growing till we remember everything! Then we All become One again as we ascend upwards becoming more and more One.

sonmvayina:
JessicaRabbit, StillDtruth AKA Dtruthspeaker is our resident lunatic. I have volunteered a thousand times to pay for his treatment but for some reasons he keeps declining.....
Just let him be for your own sanity...

See.Madman, who nobody talks to because everyone gets to see that you are incurably mad even after going to India as proven 👆😆

sonmvayina:
JessicaRabbit, StillDtruth AKA Dtruthspeaker is our resident lunatic. I have volunteered a thousand times to pay for his treatment but for some reasons he keeps declining.....
Just let him be for your own sanity...

Trust me, I've been well aware of this fact since my last two posts here. At this point, I'm mostly just doing this out of boredom. He's obviously a simpleton, which is a good thing for me because it means that I don't need to use much brain juice to banter with him. I could go on for years reminding him that he's a dumbass. He obviously lacks the intelligence or the wits to keep up.

StillDtruth:
You are just trying to keep.us talking so that it would look like we are still arguing. Whereas, You did commit fallacies and i pointed them out at their material times and the argument moved on to where you were you admitted and confessed that you saw God's prophecies come to pass.

All these things are clearly recorded here. So you are just trying to find a way to.reargue this matter since you see that you lost.

Now you're starting to sound desperate. You've accused me of trying to prolong the argument, yet you're the one who's been grasping at straws, throwing up smokescreens to hide the fact that your corpse of an argument that's already been autopsy-confirmed dead and buried.

You've been consistently guilty of cherry-picking (which I've pointed out ad nauseam), confirmation bias (only seeing what you want to see), moving the goalposts (constantly shifting the definition of "prophecy" etc. Meanwhile, I've been patiently pointing out these logical fallacies, and you've responded with... crickets. Not a single attempt to address or refute them. It's like trying to have a conversation with a brick wall, except the brick wall would at least have the decency to be consistent in its silence.

No princess, you did that. All my response flow from eveything and anything you said. So, its you dear.

And sorry the remainder of your comments are invalid for being afterthoughts and fesh arguments and reatguments eg i have already given you examples of vlear and precise prophecies which you admiited and confessed tthat you saw them happen like the rest of us.

So, clearly you just cannot believe that you had no valid counter to this issue, thetefore you trying to create ways you could.reargue it.

But dear, there is none BECAUSE, IT IS A LAW, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.

So, you would lose everytime, if you doubt it create a thread on it and see if you would not still fail again... and again.... and again

All I see here are the grandiose declarations of a cornered apologist who's already lost the argument. The only thing your responses did was to betray the fact that you practice logic below two dimensions, with a three dimensional brain. Acknowledging your examples doesn't mean I conceded their validity or relevance. Obviously you know this, but it's an inconvenient obstacle to your spurious agenda so you've wilfully chosen to conflate acknowledgement with agreement. So these are just more desperate lies from you at this point. You're the one desperately trying to revive a failed argument by accusing me of rearguing. It's like watching a zombie try to dance the ballet. Once again, truth isn't determined by your say-so or personal convictions. It's determined by evidence and reason. And on that front, you're still woefully lacking, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise.

Sorry dear,the claim is proof of God and the Sparrow gave evidence of prophecy, which caused the burden to shift to you, which is why you countered with general vagueness and i recountered, that specific and precise prophecies, which.means the burden shifted to you again

And you could not counter it. You even admitted the truth of seeing the prophecies happen. So, sorry, you lost!

Well, I think it's clear who's still searching for their intellectual footing here. The burden of proof doesn't shift just because you've mustered up a bit of confidence and some vague hand-waving. It shifts when you present credible, empirical evidence that meets the standards of rational inquiry; and your "evidence" wouldn't even pass muster at a kindergarten show-and-tell. As for your "specific and precise prophecies," I'm still waiting for something that wouldn't be laughed out of a school debate tournament.

In a court of reasoning prophecy and the coming to pass of the prophecy is proof of God for it is known that prophecy is not within the ability of humans.

And saying it would rain tomorrow is not a prophecy. But if you said the Sahara would be a mighty sea like the Atlantic, now, thats a prophecy, everyone would look out to see if it would happen. And you already know this but your just being petty in your desperation to change your loss.

Something being unexpected doesn't equate to it being "divine", and I'm sure no one here with a healthy brain capable of reasoning will swallow that logical whopper whole. Prophecies, by their very nature, are long shots. And when one finally hits, it's not a testament to divine intervention, but rather a statistical inevitability. You're the one who's betting the farm on a handful of dubious prophecies, not me. You're the one who's trying to shoehorn the complexities of the universe into a narrow, dogmatic worldview, not me. More proof of your desperation driving your position in this argument.

It's a good thing we have actual scientists studying laws of geology and plate tectonics, so we can verify when the Sahara desert magically bends to accommodate your messianic meteorological musings. So keep on prophesying. Keep on praying for that Sahara sea. And I'll be over here, in the "court of reasoning," waiting for something -- anything -- resembling actual evidence.

Sorry dear, if your husband acknowleges an unknown child from your house girl as his, he also acknowledges sex and adultery with the housegirl.

As i.said earlier, You would lose everytime,

if you doubt it create a thread and see if you would not still fail again... and again.... and again BECAUSE, IT IS A LAW, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.

More capital letters and awkward analogies. Ignoring the fact that your analogy completely fails to capture the concept of the debate, rendering it nonsensical, it is also a strawman argument, which means you've not actually addressed my argument. A more proper analogy would be that if I didn't acknowledge my neighbor's terrible cooking, then I'm conceding that it's a culinary masterpiece, which is the very definition of a false dichotomy. I know you won't understand what a false dichotomy means because your understanding of logical fallacies is abysmal and you have the wits of a dusty scarecrow.

JessicaRabbit:
Now you're starting to sound desperate.

Ehen! That bad! I tell you, you are desperate as you have already proven only for you to turn it around . What a childish! 😆😆😆

JessicaRabbit:
You've accused me of trying to prolong the argument, yet you're the one who's been grasping at straws, throwing up smokescreens to hide the fact that your corpse of an argument that's already been autopsy-confirmed dead and buried.

When the debate is lost, one of the antics by the loser is to repeat their argument and create new ones to so that the argument might be thought continuing and prolonged as you seek something which may say which you can use to redeem your loss.

But unfortunately for you, that won't work with me! 😆😆😆

I only kept on responding to you because i thought you might come up.with something intellligent and valid that should give you an opportunity to restart the debate.

But here you are repeating yourself and resorting to low blows, blackmails, lies and insalts all because YOU LOST! FAIR AND SQUARE. 😆😆😆😆

I repeat, if you think you can ever vaidly win, raise a thread, i'll be there and you would stil lose again crying and wailing about how you lost! 😆😆😆

JessicaRabbit:
Trust me, I've been well aware of this fact since my last two posts here. At this point, I'm mostly just doing this out of boredom. He's obviously a simpleton, which is a good thing for me because it means that I don't need to use much brain juice to banter with him. I could go on for years reminding him that he's a dumbass. He obviously lacks the intelligence or the wits to keep up.

See resort to insalts all because you Lost! 😆😆😆😆

In contrast to the claim "There is no God," consider the diverse perspectives people share on socialchic.id. While some may doubt, platforms like socialchic.id show that many find meaning and community in their faith, highlighting the multifaceted nature of belief.

talhabhai1122:
In contrast to the claim "There is no God," consider the diverse perspectives people share on socialchic.id. While some may doubt, platforms like socialchic.id show that many find meaning and community in their faith, highlighting the multifaceted nature of belief.

Don't mind those devils called atheists They are just people who know that are irrevocably condemned, so like the devils they.are, they.are just trying to get as many people as they can to die with them and keep them company while they still live.

See how this girl up is biting and scratching and crying and twisting like a serpent all because she could not validly counter the proof of God.

StillDtruth:
Ehen! That bad! I tell you, you are desperate as you have already proven only for you to turn it around . What a childish! 😆😆😆

If being desperate means I'm calmly debunking your nonsense despite your best efforts to derail the thread with logical gymnastics, then I'm guilty as charged. But if being childish means I'm still waiting for a decent counterargument from you, then I'll wear that badge with pride.

Are you surprised that your arguments aren't holding water? Because I'm not.

When the debate is lost, one of the antics by the loser is to repeat their argument and create new ones to so that the argument might be thought continuing and prolonged as you seek something which may say which you can use to redeem your loss.

This is hilarious. It's almost as if you're trying to distract from the fact that your argument has been reduced to a smoldering ruin, like a plate of food that's been left in the open for far too long - dry, flavorless, and only good for the bin. At this point, I'm simply providing a funeral procession for your deceased claims, and you're the one tossing dirt on the coffin with your pathetic deflections. The only thing I'm repeating is the sound of your argument hitting the ground with a thud, and the only new thing I'm creating is a eulogy for your lost cause. So please, continue to flail about like a fish in a bucket, grasping for that elusive straw that will save you from drowning in a sea of your own ineptitude. I'll just be here, sipping tea and waiting for your brain to catch up with the reality and finally admit defeat.

But unfortunately for you, that won't work with me! 😆😆😆

.....a phrase famously uttered by every defeated debater, bad poker player, and toddler who's about to lose a game of Candy Land. Congratulations, you've just leveled up in the art of sounding vaguely defiant while conceding the argument. You're welcome 😂.

I only kept on responding to you because i thought you might come up.with something intellligent and valid that should give you an opportunity to restart the debate.

Obviously, you're delusional. We can go ahead and line up our claims for the audience to verify line by line, and it will be proven that everything I've said here is facts and all your responses have been intellectual equivalents of a participation trophies I.e. "Good job showing up!", "A for effort!" etc.

The sounds you've been hearing are just the sweet serenade of your own cognitive dissonance, making you spin around aimlessly like an impoverished villager at an urban science convention.

But here you are repeating yourself and resorting to low blows, blackmails, lies and insalts all because YOU LOST! FAIR AND SQUARE. 😆😆😆😆

I see you've finally admitted that your entire argument was a game -- one that you played with a deck of fallacies and a rulebook of rhetorical tricks. But don't worry, I won't gloat (much). After all, it's not every day that one gets to witness the majestic spectacle of a worldview imploding under the weight of its own contradictions. At any rate, I'm still enjoying your tantrums, which betray the fact that you're still trying to comprehend your self-defeating argument.

I repeat, if you think you can ever vaidly win, raise a thread, i'll be there and you would stil lose again crying and wailing about how you lost! 😆😆😆

It would be a waste of my precious time to create another thread, just to expose the vacuity of your claims once again. We don't need to trouble this site with too many threads of me making you look stupid over and over. Your responses are akin to a magician's hat -- empty, yet full of hot air. I've been playing a game of intellectual whack-a-mole with you, and every time I smack down one of your baseless assertions, another pops up, equally as flawed. You're a lightweight who's only good as a punching bag, not an intellectual sparring partner.

And remember, when you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at the corpse of your argument -- which, might I reiterate, has been autopsied, cremated, and reduced to a pile of ashes by the fiery sword of reason.

StillDtruth:
See resort to insalts all because you Lost! 😆😆😆😆

Au contraire. I dissected your spurious argument and exposed the pearls of illogic and the gaping holes in your "evidence." But we already know how your tiny ego can't handle this level of public humiliation and so, in your grand quest to appear magnanimous, you're trying to falsely equate a logical takedown with a playground brawl. Maybe you should take a refresher course on the difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing a person. In the meantime, I hear crayons are great visual aids. Now feel free to lick your wounds and come back with something a little less… desperate.

JessicaRabbit:
Au contraire. I dissected your spurious argument and exposed the pearls of illogic and the gaping holes in your "evidence."..

You Lie!

The records show you repeating yourself when you had nothimg to ay after i countered you. 😆😆😆.

And here you are lying and building stacks of lies in desperation.😆😆😆

And see, you have just finally confessed that i.gave evidence, whereas, you have been crying "no evidence". 😆😆😆

So lil' princess, go learn some more eg criticism and debates are not the same thing..

And 2, lies and insalts are very useless weapon in argument, it always disgraces its user. 😆😆😆😆😆

JessicaRabbit:
If being desperate means I'm calmly debunking your nonsense despite your best efforts to derail the thread with logical ..

So this is how you deceive yourself? No wonder you think lies and lyings are effective! 😆 😆
Desperate is not whatever you call it, princess. 😆😆.

JessicaRabbit:
This is hilarious. It's almost as if you're trying to distract from the fact that your argument has been reduced to a smoldering ruin,..

You lie to yourself princess, Thread shows you are the one desperately trying to.cover your shame of loss by repeating and repeating and even trying to praise yourself!. 😆😆😆 That tactics never works! 😆😆😆😆😆

JessicaRabbit:
Obviously, you're delusional. We can go ahead and line up our claims for the audience to verify line by line, and it will be proven that everything I've said here is facts and all your responses have been intellectual equivalents of a participation trophies I.e. "Good job showing up!", "A for effort!" etc.

You don't know miuch proncess, 😆😆 Anong your other "don't knows", you obviously don't know that a thread means, it is lined up already. 😆😆😆😆😆😆

JessicaRabbit:
I see you've finally admitted that your entire argument was a game -- one that you played with a deck of fallacies and a rulebook of rhetorical tricks....

See how you are so used to lying to yourself that you forgot to.see that the thread shows you desperately wailing and lying all because you lost! . 😆😆😆 😆😆

And i didnt even gloat over it. I rather even gae you a chance to lawfully walk back into the debate.

But because there is none, here you are wailing and cursing and lying desperately. 😆😆😆.

Told you, girl, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.! 😆😆😆

JessicaRabbit:
It would be a waste of my precious time to create another thread, just to expose the ...

Lies don't work princess😆😆

Just say you cannot afford another loss now you real eyes that lies and deflections are invalid arguments and you cant use them against me! 😆😆😆😆😆😆

And know this girl, if your world of lies and delusions would allow, arguments are not established by noise making or by lenghty superfluous and meaningless words or simply because you support a posituon.

StillDtruth:
So this is how you deceive yourself? No wonder you think lies and lyings are effective! 😆 😆
Desperate is not whatever you call it, princess. 😆😆.

You're the one running amok, twisting things to deceive yourself here. Then again, deception implies a level of sophistication I wouldn't dream of attributing to someone whose grasp of logic wouldn't fill a thimble. It would be pointless. If you're out of your depth, there's no shame in admitting it.

You lie to yourself princess, Thread shows you are the one desperately trying to.cover your shame of loss by repeating and repeating and even trying to praise yourself!. 😆😆😆 That tactics never works! 😆😆😆😆😆

As for your accusations of self-praise, well, darling, after I've demolished an opponent so thoroughly that all they have left are playground taunts, a little self-congratulation is practically mandatory. It's like winning a gold medal in intellectual jousting against a sack of potatoes. Furthermore, dismantling your argument was basic intellectual hygiene. You wouldn't understand the concept of hygiene anyway, judging by the logical dumpster fire you've created for yourself. Your arguments could be likened to a toddler flinging mashed potatoes at the wall. Besides, your desperate attempt at laughing emojis is the real sign of emotional distress. It's like watching a mime trapped in a funhouse mirror maze, flailing his limbs about with misplaced enthusiasm.

Here's a free tip just for you: if you want to be taken seriously, maybe try using actual arguments instead of the digital equivalent of glitter glue. Not only did you fail to submit a sensible argument here, you've also lost a tenuous grip on reality. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary and brush up on the meaning of "defeat" before embarrassing yourself further.

You don't know miuch proncess, 😆😆 Anong your other "don't knows", you obviously don't know that a thread means, it is lined up already. 😆😆😆😆😆😆

You've managed to not only misspell "much" and "process" but also invent a new word: "miuch proncess". I can only assume it's the title of your upcoming autobiography. What's the matter, kiddo? Are you losing composure? Are you shaking in your boots? Are your feelings getting hurt? 😂

See how you are so used to lying to yourself that you forgot to.see that the thread shows you desperately wailing and lying all because you lost! . 😆😆😆 😆😆

And i didnt even gloat over it. I rather even gae you a chance to lawfully walk back into the debate.

But because there is none, here you are wailing and cursing and lying desperately. 😆😆😆.

Told you, girl, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.! 😆😆😆

I have to say, I'm impressed by your ability to throw hissy fits of pain and anger and simultaneously claim victory. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that your argument was a house of cards, and I'm the gentle breeze that sent it tumbling down. It's been a while since I've seen someone so thoroughly entertained by their own cognitive dissonance to the point they were dancing at the grave of their own arguments.

Listen, I get it. You're upset. You're utterly confused. But please understand that at the end of the day, the reality of your situation is that you cannot offer a single piece of evidence that your god exists. You've got nothing.

Lies don't work princess😆😆

Just say you cannot afford another loss now you real eyes that lies and deflections are invalid arguments and you cant use them against me! 😆😆😆😆😆😆

And know this girl, if your world of lies and delusions would allow, arguments are not established by noise making or by lenghty superfluous and meaningless words or simply because you support a posituon.

I don't need to "afford" a loss. Unlike you, my self-worth isn't tied to internet debates. I demolished your arguments because they were demonstrably nonsensical. You cling to lies and delusions because reality requires pesky things like evidence and logic, which, from your response, appear to be foreign concepts. Arguments are established by facts, reason, and a coherent train of thought, and you seem to be missing all three. You're just sounding like a wounded animal, cornered, frightened, and lashing out with all the ferocity of a kitten. You've already emptied your bag of tricks and yet, nothing has worked in your favor. You tried to deflect, you tried to project, you tried to strawman, but the truth still stares at you hard in the face. But I won't stop you though. Nope. Keep going. You're only digging a deeper hole for yourself, and I'll still be here to kick the sand over you when you've exhausted your limit.

StillDtruth:
You Lie!

The records show you repeating yourself when you had nothimg to ay after i countered you. 😆😆😆.

And here you are lying and building stacks of lies in desperation.😆😆😆

And see, you have just finally confessed that i.gave evidence, whereas, you have been crying "no evidence". 😆😆😆

So lil' princess, go learn some more eg criticism and debates are not the same thing..

And 2, lies and insalts are very useless weapon in argument, it always disgraces its user. 😆😆😆😆😆

I've already seen through the fragile facade you're trying to put up here. You can't salvage the wreckage of your argument. It's over for you. The sweet aroma of your desperation wafts through the air, carrying with it the stench of intellectual bankruptcy. Indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

As for your newfound interest in debate etiquette, I find it mildly touching. It's almost as if you're slowly realizing that your tantrums aren't quite the devastating retorts you thought they were. Truly, insults and lies are indeed useless in an argument, which is why I've been pointing out your reliance on them all along. 🙂

JessicaRabbit:
I've already seen through the fragile facade you're trying to put up here. You can't salvage the wreckage of your argument. It's over for you..🙂

Told you lying does not work .😆😆😆😆

JessicaRabbit:
You're the one running amok, twisting things to deceive yourself here..
Unlike you, my self-worth isn't tied to internet debates. I demolished your arguments because they were demonstrably nonsensical....

Yet, here you are desperately openly lying a na talking too much. 😆😆😆
Told you lying does not work. 😆😆😆😆😆

THERE'S THE GRAND ORDER DOMINION.. THAT'S ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.

StillDtruth:
Told you lying does not work .😆😆😆😆

StillDtruth:
Yet, here you are desperately openly lying a na talking too much. 😆😆😆
Told you lying does not work. 😆😆😆😆😆

Okay. Go ahead then, point out a single lie I've told in this back and forth. I'll wait. Take your time. I'm sure it'll be a real challenge to find something that doesn't exist. If you can't, then congratulations, you'll have proven my point about your inability to engage with reality. And if you try to make something up, well, that'll just be another demonstration of your impressive skill at fabricating nonsense.

So, what's it going to be? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is, or just keep flailing in a desperate attempt to save face? You're running out of time my dear.

StillDtruth:
Yet, here you are desperately openly lying a na talking too much. 😆😆😆
Told you lying does not work. 😆😆😆😆😆

How is she lying?

JessicaRabbit:
Au contraire. I dissected your spurious argument and exposed the pearls of illogic and the gaping holes in your "evidence." But we already know how your tiny ego can't handle this level of public humiliation and so, in your grand quest to appear magnanimous, you're trying to falsely equate a logical takedown with a playground brawl. Maybe you should take a refresher course on the difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing a person. In the meantime, I hear crayons are great visual aids. Now feel free to lick your wounds and come back with something a little less… desperate.

Arguing with someone who has chosen ignorance as his path is equivalent to arguing with a mad man on the street. When he's ready for a factual, non sentimental and non abusive debate, you can engage him.

Negroid001:
Arguing with someone who has chosen ignorance as his path is equivalent to arguing with a mad man on the street. When he's ready for a factual, non sentimental and non abusive debate, you can engage him.

See how you come to show atheists are liars and very unfair people who live in delusions?

First, she has been the one insalting and abusing me since she lost the debate but here you are pretending you did not see it.

Secondly, the thread shows the facts i laid, which she even admitted and confessed, yet here you are lying and pretending that i gave no facts.

Clearly, you are an unreasonable judge made worse by the fact that you are an atheist. A classic case of a "a fox should not be on the jury at a goose's trial"

JessicaRabbit:
Okay. Go ahead then, point out a single lie I've told in this back and forth. I'll wait.

I showed you your recent one in bold 😆
"Unlike you, my self-worth isn't tied to internet debates".

And Yet here you are need fully going on and on and on, like your life depends on it. 😆 😆😆

Clearly, you're A Liar as proven by your mounting block of lies! So, girl, keep the lies cumming! 😆😆😆😆

Negroid001:
How is she lying?

How would you see the lies or agree she lies when you yourself are an atheist like her?

Negroid001:
Arguing with someone who has chosen ignorance as his path is equivalent to arguing with a mad man on the street. When he's ready for a factual, non sentimental and non abusive debate, you can engage him.

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.

StillDtruth:
How would you see the lies or agree she lies when you yourself are an atheist like her?

If you don't respect yourself, I'll strip you naked in this public forum.

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,...

See, you are Lying some more! 😆😆😆

We are not even arguing, yet here you are lying that you are arguing with me because i am bent on winning by any means necessary.

Whereas, i have already won and you are there deslerately crying and shouting "foul" 😆😆😆

And now since your loss, you have been very desperate and hell bent on winning that you have resorted to Lies and veiled insalts and twistings all because of you are trying very deslerately to win.😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

StillDtruth:
I showed you your recent one in bold 😆
"Unlike you, my self-worth isn't tied to internet debates".

And Yet here you are need fully going on and on and on, like your life depends on it. 😆 😆😆

Clearly, you're A Liar as proven by your mounting block of lies! So, girl, keep the lies cumming! 😆😆😆😆

😂

Just because I'm still engaging in this conversation doesn't mean my self-worth is tied to it. Read my latest response to Negroid001. You've conveniently missed the context and logical connection (or lack thereof). 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.

I made a post, clear as day, and yet... somehow, someway... it got lost in translation. Don't worry, I won't make you read it again (I wouldn't want to strain those brain cells of yours). Just take a bow, bask in the glory of your confusion, and remember, it's always okay to ask for clarification. 😂

StillDtruth:
See how you come to show atheists are liars and very unfair people who live in delusions?

First, she has been the one insalting and abusing me since she lost the debate but here you are pretending you did not see it.

Secondly, the thread shows the facts i laid, which she even admitted and confessed, yet here you are lying and pretending that i gave no facts.

Clearly, you are an unreasonable judge made worse by the fact that you are an atheist. A classic case of a "a fox should not be on the jury at a goose's trial"

How old are you? What fact did you lay?
Who told you I'm Atheist?
Don't forget i created this thread and lost interest when senseless people like you started commenting.

JessicaRabbit:
😂

Just because I'm still engaging in this conversation doesn't mean my self-worth is tied to it. Read my latest response to Negroid001. You've conveniently missed the context and logical connection (or lack thereof). 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.

I made a post, clear as day, and yet... somehow, someway... it got lost in translation. Don't worry, I won't make you read it again (I wouldn't want to strain those brain cells). Just take a bow, bask in the glory of your confusion, and remember, it's always okay to ask for clarification. 😂

Just leave him for me.