The Brock Angle Award for Undisputed 2009 Rookie of the Year
- Thread starter Coco
- Start date
So, alleged "master debater" D-Man finds a logically sound retort built on heaps of evidence to be disturbing?
It's a good thing I never took the debate league seriously. If this is what your ilk is apt to do when backed into a corner, I'd have washed you chumps out every year, broken your spirits, and made things so one-sided that the debate league would be even more of a waste of time than it already is.
Yes It's kept me up nights.
Yes. I'm very, very serious about this.
Yes. It's like a cancer in my soul.
If anyone has to put effort into this place, they're clearly beneath me.
The notion that you ever cared or that you wanted to "accomplish" something here other than kill time and shoot the shit is testament to why you were never the Rookie of the Year. You cared about being something on this board. Me? I didn't care about being the best. I just was.
If you say so. I prefer my version of the truth. It comes with evidence.
Not gonna lie... I have no clue what you just said here. I'm not being a dick, I really just didn't understand it. LOL
I care about the debate in the sense that I derive enjoyment from having it. I hope I didn't appear to be pretending otherwise.
Is this a formal debate? Not really. It's a discussion between two people. One of whom has taken this WAY too far.
(Hint: That person isn't me.)
Just as I explained, yes.
You're saying you don't put in any effort? So taking 10-20 minutes to cite 13 of my random posts in order to make your point isn't putting in effort?
Oh, spare me. Aren't you the one bitching and moaning about how you should've taken the Rookie of the Year Award? Isn't that an accomplishment? You're such a dumb cunt of a hypocrite.
You're right. I took your advice and just used the evidence against you. Enjoy it along with your slice of humble pie.
While you said in your last post that an "I disagree" would suffice, you've shown time and time again that you're far too ass-hatted for that to work. Hell, you told me to look it up and see for myself. If you're going to pitch a fit now because "evidence is for formal debates," then I'm satisfied with what I've accomplished here.
That would take you 10-20 minutes?
I'm so, so happy I made this thread.
Yes, if I took my time. I see no reason why I would rush to do such a thing. Obviously, you thought differently.
You did?
He said your grammar sucks.
I didn't rush anything. How much work do you think that is? I used your profile to search for recent posts, quoted them, and made my case. Not exactly heavy-lifting. To me, it's just another post. The fact that you think it's a big deal or some tall, arduous task says a lot more about what you consider to be time-consuming work than it does about me.
Danger Burger
Thread Killer
This will be me in three years! *fingers crossed*
You just wait Yazloz and Diet Soda, this bloods gna boil over!?
You just wait Yazloz and Diet Soda, this bloods gna boil over!?
Meh. Who cares. I don't need to write perfectly constructed novels to get my point across.
You mean to tell me that you can find and quote posts faster than me without breaking a sweat?? Wow... good for you!! That's quite a feat!
Way to dream big, kid.This will be me in three years! *fingers crossed*
You just wait Yazloz and Diet Soda, this bloods gna boil over!?
I probably shouldn't hold it against you though. Lord knows that you didn't grow up with regular access to computers. And middle age will probably slow me down too.
Ah, yes... an age joke. The obvious retort. You know, because I'm older than you and stuff.
Once again, thanks for thinking outside of the box of ball-busting and proving your worth as the 2009 ROTY.
Why do I have to be outside the box? Accurate is accurate. It's like expecting wrestlers to be using new moves and high spots every match to keep you from getting bored. Wrestling, just like argument, isn't terribly complicated and doesn't require one to step outside the box all that often.
Also, I already went the non-obvious route of using facts to respond to your exaggerated claims. Radical stuff, I know. You didn't like it very much, so why bewilder you further by testing your feeble, ageing mind with state-of-the-art, format-breaking posting? It'd be lost on you. Just as most of this affair seem to be.
Also, I already went the non-obvious route of using facts to respond to your exaggerated claims. Radical stuff, I know. You didn't like it very much, so why bewilder you further by testing your feeble, ageing mind with state-of-the-art, format-breaking posting? It'd be lost on you. Just as most of this affair seem to be.
Point taken.
So I guess I'm being accurate when I call you a troll and a cunt? I mean, you troll many of my posts. You know, and you're a cunt.
And there it is, ladies and gents! The Big Bad: Alzheimer's.
Well yeah. Even I'm willing to admit that D-Man is a little young for Alzheimer's. So he must be trolling me, right? What other possibility is there?
Clearly.
I'm too tired at the moment; but I shall endeavor to offer an explanation when I next get some time to myself without Johnny Russian glaring over my shoulder.
We're such polar opposites. I'm old so I must have Alzheimer's. You're young so you must be an immature child who doesn't know jack shit about anything.
Isn't it fun to stereotype?
Now lemme tell ya, kid, with me by your side you'll learn how to use grammar with the best of 'em! You'll be punchin' those semicolons in their semi-colon! You'll be kickin' the apostrophes in their ass-postrophes! Stick with me, kid, and we can take Doc-Man 2013 to heights never before seen! Hell, maybe I can even guide ya to becoming Rookie of the Year 2013! Whaddya say?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll