The existence of a point and counterpoint has fallen to a degree. Of course the superiors who waste their time degrading me, should know this section is for people trying to expand their stances. You folks have a worse preception that myself of what is an isn't. Void and I were going at each other just fine till HYPR and UBER decided to crash the party. You argured well Void, yet if I am in err for my words, the others who wanted to fight back to prove a bigger point failed. You proved a decent debate can be ruined less on the debators stance, and more on self righteous undergrads. Your words cannot stop time, here's hoping the next drunk who does kill someone, wont be someone you know. Lock this up please. The rom u mod squad fucked it up.
Before this is locked, can I get that above post translated into English? I know my prose can turn purplish at times but that's just silly.
Dedboy, you are aware that your stance was more or less fueled by your own emotions and previous experiences with alcohol which more or less makes for a terrible rebuttal or counter point in any debate. While opinion judges the stance on which people stand, it's not supposed to be your entire point in the debate. While I would say that moral implications of drinking or abusing drugs or some sort of ethical debate would be more enthralling since it covers a whole slew of evidence to debate, while more specific ones like this one or the pornography one that uber made make for more one sided debates for the most part and usually end like this. Honestly this topic ended for me at the post where Void chimed in before uber came in. Fuck you, and you're an asshole.
To sum it up. Some sucks, someone's a 'tard, someone's tapping some ass, another's tea bagging lard. Offically, this debate is dead. I am posting from a shitty phone, cut me some grammar breaks 'Von. Nat: No need to point a flaw in the design. My rebuttle would have been backed up with a lot more substance than just emotion, as this one was all but picked apart. But if it made one think before impulsively acting on an alcohol driven demeanor, then all the BS was fine. Im on a very small lcd screen typing this as we speak. So I cant quote anyone, nor add any url's. At this point at least I tried, so aidos from Michigan.
You're right. The existence of a point and counterpoint of this farce debate began degrading when you started generalizing all people that drink with your following condescending posts: And this. It's ironic that you say that people are degrading you, when you have degraded others with your condescending remarks. Crash what party? This is an open public debate topic in a public open forum. Tehuber1337 and I didn't crash the party; we came here on our own to present the reasons why you are wrong. And it's clear from the content of your recent post, you're butthurt over it. There you go again being presumptuous and a condescending prick! I'm not going to bother presenting details about myself here. I hope you get hit by a bus.
How many double standards do you have? First you say Void made shallow retorts, then you say he argured [sic] well. You call Hypr and I self-righteous, but you're the one being self-righteous here. You talk about expanding stances, yet you stubbornly ignore every argument made against you, choosing instead to repeat the same old "alcohol is evil" mantra without rhyme or reason. I can't stand your hypocrisy, I do not regret putting you in your place and I am honestly glad to have participated in the derailment of this non-debate. I can overlook your creepiness, I can accept your opinion, but I will not acknowledge you as a legitimate debater until you learn what it means to actually debate. One sided, eh? Don't worry, I'll do my best to play devil's advocate. Feel free to try your luck.
Banning all alcohol to avoid drink-related deaths is like banning all cars to avoid car-related deaths, or killing all poor African-Americans because they have a higher likelihood of committing a violent crime, or wiping out the human race to avoid any murders committed by humans. It's a complete over-reaction to the problem. Instead you should be advocating having a look into the reasons why some people abuse alcohol and finding a way to alleviating the cause for alcoholism and not the means of it. Of course, in some cases alcoholism is caused by a kind of genetic disease which causes the person to react a certain way with alcohol. My Dad was one of these people and he went into a mental institution to curb his addiction and has now been alcohol free for 5 years. For him, even one drink is too many, but for others in his group, alcohol was being used as a crutch to prop up self-esteem issues or depression. I still drink alcohol on a semi-regular basis, I have been drunk thrice in the 8 years I've been drinking and have no problems with it. I've been out with my Dad and his brother recently and had a few pints and it's fine, so I don't understand your justification for forcing your ideals onto an entire population.
Never forced anything. But even though this debate was made into a farce, at least it served a purpose. I've been called evil and condesending, and yet look at your own words. I agreed though, it should be looked into as why someone has the compulsion or addiciton to need to drink. Vader above me and even Natalie hit the nail on the head. The structure of my debate was flawled. Nevertheless, I did learn to better my stances, and stop coming off from an offensive curb. So thanks for that. Also thanks Vader for your example, I hope your dad continues to prosper.
