OCA challenges Conhog?

[jimnyc]

Maybe to stop the crap in the cage, and change it to a legit debate... This is what OCA wrote in the cage to CH. Maybe you guys can find a subject?


I'll tell you what, i'll debate you on a mutually agreed subject and won't utter 1 curse or flame, ask around the old timers, you don't want me to put effort into a debate with you, you'll get your ass clocked.

Don't make the OCA circa 2004-2007 surface again, it won't turn out good for you.

Maybe others can toss in subjects they would like to see debated, and maybe get these 2 in the ring?

[darin]

Well, first off, OCA wasn't as good as he remembers....Secondly, the over/under for 'how long before OCA flames/curses?' is 7 replies.

:D

[jimnyc]

Well, first off, OCA wasn't as good as he remembers....Secondly, the over/under for 'how long before OCA flames/curses?' is 7 replies.

:D

Maybe limit it to 5 replies apiece then? LOL I think we did 10 in a few debates, 5 in another and even limited the one about Sports where I kicked OCA's ass to 3. Outside of when he tries to stand toe to toe with me, I think OCA can be a damn good debater when he sticks to the topic and gets his facts straight. But he goes from good debater to famous flamer in .07 seconds. I think he can control himself for just one thread though!

You going to let Darin's comments stand, OCA, or are ya gonna man up and call out CH again?

[ConHog]

I'm down, and I don't care who picks the subject, or what the subject is because I think OCA will forfeit via flame long before the debate even gets serious no matter the topic.


Well, first off, OCA wasn't as good as he remembers....Secondly, the over/under for 'how long before OCA flames/curses?' is 7 replies.

:D

Wait, we can't curse? If that's the case, then I'm fucking out.:laugh2:

[OCA]

Well, first off, OCA wasn't as good as he remembers....Secondly, the over/under for 'how long before OCA flames/curses?' is 7 replies.

:D

Better than you.

[darin]

Better than you.

:bs: I'd just distract you with mary's bewbs.

[OCA]

Maybe limit it to 5 replies apiece then? LOL I think we did 10 in a few debates, 5 in another and even limited the one about Sports where I kicked OCA's ass to 3. Outside of when he tries to stand toe to toe with me, I think OCA can be a damn good debater when he sticks to the topic and gets his facts straight. But he goes from good debater to famous flamer in .07 seconds. I think he can control himself for just one thread though!

You going to let Darin's comments stand, OCA, or are ya gonna man up and call out CH again?

Already did it, I noticed Connie responded to that post from me to start this thread but he totally ignored the challenge, he doesn't want none of me.


:bs: I'd just distract you with mary's bewbs.

Darin, not sure what your prob is with me but you know i'm one of the best....................ever. I got bored with the same old subjects being discussed the same old way, i'm like the kid with a quantum physics mind being forced to take biology 101.

[ConHog]

Already did it, I noticed Connie responded to that post from me to start this thread but he totally ignored the challenge, he doesn't want none of me.

I didn't ignore your request, AND I didn't start this thread you idiot. JIM started a new thread to see if you were being serious about your challenge and offered up the idea that the board in general could suggest a topic.


Now quick run to get some backup, cuz you're going to need it if you really want to go one on one with me. Pick a topic yourself if you're scared to let the board members choose. Doesn't matter anyway because here is how I predict the thread will go down.

CH : Okay this is my opening post about the topic

OCA: URRR Umm you're a goddamn **** just picking on people and you can't hang with me, I'm the top dog, that's just fact deal with it , OCA RULEZ

JIM: Winner by Disqualification for being a flaming tard is CH. So you see, I actually predict I'll win without even having to debate at all.


But, I sincerely hope you shock the world and bring your big boy game.

[OCA]

Maybe limit it to 5 replies apiece then? LOL I think we did 10 in a few debates, 5 in another and even limited the one about Sports where I kicked OCA's ass to 3. Outside of when he tries to stand toe to toe with me, I think OCA can be a damn good debater when he sticks to the topic and gets his facts straight. But he goes from good debater to famous flamer in .07 seconds. I think he can control himself for just one thread though!

You going to let Darin's comments stand, OCA, or are ya gonna man up and call out CH again?

James I said I wouldn't cuss nor flame, I meant it.................but only in this thread.

I'll discuss anything from Cyprus, the Greek economy all the way to Brad and Angelina.

No military though, don't know the ins and outs just like Connie won't debaste picking up women, he doesn't know the ins and outs of that.


I didn't ignore your request, AND I didn't start this thread you idiot. JIM started a new thread to see if you were being serious about your challenge and offered up the idea that the board in general could suggest a topic.


Now quick run to get some backup, cuz you're going to need it if you really want to go one on one with me. Pick a topic yourself if you're scared to let the board members choose. Doesn't matter anyway because here is how I predict the thread will go down.

CH : Okay this is my opening post about the topic

OCA: URRR Umm you're a goddamn **** just picking on people and you can't hang with me, I'm the top dog, that's just fact deal with it , OCA RULEZ

JIM: Winner by Disqualification for being a flaming tard is CH. So you see, I actually predict I'll win without even having to debate at all.


But, I sincerely hope you shock the world and bring your big boy game.

Try again Connie.

You ignored.........................in the cage.

You arelready trying to bait and switch because you are well......................scared.

[ConHog]

James I said I wouldn't cuss nor flame, I meant it.................but only in this thread.

I'll discuss anything from Cyprus, the Greek economy all the way to Brad and Angelina.

No military though, don't know the ins and outs just like Connie won't debaste picking up women, he doesn't know the ins and outs of that.

Three points.

1. This thread isn't a one on ne debate, not yet so the no flame at all rule isn't in effect yet you douche.
2. I certainly remember being chastized by 2 members that calling someone something other than their actual screen name (or real name if they are okay with that) is a flame in and of itself.
3. Certainly saying someone doesn't know about not picking on women would be considered a flame

So in two cases you flamed when you said you wouldn't.

Not that I care, because this isn't a one on one debate yet and so flames are okay, but it is YOU who said you wouldn't flame in THIS thread.

[OCA]

I'm gonna start drinking 151, just to make it a fair fight i'll have to get inebriated.

[ConHog]

Try again Connie.

You ignored.........................in the cage.

You arelready trying to bait and switch because you are well......................scared.

Left the thread =/= ignored your challenge you idiot. I've written 3 times in THIS thread, now 4 times, that I accept your challenge . Fucking moron.

I'm just waiting for some suggested topics.

[OCA]

Three points.

1. This thread isn't a one on ne debate, not yet so the no flame at all rule isn't in effect yet you douche.
2. I certainly remember being chastized by 2 members that calling someone something other than their actual screen name (or real name if they are okay with that) is a flame in and of itself.
3. Certainly saying someone doesn't know about not picking on women would be considered a flame

So in two cases you flamed when you said you wouldn't.

Not that I care, because this isn't a one on one debate yet and so flames are okay, but it is YOU who said you wouldn't flame in THIS thread.

When the debate starts I won't flame but all you are doing is stalling and deflecting because you are well..................scared...................... ....Connie.:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

I'm gonna start drinking 151, just to make it a fair fight i'll have to get inebriated.

I don't know whether to find that stupid or funny, but I laughed my ass off! You're an idiot! LOL

[OCA]

Left the thread =/= ignored your challenge you idiot. I've written 3 times in THIS thread, now 4 times, that I accept your challenge . Fucking moron.

I'm just waiting for some suggested topics.

Cyprus........1974 Turkish Invasion..............Henry Kissinger's direct involvement.

You take the position of it was ok for U.S. to goad Turkey to invade therefore slaughtering thousands and displacing thousands more.


I don't know whether to find that stupid or funny, but I laughed my ass off! You're an idiot! LOL

You watching the deflecting from Connie? Its like watching one of Bush's old daily press briefings.

[ConHog]

I don't know whether to find that stupid or funny, but I laughed my ass off! You're an idiot! LOL

I'm sure he just borrowed the line from one of the 2 women he's slept with who both told him the day before " I'm gong to start drinking now so that I can bear to let you touch me tomorrow"


:laugh2:


Do you have a suggested topic?

[OCA]

I'm sure he just borrowed the line from one of the 2 women he's slept with who both told him the day before " I'm gong to start drinking now so that I can bear to let you touch me tomorrow"


:laugh2:


Do you have a suggested topic?

Queer marriage.........you are in favor, i've read it.

[ConHog]

Cyprus........1974 Turkish Invasion..............Henry Kissinger's direct involvement.

You take the position of it was ok for U.S. to goad Turkey to invade therefore slaughtering thousands and displacing thousands more.

SO you get to pick the topic AND my position in said topic? Hmm that sounds fair........

In that case , I have a counter proposal. Pussy vs vagina, which I'd rather play with . You take the position of preferring to play with dick. :lol:

[jimnyc]

I'm just waiting for some suggested topics.

racism
immigration issues, illegal immigration
abortion topics
2nd amendment rights

What do YOU guys consider your strong points, and maybe the other will challenge your stance?

[jimnyc]

Queer marriage.........you are in favor, i've read it.

If this is true, would LOVE to see a gay marriage debate!

[ConHog]

Queer marriage.........you are in favor, i've read it.

Now THAT is a serious topic, and yes I am pro gay marriage.


If this is true, would LOVE to see a gay marriage debate!

it is true , sort of. my stance is that the government should be out of marriage altogether. So I'm not sure that that qualifies as pro gay marriage really.

[jimnyc]

Now THAT is a serious topic, and yes I am pro gay marriage.

There ya go, and I know OCA is against it... shall I start drawing up terms? I starte the debate - then one starts with their "opening argument", the other opens with theirs, then 9 replies apiece left to make a total of 10 posts apiece (the 10th posts should be your "closing arguments"). Then we call a vote?

How does this sound? What would you guys like to add?

[OCA]

Now THAT is a serious topic, and yes I am pro gay marriage.

We should not change current laws regarding marriage to appease people based upon a lifestyle choice.

I dare you to prove with irrefuteable fact and no supposition that queer choicers are born queer and also that they are currently being denied any inalienable rights that every American is born with.

I can also prove the detrimental effects of the queer choice lifestyle if you'd like.


There ya go, and I know OCA is against it... shall I start drawing up terms? I starte the debate - then one starts with their "opening argument", the other opens with theirs, then 9 replies apiece left to make a total of 10 posts apiece (the 10th posts should be your "closing arguments"). Then we call a vote?

How does this sound? What would you guys like to add?

Already started it.

[jimnyc]

Already started it.

no, no, no - I would officially start it in the one on one section, and keep others out and limit it to back and forth....

[ConHog]

There ya go, and I know OCA is against it... shall I start drawing up terms? I starte the debate - then one starts with their "opening argument", the other opens with theirs, then 9 replies apiece left to make a total of 10 posts apiece (the 10th posts should be your "closing arguments"). Then we call a vote?

How does this sound? What would you guys like to add?

Okay I have a few questions.

1. When you say no cursing, you mean no cursing AT the other person right? I mean you've seen my posts I curse, but not usually AT people. Just want to clarify there

2. Are time allowances made for if say OCA posts a response tonight and I don't get back to him until tomorrow or whatever............

Other than that I'm good with the topic and the format.

Oh except I wonder about the voting, is it a secret vote, how do we know the count etc etc. I don't want OCA to be publicly embarrassed by it being openly out there that only Sir Evil voted for him (and probably multiple times) lol

[OCA]

no, no, no - I would officially start it in the one on one section, and keep others out and limit it to back and forth....

Alright, you got it.

This will be quick because there is no logical pro queer marriage argument.

[ConHog]

We should not change current laws regarding marriage to appease people based upon a lifestyle choice.

I dare you to prove with irrefuteable fact and no supposition that queer choicers are born queer and also that they are currently being denied any inalienable rights that every American is born with.

I can also prove the detrimental effects of the queer choice lifestyle if you'd like.

Thanks for the preview of your stance retard. :laugh2:

[OCA]

Thanks for the preview of your stance retard. :laugh2:

It doesn't matter, you've lost already, i've got volumes on file on this vile menace.

[jimnyc]

Save it guys.... I'm going to start the other thread, and OCA can start however he likes, and you each get 10 total posts, and that includes opening and closing, so count your posts, and I'll try to break in for an update...

[ConHog]

Save it guys.... I'm going to start the other thread, and OCA can start however he likes, and you each get 10 total posts, and that includes opening and closing, so count your posts, and I'll try to break in for an update...

Hmm you didn't address any of my questions regarding the terms.

[jimnyc]

Okay I have a few questions.

1. When you say no cursing, you mean no cursing AT the other person right? I mean you've seen my posts I curse, but not usually AT people. Just want to clarify there

2. Are time allowances made for if say OCA posts a response tonight and I don't get back to him until tomorrow or whatever............

Other than that I'm good with the topic and the format.

Oh except I wonder about the voting, is it a secret vote, how do we know the count etc etc. I don't want OCA to be publicly embarrassed by it being openly out there that only Sir Evil voted for him (and probably multiple times) lol

1- No flaming, but of course you can curse, just not at the other person.
2- We will allow reeasonable time to respond. So yes, it's possible the entire thing could take multiple days, maybe even 3 or 4.

The voting totals are automatically public but who voted for who will not

[ConHog]

1- No flaming, but of course you can curse, just not at the other person.
2- We will allow reeasonable time to respond. So yes, it's possible the entire thing could take multiple days, maybe even 3 or 4.

The voting totals are automatically public but who voted for who will not

Okay that sounds good on all fronts. Hell , noway I could make ten consecutive posts without saying fuck at least once. :laugh2:

Is politicking frowned upon? :coffee:

[darin]

Darin, not sure what your prob is with me but you know i'm one of the best....................ever. I got bored with the same old subjects being discussed the same old way, i'm like the kid with a quantum physics mind being forced to take biology 101.


I don't have any problems with you Mike. I'm giving you shit. :D

[OCA]

I don't have any problems with you Mike. I'm giving you shit. :D

Ok Darin:beer:

[jimnyc]

I don't have any problems with you Mike. I'm giving you shit. :D


Ok Darin:beer:

Not what he told me! He sent me a PM and told me you lost your skills, turned into a liberal ninny and you only want to debate fags cause you are one yourself! :lol:

[jimnyc]

Btw, you're both doing pretty good thus far. Only 2 replies, but I can see this one getting dirty before long. Don't forget, include facts and sources. I can only speak for myself, but I'm voting for the one who puts up the best debate, not solely voting for the one who argues an opinion I agree with!

[ConHog]

Not what he told me! He sent me a PM and told me you lost your skills, turned into a liberal ninny and you only want to debate fags cause you are one yourself! :lol:

FUCK


YOU




:laugh2::laugh2:

[jimnyc]

FUCK


YOU




:laugh2::laugh2:

Well, I was talking about OCA, but now I'm changing my mind and talking about you, and that's probably why you support the queers! 2 queers debating about queers!! :coffee:

[ConHog]

Btw, you're both doing pretty good thus far. Only 2 replies, but I can see this one getting dirty before long. Don't forget, include facts and sources. I can only speak for myself, but I'm voting for the one who puts up the best debate, not solely voting for the one who argues an opinion I agree with!

So your vote is solidly in my corner. Got ya


On a serious note, there is a LOT of opinion and very little fact on this specific topic, so links probably won't be too numerous...

[Sir Evil]

Oh except I wonder about the voting, is it a secret vote, how do we know the count etc etc. I don't want OCA to be publicly embarrassed by it being openly out there that only Sir Evil voted for him (and probably multiple times) lol

Ok check it out fuckface, this debate to begin with shouldn't be open to a public vote and furthermore I won't even cast a vote if it is. This place has almost always been one sided to political view but gay marriage makes it a little more equal playing field. Now your only advantage here is the fact most people don't like the arrogance of oca and will simply vote against him for that reason but I doubt that you can even compete with that advatage. On the other hand already seeing the bullshit you talk I doubt for a moment that you actually are married and if you are I'm sure it probably is to a guy so there would be your other advantage. So quit fucking whining about votes when you have yet to even begin the debate process. :321:

[ConHog]

Ok check it out fuckface, this debate to begin with shouldn't be open to a public vote and furthermore I won't even cast a vote if it is. This place has almost always been one sided to political view but gay marriage makes it a little more equal playing field. Now your only advantage here is the fact most people don't like the arrogance of oca and will simply vote against him for that reason but I doubt that you can even compete with that advatage. On the other hand already seeing the bullshit you talk I doubt for a moment that you actually are married and if you are I'm sure it probably is to a guy so there would be your other advantage. So quit fucking whining about votes when you have yet to even begin the debate process. :321:

SO, you just whined about me supposedly whining?

I couldn't care less what you believe or know, nor do I care if you vote.

[OCA]

Btw, you're both doing pretty good thus far. Only 2 replies, but I can see this one getting dirty before long. Don't forget, include facts and sources. I can only speak for myself, but I'm voting for the one who puts up the best debate, not solely voting for the one who argues an opinion I agree with!

So far no sources from Connie, the debate may end before long unless he provides some solid links like I have.

[Sir Evil]

SO, you just whined about me supposedly whining?

I couldn't care less what you believe or know, nor do I care if you vote.

Shut up mangina, you were the one that had to mention me in this thread when it had nothing to do with me whatsoever. Try shutting your mouth and let your debating speak before you start crying about the voting system...

[OCA]

So your vote is solidly in my corner. Got ya


On a serious note, there is a LOT of opinion and very little fact on this specific topic, so links probably won't be too numerous...

You haven't provided link 1, you fucking suck ass at debating, but thats no shocker.

Step up soon or its over.

[Sir Evil]

So far no sources from Connie, the debate may end before long unless he provides some solid links like I have.

He's already crying about the voting system let alone the actual debate...:laugh2:

[OCA]

No links from Connie, no more responses from me unles he provides links to back up his position.

He is arguing completely from emotion.


He's already crying about the voting system let alone the actual debate...:laugh2:

This is unbelievable, I provide a solid link(s) and he just refuses to even address it other than saying its "fauxrage".................LMFAO!

Hey Evil, back in the day we always provided links, right?

[ConHog]

No links from Connie, no more responses from me unles he provides links to back up his position.

He is arguing completely from emotion.

I accept your surrender.

[OCA]

I accept your surrender.

:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:

Dude, you are delusional, you don't even know what the fuck you are doing. Worst debater USMB/DP ever saw.

Provide links...........#1 rule here.

[Sir Evil]

This is unbelievable, I provide a solid link(s) and he just refuses to even address it other than saying its "fauxrage".................LMFAO!

Hey Evil, back in the day we always provided links, right?

Sure did but regardless should be judged on the argument put forward by each member...

[ConHog]

:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:

Dude, you are delusional, you don't even know what the fuck you are doing. Worst debater USMB/DP ever saw.

Provide links...........#1 rule here.

First, the debate was only a third of the way over, and I did provide one link where appropriate.

Second, I don't see any such rule listed.

Third, you just refused to participate IE quit. That is a forfeit.

[Sir Evil]

I accept your surrender.

try actually debating before declaring victory cupcake...

[OCA]

Sure did but regardless should be judged on the argument put forward by each member...

Exactly, I can argue your brother doesn't like to get teabagged but I still must provide some proof, no?

[OCA]

First, the debate was only a third of the way over, and I did provide one link where appropriate.

Second, I don't see any such rule listed.

Third, you just refused to participate IE quit. That is a forfeit.

I ain't quitting Connie, waiting for you to give me something to debate.

Links, its all about the links twinkle toes.:link:

[jimnyc]

Links are nice, but one can still make a good debate with just opinions. Back and forth posting until 10 posts apiece have been made. Anyone failing to follow up on their side is forfeiting.

[jimnyc]

Take it to the debate...

/closed

[OCA]

First, the debate was only a third of the way over, and I did provide one link where appropriate.

Second, I don't see any such rule listed.

Third, you just refused to participate IE quit. That is a forfeit.

What the fuck? A rule listed?


Are you for fucking real?

[jimnyc]

Links are nice, but one can still make a good debate with just opinions. Back and forth posting until 10 posts apiece have been made. Anyone failing to follow up on their side is forfeiting.

Back and forth, Gentlemen. 10 apiece as agree to. There are no requirements of a poster before the next person posts.

[OCA]

We need a ruling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No links, refusing to acknowledge my links(especially the Centers For Disease Control link)....................seriously?

[jimnyc]

We need a ruling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No links, refusing to acknowledge my links(especially the Centers For Disease Control link)....................seriously?

I'm replying to this, then moving it to the discussion thread. You can't stop mid-debate because you don't like his responses. Let the people voting decide if he is properly addressing your points or not. Address what he DOES post though.

[OCA]

I did in fact refute each of your emotional objections to gay marriage.

As for comparing sky diving to AIDS. I did not. I compared gay marriage to skydiving in terms of risk. A more reasonable statement would have been to say I compared crushing yourself into the ground with AIDS since both are possibilities one faces when engaging in the associated risky behavior, and that is quite pertinent because if you agree we have the right to risk ourselves by skydiving, you MUST agree that we have the right to risk ourselves with gay sex.

Prior to Loving the will of the people in many parts of the country was not to allow inter racial marriages. Thankfully the government did what it is SUPPOSED to do it and it told the majority that they could in fact NOT just do whatever they wanted just because they thought something was icky.

Some people DO take happiness from thievery, the difference of course is as I noted, no one has a right to happiness at the expense of others. Thievery obviously costs someone something, someone being gay costs no one anything.



How about you show some evidence that the government keeping gays from marrying in fact benefits society at all, your word isn't good enough.

You claim America is a social dump, but in fact gay marriage currently isn't the law of the land in most areas, so can you show that gay marriage is what has made the US a social dump?

You did not in fact refute any of my objections which were backed up with facts.

I agree that we have the right to risk ourselves with queer choice sex but as a society we must publicly come out against it much the same as we come out against drug abuse.

Now you are comparing Blacks(born that way) to queers(lifestyle choice)? You do a huge disservice to black civil rights people past and present with that silly argument.

I'll show evidence(I already have, you just refused to acknowledge it) when you do.

The S.C. link you provided was great because i've always wanted it left up to the states and the people and we see where they stand.

No more........................until you provide links and proof of your stance.

If not.............well I guess we already know what the outcome is.

[jimnyc]

Ok, timeout on the debate....

Conhog - you do not have to have links if you don't want to
OCA - You still need to reply when it's your turn. If he doesn't want to post links, or address specific issues you posted, save it for the closing and let the voters know.

But you guys can't simply decide you don't like what the other guys is replying with, and demand differently, or stop. If you do, you forfeit.

[jimnyc]

Let me know when you guys are all clear on the debate, then I want to lock this backup so you can concentrate on the debate.

[ConHog]

You did not in fact refute any of my objections which were backed up with facts.

I agree that we have the right to risk ourselves with queer choice sex but as a society we must publicly come out against it much the same as we come out against drug abuse.

Now you are comparing Blacks(born that way) to queers(lifestyle choice)? You do a huge disservice to black civil rights people past and present with that silly argument.

I'll show evidence(I already have, you just refused to acknowledge it) when you do.

The S.C. link you provided was great because i've always wanted it left up to the states and the people and we see where they stand.

No more........................until you provide links and proof of your stance.

If not.............well I guess we already know what the outcome is.

Unlike you, I won't try to limit your posting style. So post what you like.

Now onto your comments. It is nice that you agree that we have the right to do whatever we like as long as we aren't hurting anyone else. So that makes your link from the CDC irrelevant to this discussion no matter how factual the information. Now IF you had a link from the CDC that said that gay marriage leads to people outside the marriage contracting STDs , THEN you might have a point, but it doesn't, so you don't.

As for links in general, in a discussion like this, they can of course be good, but they can also pretty much say anything. For example, here is a link that suggests that married people live longer than single people.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2298049#.TyiNZPlfSa8

If the government's concern is getting people to stay as healthy as possible, it only stands to reason than that we need to outlaw being single.

Oh, and NO ONE was comparing being black to being gay. I was however comparing being able to marry the person of your choice ( as long as that person is a consenting adult) to being able to marry the person of your choice (again, as long as that person is a consenting adult.) You simply are not using logic when you declare that gays can't marry. You do realize that in our democracy the tables could turn in one election cycle and it could be YOU who finds yourself as a minority being told you can't do something that hurts no one b/c the majority think it's icky don't you? And so, the VERY people who we should safeguard most are the ones we agree with least.

And you haven't even read Loving if you think it left the question of interracial marriages up to the states. In fact the defendant in the case was the state of Virginia and they were fighting to be able to keep inter racial marriages illegal. They lost and with that came precedence , no state is allowed to make a law barring inter racial marriages.

The TRUTH is there is only valid reason for opposing gay marriage. Religious views, and that's cool, we of course have the religious right to think it's a sin and gross. But because of a small section in the COTUS.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, I'm ASSUMING you knew where that statement is, and once again, you don't want someone telling you that you have to follow their religious beliefs you have NO right to tell others that they have to follow YOUR beliefs.

In case you don't know where the above can be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Now, another reason I see people give for opposing gay marriage is for the children, "oh it hurts the children" really? So you're telling me that the children are better off with two single gay adults living together unmarried then they would be if those adults were married? Yeah that makes a LOT of sense.

dammit, how did my respind to the debate get moved to this thread, Jim can you move it to the right forum please?


You did not in fact refute any of my objections which were backed up with facts.

I agree that we have the right to risk ourselves with queer choice sex but as a society we must publicly come out against it much the same as we come out against drug abuse.

Now you are comparing Blacks(born that way) to queers(lifestyle choice)? You do a huge disservice to black civil rights people past and present with that silly argument.

I'll show evidence(I already have, you just refused to acknowledge it) when you do.

The S.C. link you provided was great because i've always wanted it left up to the states and the people and we see where they stand.

No more........................until you provide links and proof of your stance.

If not.............well I guess we already know what the outcome is.

Here's why mine got moved, Jim you moved this post while I was responding. I think this post should count as one of OCA's as well, if it doesn't then my post can't be moved else I'd have two posts in a row in that forum.

[jimnyc]

Here's why mine got moved, Jim you moved this post while I was responding. I think this post should count as one of OCA's as well, if it doesn't then my post can't be moved else I'd have two posts in a row in that forum.


No, now the rules have been cleared up. You were the last to post, it's now OCA's turn to post once you both have the rules cleared up to you.

[ConHog]

No, now the rules have been cleared up. You were the last to post, it's now OCA's turn to post once you both have the rules cleared up to you.

He was debating the topic in that post, couldn't just cut out his complain about the rules and leave in what he did say so that my post stays? sheesh. but alright then

[jimnyc]

Last posts from you guys sucked. Dying out already? I'm voting none of the above!! :laugh2: Ok, disregard me and pay attention to the debate, for the 2 minutes you both spent on your last posts. Ok, I kid, I kid, it was no less than 3! Seriously though, I'm just trying to break up the bad blood and add a little humor to the "event". But look at it from another angle - when someone goes to Google down the road and types in "gay marriage debate", this debate may come up for them! People might think you suck for years to come!!

[Abbey Marie]

It was a good idea; I'm enjoying it!

[Sir Evil]

:laugh2:

Is it actually a debate yet?

Perhaps a guidline for future debates Jim so next debate doesn't come with the exclusive sideshow.

[pegwinn]

Last posts from you guys sucked. Dying out already? I'm voting none of the above!! :laugh2: Ok, disregard me and pay attention to the debate, for the 2 minutes you both spent on your last posts. Ok, I kid, I kid, it was no less than 3! Seriously though, I'm just trying to break up the bad blood and add a little humor to the "event". But look at it from another angle - when someone goes to Google down the road and types in "gay marriage debate", this debate may come up for them! People might think you suck for years to come!!

:clap:

Please be sure to add a "None of the Above" to the eventual poll. That ought to motivate them to commence to some serious ass kicking. It would suck to lose to .... nothing.

[OCA]

:clap:

Please be sure to add a "None of the Above" to the eventual poll. That ought to motivate them to commence to some serious ass kicking. It would suck to lose to .... nothing.

I can't flame and call him "pole smoker lover" or "mr. moral relativist" or "queer apologist" or some other appropriate term.

"waaaaah, queers don't hurt anybody(ignores links) waaaaaaah its up to the individual", my god its like talking to a brick wall.

[pegwinn]

I can't flame and call him "pole smoker lover" or "mr. moral relativist" or "queer apologist" or some other appropriate term.

"waaaaah, queers don't hurt anybody(ignores links) waaaaaaah its up to the individual", my god its like talking to a brick wall.

If you have to resort to flames to win a Debate, that's like resorting to a tire iron to win a fistfight. You may still win, but it just doesn't have the same effect.

[darin]

If this were the Pro Bowl it'd be OCA: 59 CH: 41

Both are resorting to logical fallacy, however. Both are easily dismissing valid or even mostly-making-sense points that counter their own without providing a lot of reason why. CH moreso than OCA. Shit load of passive-voice, too.

[OCA]

If you have to resort to flames to win a Debate, that's like resorting to a tire iron to win a fistfight. You may still win, but it just doesn't have the same effect.

I've already won on facts, flaming is just like getting chocolate sauce added to your ice cream, just makes it sweeter!


If this were the Pro Bowl it'd be OCA: 59 CH: 41

Both are resorting to logical fallacy, however. Both are easily dismissing valid or even mostly-making-sense points that counter their own without providing a lot of reason why. CH moreso than OCA. Shit load of passive-voice, too.

You know I don't like the rules but I agreed to them so the passive voice can't be helped at this point.

[darin]

Here's what I mean:

From the top of the first reply:

CH starts out with an attempt to poison the well - by accusing OCA of using a 'slur'.


I think we can all agree...

Logical fallacy of appeal to belief. Whether or not we all agree or believe isn't relevant to the following fact, argument; our implied belief or agreement doesn't make what follows that statement true or false.


On to the next issue, the claim is made

Italics/underline = Passive voice. Instead of 'The claim is made', the argument is stronger presented as 'Some people claim gays...'

Then the fallacy of 'two wrongs' - The implication is, IF gays are 'forcing' their lifestyle on others, isn't Non-gay 'forcing THEIR preference on gays bad, too?'. That is to say, it's okay if gays 'force' their agenda, because non-gays are doing the same thing!

The Implication "The government is only forbidding homosexuals to marry whomever they choose" and thus "heterosexual people can marry whomever they choose" is simply, patently false.

I challenge both of you to avoid common fallacies, hyperbole, and simple dismissal.

[Sir Evil]

I challenge both of you to avoid common fallacies, hyperbole, and simple dismissal.

Well put!

[ConHog]

Here's what I mean:

From the top of the first reply:

CH starts out with an attempt to poison the well - by accusing OCA of using a 'slur'.



Logical fallacy of appeal to belief. Whether or not we all agree or believe isn't relevant to the following fact, argument; our implied belief or agreement doesn't make what follows that statement true or false.



Italics/underline = Passive voice. Instead of 'The claim is made', the argument is stronger presented as 'Some people claim gays...'

Then the fallacy of 'two wrongs' - The implication is, IF gays are 'forcing' their lifestyle on others, isn't Non-gay 'forcing THEIR preference on gays bad, too?'. That is to say, it's okay if gays 'force' their agenda, because non-gays are doing the same thing!

The Implication "The government is only forbidding homosexuals to marry whomever they choose" and thus "heterosexual people can marry whomever they choose" is simply, patently false.

I challenge both of you to avoid common fallacies, hyperbole, and simple dismissal.

I see, so you believe I have to put forth a defense that shows that gay marriage has some sort of benefit to society since OCA is putting forth a case taht gay marriage is detrimental to society. See I can't do that , because I don't believe gay marriage benefits society at all. I in fact believe it is society neutral and THAT is why the government shouldn't be able to make it illegal.

No different than people who want to make drinking soda illegal put forth a million reasons why they think it should be illegal, and I don't have a single reason for drinking soda other than I want to, and I should be able to do anything that I want to do that doesn't harm people who are not willing participants.

[darin]

I see, so you believe I have to put forth a defense that shows that gay marriage has some sort of benefit to society since OCA is putting forth a case taht gay marriage is detrimental to society.

Not at all. I’m hoping you counter his arguments without resorting to taking the easy way out. I'm saying, if OCA puts forth a point, you put forth a counter-point if you can find one. If you can't find one, acknowledge the point - but continue to argue your side without dismissing him, or using logical fallacy. Now, logical fallacy is NOT an insult, flame, or otherwise negative; its use is simply technical. A logical fallacy is not a judgement of the person making the claim - simply pointing out how the claim doesn't hold logical weight - as if this were a formal debate.


See I can't do that , because I don't believe gay marriage benefits society at all. I in fact believe it is society neutral and THAT is why the government shouldn't be able to make it illegal.

Not asking you to debate it with me


No different than people who want to make drinking soda illegal put forth a million reasons why they think it should be illegal, and I don't have a single reason for drinking soda other than I want to, and I should be able to do anything that I want to do that doesn't harm people who are not willing participants.

Again, not debating the issue with you or OCA; just used one post (happened to be yours) to hopefully make everyone more-skilled or more-effective debaters.

[jimnyc]

Too much discussion in here and the actual debate will go stagnant. We can discuss what was good and what went wrong upon completion. CH - I believe the floor is yours...

[jimnyc]

Con - you quitting already?

[ConHog]

Too much discussion in here and the actual debate will go stagnant. We can discuss what was good and what went wrong upon completion. CH - I believe the floor is yours...

Bit of a family situation. I'm not bailing. Just don't have tme to compose my next response yet. Try to get to it tonight. Tomorrow for sure

[jimnyc]

Bit of a family situation. I'm not bailing. Just don't have tme to compose my next response yet. Try to get to it tonight. Tomorrow for sure

Alrighty, cool, just wanted to make sure that there were no remaining issues about the specifics of the debate or what is expected of each. Hope everything is cool on the homefront.

[ConHog]

Alrighty, cool, just wanted to make sure that there were no remaining issues about the specifics of the debate or what is expected of each. Hope everything is cool on the homefront.

Everything is cool Thanks. Just something came upthat needs to be dealt with.

[gabosaurus]

** Reminder - this is to remain just between these two. Nobody else should be replying in this thread. Any replies outside of these 2 will be deleted and the offender will be banned from this section of the board. **

[jimnyc]

Darin has edited your post, Gabby, and I moved it here to comply with the rules. Try reading before posting next time!! :lol:

[ConHog]

Darin has edited your post, Gabby, and I moved it here to comply with the rules. Try reading before posting next time!! :lol:

her post was funny though, married a building LOL

[jimnyc]

The debate has concluded, and everyone can read and vote now!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34164-Gay-Marriage-Debate

[Sir Evil]

The debate has concluded, and everyone can read and vote now!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34164-Gay-Marriage-Debate

Was that a debate?:dunno:

[OCA]

Was that a debate?:dunno:

Kind of like when I see you walking by.........."was that a dude? It had an adams apple but other than that, dunno":laugh2:
:laugh2:

Suck it!

[Sir Evil]

Kind of like when I see you walking by.........."was that a dude? It had an adams apple but other than that, dunno":laugh2:
:laugh2:

Suck it!

:laugh:

I was just kinda talking about the flow of things in that debate, I was half way through reading it when it dawned on me that I no longer realized what was being debated... or something like that....

[OCA]

:laugh:

I was just kinda talking about the flow of things in that debate, I was half way through reading it when it dawned on me that I no longer realized what was being debated... or something like that....

Really he gave me nothing to feed off of, I could've actually predicted what he would say its been said so many times before from different people through the years.

I understand though, the last few posts I had to muster the energy to respond.

[Sir Evil]

Really he gave me nothing to feed off of, I could've actually predicted what he would say its been said so many times before from different people through the years.

I understand though, the last few posts I had to muster the energy to respond.

:laugh2:

I was just stirring the shit as usual....

[ConHog]

Hmm, it appears only 11 people cared enough to vote in this thread?

[jimnyc]

Hmm, it appears only 11 people cared enough to vote in this thread?

Con, I moved your post to this thread, I'd like to leave all the debates we have clean... But give it time, and I'll post a reminder, we're not a very huge board here!

[Gaffer]

I didn't vote for two reasons. I'm tired of the queer threads and I have OCA on ignore.

[ConHog]

Con, I moved your post to this thread, I'd like to leave all the debates we have clean... But give it time, and I'll post a reminder, we're not a very huge board here!

No problems with my post being moved. I would wonder though, I thought there was going to be some discussion among the members about the relative merits of our posts in the debate. Did I just misunderstand?


I didn't vote for two reasons. I'm tired of the queer threads and I have OCA on ignore.

I wish you'd take him off ignore and read the thread. I essentially stated what you feel. It's old, and none of our business to worry about what other people are doing in bed.

Or just vote for me cuz I have cookies.:laugh2:

[OCA]

I didn't vote for two reasons. I'm tired of the queer threads and I have OCA on ignore.

Ignore is for pussies.

[ConHog]

Ignore is for pussies.

I believe that is what Gaffer is getting at, you are a pussy so he has you on ignore.

[OCA]

I believe that is what Gaffer is getting at, you are a pussy so he has you on ignore.

Oh contraire my hypocritical bitch........the degree from the College Of The Ozarks....lol..........has you misunderstanding things that are simple.....ignore=run.

[jimnyc]

No problems with my post being moved. I would wonder though, I thought there was going to be some discussion among the members about the relative merits of our posts in the debate. Did I just misunderstand?

That's what this thread is. If anyone wants to chime in, they are welcome.

[OCA]

I believe that is what Gaffer is getting at, you are a pussy so he has you on ignore.

But anyway, would you like to find out if i'm a pussy?

[ConHog]

But anyway, would you like to find out if i'm a pussy?

I already know you are. But just for the sake of humor, are you offering to fight an anonymous online persona? LOL HAHAHHAHAA

[ConHog]

That's what this thread is. If anyone wants to chime in, they are welcome.

Chime in, maybe others will follow suit, I'm genuinely interested in what others thought.

[OCA]

Chime in, maybe others will follow suit, I'm genuinely interested in what others thought.

No you aren't, if anybody disagrees with you or proves you a hypocrite(again) you will simply dismiss it, thats your M.O.

[OCA]

I already know you are. But just for the sake of humor, are you offering to fight an anonymous online persona? LOL HAHAHHAHAA

And you are a liar....served in the military and degrees my ass.

[ConHog]

And you are a liar....served in the military and degrees my ass.

ah, the old " I will insult the one who spanked my ass" routine, you know it well OCA

[OCA]

ah, the old " I will insult the one who spanked my ass" routine, you know it well OCA

Between the both of us you know I fucked you up, the voting goes along the lines of personal likes.....guess who voted for me?:laugh2::laugh2:

You are forever known from that debate as "the hypocrite".

[ConHog]

Between the both of us you know I fucked you up, the voting goes along the lines of personal likes.....guess who voted for me?:laugh2::laugh2:

You are forever known from that debate as "the hypocrite".

LOL I love it, since you're behind by the big old ONE vote, as of 3:30 CST, you claim the voting wasn't fair. Bet you wouldn't be saying that if you were ahead by one vote.

[OCA]

LOL I love it, since you're behind by the big old ONE vote, as of 3:30 CST, you claim the voting wasn't fair. Bet you wouldn't be saying that if you were ahead by one vote.

I wear it like a badge of honour..........I love being the hated one.

I knew, before the debate started it would go down along personal lines...........wanna bet a mortgage payment on who voted for whom?

I already know.

[ConHog]

I wear it like a badge of honour..........I love being the hated one.

I knew, before the debate started it would go down along personal lines...........wanna bet a mortgage payment on who voted for whom?

I already know.

I actually have no doubt you are right. What I'm saying you asshat is that no doubt if you were ahead by a vote or two you would be screaming from the rooftops that you even convinced those that don't like you to vote for you.

Oh, and absolutely NO ONE believes you love being hated on here, you want so desperately to be loved.... In fact that is why you started disliking me so immensely right from the start, I came in as the new guy who everyone loves............... LOL JEALOUSY bitch

[OCA]

I actually have no doubt you are right. What I'm saying you asshat is that no doubt if you were ahead by a vote or two you would be screaming from the rooftops that you even convinced those that don't like you to vote for you.

Oh, and absolutely NO ONE believes you love being hated on here, you want so desperately to be loved.... In fact that is why you started disliking me so immensely right from the start, I came in as the new guy who everyone loves............... LOL JEALOUSY bitch

Newsflash.............................very few like you.

I have proof of that but rules prohibit me from discussing it.

Thats why you fight with just about everybody.

[OCA]

Connie you are nothing but a message board troll, you trolled at USMB and you troll here, fact.

Chew on that............hypocrite.

[jimnyc]

Oh, and absolutely NO ONE believes you love being hated on here, you want so desperately to be loved

Oh, I do, he goes out of his way to make as many enemies as possible. I believe he has even changed political stances a time or 2 because it allowed him to argue that much more and get hated that much more. I assure you, OCA does see being hated as a badge of honor!

[OCA]

Oh, I do, he goes out of his way to make as many enemies as possible. I believe he has even changed political stances a time or 2 because it allowed him to argue that much more and get hated that much more. I assure you, OCA does see being hated as a badge of honor!

Well i've never really changed stances 180 degrees but i'll tweak it from time to time.

I don't want a lovefest, lovefests suck.

It doesn't bother me to be hated, i'd rather be seen as an asshole then one of these fags(Connie) who goes around and posts in every thread, political or syrupy, whether he knows anything or not(most of the time he doesn't) just to score brownie points.

[ConHog]

Oh, I do, he goes out of his way to make as many enemies as possible. I believe he has even changed political stances a time or 2 because it allowed him to argue that much more and get hated that much more. I assure you, OCA does see being hated as a badge of honor!

I don't believe he wants to be disliked Jim. I don't believe ANYONE sane wants that, and I wouldn't suggest OCA is insane. He's fucked up, but sane. Nope, what it is is that he can't control being an asshole, so when people naturally can't stand him he responds with "oh I do that shit on purpose" yeah right.

[jimnyc]

I don't believe he wants to be disliked Jim. I don't believe ANYONE sane wants that, and I wouldn't suggest OCA is insane. He's fucked up, but sane. Nope, what it is is that he can't control being an asshole, so when people naturally can't stand him he responds with "oh I do that shit on purpose" yeah right.

Not wanting to be disliked generally would mean he would want to be liked. I see no evidence of such. Like I said, a scorpion. Maybe a brown recluse.

[ConHog]

Not wanting to be disliked generally would mean he would want to be liked. I see no evidence of such. Like I said, a scorpion. Maybe a brown recluse.

Not necessarily, I mean I'm sure there are some people who don't want to be disliked, but don't really care if they are liked. That being said, I personally believe that EVERYONE who posts on message boards wants that validation of someone else saying " we agree with you and like you." If that weren't true there wouldn't be rep associated with boards. I mean who would even post if they didn't have people telling them they liked what they have to say? And that goes for everyone, it's simple human nature to WANT to be accepted.

[OCA]

I don't believe he wants to be disliked Jim. I don't believe ANYONE sane wants that, and I wouldn't suggest OCA is insane. He's fucked up, but sane. Nope, what it is is that he can't control being an asshole, so when people naturally can't stand him he responds with "oh I do that shit on purpose" yeah right.

I really don't give a fuck, rep means nothing to me.

If you care about rep here you are a fucking weirdo and you need to get a life.

I don't really do anything on purpose, I just tell it like it is, if I say it, it is fact. Like you being a hypocrite and a liar, thats just a fact, some people can't handle bluntness............hate the play not the playa.

[OCA]

Not necessarily, I mean I'm sure there are some people who don't want to be disliked, but don't really care if they are liked. That being said, I personally believe that EVERYONE who posts on message boards wants that validation of someone else saying " we agree with you and like you." If that weren't true there wouldn't be rep associated with boards. I mean who would even post if they didn't have people telling them they liked what they have to say? And that goes for everyone, it's simple human nature to WANT to be accepted.

What you personally believe is like tits on a boar..............worthless.

[OCA]

Not wanting to be disliked generally would mean he would want to be liked. I see no evidence of such. Like I said, a scorpion. Maybe a brown recluse.

Yep, I generally get along with most everybody I run across and will usually jump through hoops if they need anything, some people are just idiots(Connie) and deserve nothing more than scorn and contempt, now if my treatment of Connie turns some off or against me so be it, I could realy give two shits less. Hell even i've pissed off friends and family members but maybe they needed to hear what I said..........usually given enough time things blow over but I won't kiss ass or give in in order to facilitate that..............I think you know that much about me Jimmy given our disagreements through the years, you know i'm not bullshitting in this post.

Hell I had some astronomical neg rep rating not too ong ago and were begging people to get me the record over Manfrommaine.........I just don't care.

[jimnyc]

Yep, I generally get along with most everybody I run across and will usually jump through hoops if they need anything, some people are just idiots(Connie) and deserve nothing more than scorn and contempt, now if my treatment of Connie turns some off or against me so be it, I could realy give two shits less. Hell even i've pissed off friends and family members but maybe they needed to hear what I said..........usually given enough time things blow over but I won't kiss ass or give in in order to facilitate that..............I think you know that much about me Jimmy given our disagreements through the years, you know i'm not bullshitting in this post.

Hell I had some astronomical neg rep rating not too ong ago and were begging people to get me the record over Manfrommaine.........I just don't care.

I think you're just a bad egg :lol: :laugh2:

I also think you're an equal opportunity bastard. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that didn't get your special treatment at least once, including every staff member. There were at least 2x that I wished I could gut you like a pig. But here you are. Baffles me too. :poke:

[OCA]

I think you're just a bad egg :lol: :laugh2:

I also think you're an equal opportunity bastard. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that didn't get your special treatment at least once, including every staff member. There were at least 2x that I wished I could gut you like a pig. But here you are. Baffles me too. :poke:

There are a few that have never done anything stupid enough to get ripped............Abbey for one, I picture a sweet little Delaware housewife who takes weekend drives down to Bethany to collect seashells for her collection at home, even I have my limits!
:cool:
Biker, never, ever had a bad word to say about Biker and he goes back to before me on USMB I believe, except the bastard was supposed to plunder an elk and get me some jerky, never did!:laugh:

I kind of like Revelarts although he might be kind of a conspiracy theorist, but thats ok he generally keeps it clean and thats the whole thing........you will notice that I won't go after people who don't flame for the most part, I will treat them with the same respect they display on the board.

Connie? Fuck him..........he gets zero, nada(so his wife can understand).

[ConHog]

There are a few that have never done anything stupid enough to get ripped............Abbey for one, I picture a sweet little Delaware housewife who takes weekend drives down to Bethany to collect seashells for her collection at home, even I have my limits!
:cool:
Biker, never, ever had a bad word to say about Biker and he goes back to before me on USMB I believe, except the bastard was supposed to plunder an elk and get me some jerky, never did!:laugh:

I kind of like Revelarts although he might be kind of a conspiracy theorist, but thats ok he generally keeps it clean and thats the whole thing........you will notice that I won't go after people who don't flame for the most part, I will treat them with the same respect they display on the board.

Connie? Fuck him..........he gets zero, nada(so his wife can understand).

She speaks better English that you , not that is relevant to this discussion at all.

[OCA]

She speaks better English that you , not that is relevant to this discussion at all.

You don't even really believe that.

[ConHog]

You don't even really believe that.

As I said, it's not relevant, and I would ask you to kindly refrain from bringing my wife up in discussion again.

[OCA]

As I said, it's not relevant, and I would ask you to kindly refrain from bringing my wife up in discussion again.

I hardly find it offensive to say "nada" in reference to your wife.

Now if i'd have said "border jumper", then you'd have something.

Anyway, you aren't a mod so who cares.

[ConHog]

I hardly find it offensive to say "nada" in reference to your wife.

Now if i'd have said "border jumper", then you'd have something.

Anyway, you aren't a mod so who cares.

I didn't say you said anything offensive, just asked that you not bring a family member into the thread.

Who gives a shit if I'm a mod? That's my wife and I just don't want her involved in our fight PERIOD.

PS SHe was born in Arkansas to two legal US citizens. Now that that's answered, please leave her out of this.

[fj1200]

Chime in, maybe others will follow suit, I'm genuinely interested in what others thought.

Neither of you knocked it out of the park. Kind of like an error-filled circling of the bases. :poke:

[ConHog]

Neither of you knocked it out of the park. Kind of like an error-filled circling of the bases. :poke:

It was hard for me to get a solid hit with the junk OCA was pitching, I mean the entire debate was supposed to be about gay marriage and from the start OCA made it about gay sex instead.


I assume that is b/c OCA is used to catching and didn't know what to do when named the pitcher for a change.

[fj1200]

It was hard for me to get a solid hit with the junk OCA was pitching, I mean the entire debate was supposed to be about gay marriage and from the start OCA made it about gay sex instead.

Then make your own argument, refute and move on. I wonder if you had both posted opening statements, rather than the second responding to the first, you could have laid out your argument more clearly.

[ConHog]

Then make your own argument, refute and move on. I wonder if you had both posted opening statements, rather than the second responding to the first, you could have laid out your argument more clearly.

I tried to make my argument clear in my closing. Clearly I agree with him on the morality of the issue of gay sex I just disagree that the government has a right to use morality as the basis for making something that hurts no one illegal.

[gabosaurus]

Do you want the government in YOUR bedroom?

I would rather have the government in my bedroom than OCA. :poke:

[ConHog]

I would rather have the government in my bedroom than OCA. :poke:

Please post in the other thread


Did you vote?

[gabosaurus]

Please post in the other thread


Did you vote?

I did vote. And this is not the debate thread, right? I thought the debate was finished.
But I am former blonde, what do I know?

[ConHog]

I did vote. And this is not the debate thread, right? I thought the debate was finished.
But I am former blonde, what do I know?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34162-OCA-challenges-Conhog&p=524150#post524150

Probably should have been clear when Jim moved your first post in this thread to THAT thread, but nevertheless, all the discussion of the debate between OCA and myself is going on in the thread I linked to, so not only are you posting in a thread that in all probability isn't being read much anymore, you're missing out on the conversation the rest of us are having about the debate.

[OCA]

Please post in the other thread


Did you vote?

I must've missed it, when did your silly ass get made a staff member?

If not probably shouldn't tell others where they can post, leave it to people smarter than you.

[ConHog]

I must've missed it, when did your silly ass get made a staff member?

If not probably shouldn't tell others where they can post, leave it to people smarter than you.

I asked her to, so that she could both see and be seen for her opinion. It clearly wasn't in the form of me attempting to tell her what to do. Fool.

[jimnyc]

I moved 5 or 6 posts here from the actual debate. This isn't rocket science people. I don't want to remove people from areas, but I would like to keep the debates clean for future readers.

[ConHog]

I moved 5 or 6 posts here from the actual debate. This isn't rocket science people. I don't want to remove people from areas, but I would like to keep the debates clean for future readers.

I have a question. I know you can thread ban of course, but can you do the reverse and limit a thread to only certain people? Just curious.

[jimnyc]

I have a question. I know you can thread ban of course, but can you do the reverse and limit a thread to only certain people? Just curious.

Yes, but it's a royal pain in the ass of changing things back and forth. There is no way to just choose 2 and leave it at that. A bunch of changes would need to be made, then reversed when the debate is over.

[ConHog]

Yes, but it's a royal pain in the ass of changing things back and forth. There is no way to just choose 2 and leave it at that. A bunch of changes would need to be made, then reversed when the debate is over.

well that sounds like more trouble that it's worth. Easier to just ban people who can't read English I suppose.:laugh2:

[ConHog]

so, how long does voting remain open?

[chloe]

does the voting show who voted for who?

[ConHog]

does the voting show who voted for who?

no it does not. but now if you vote we'll know lol

[chloe]

I won't vote because I would only be voting on my emotions anyway.

[OCA]

I won't vote because I would only be voting on my emotions anyway.

BINGO! Like I predicted!

Not just from you Chloe....................

[chloe]

BINGO! Like I predicted!

Not just from you Chloe....................

I was being honest and I didn't vote.

[ConHog]

I was being honest and I didn't vote.

I can fully appreciate you're not wanting to vote, but let me ask you this, I know you agree with my stance, but did OCA sway you? If he did , you should vote for him, if he didn't you should vote for me. I mean it's not like only undecideds voted here.


Either way, it doesn't matter. Just saying don't feel like you shouldn't vote because you have your own opinion on the subject matter.

[chloe]

I can fully appreciate you're not wanting to vote, but let me ask you this, I know you agree with my stance, but did OCA sway you? If he did , you should vote for him, if he didn't you should vote for me. I mean it's not like only undecideds voted here.


Either way, it doesn't matter. Just saying don't feel like you shouldn't vote because you have your own opinion on the subject matter.

I am bias on it and not objective there is no reason for me to vote.

If you had argued a topic I am neutral on then my vote would be honest and based on the debate techniques of what swayed me.

You could debate the legalization of drugs and I would be swayed by whoever is best at arguing debating and persuasion.

Part of debate is facts and figures but part of it is manipulating the emotions of your audience. My daughter was on the debate team and I got to see her in competitions.

It is much like attorneys they argue facts but they also manipulate and use peoples emotions to get what they want in a verdict.

[jimnyc]

so, how long does voting remain open?

It's set to run indefinitely.

[ConHog]

It's set to run indefinitely.

So, how can there be a "winner" if the voting is never finished?


I thought that was the point of the exercise.

[jimnyc]

So, how can there be a "winner" if the voting is never finished?


I thought that was the point of the exercise.

This debate has been handled the same as every one prior to it. If you guys would like to extend a deadline for yourselves so that one can run around proclaiming to be "winner", you're free to do so yourselves.

[OCA]

I won when I exposed Connie as the fucking hypocrite she is.:dance:

[jimnyc]

I don't think it's fair to declare a winner or loser. You 2 can have fun going forward with where the vote count stands, but "winner" will always be subjective. We never declared anything in the past, just let the voting go where it wanted and discussed the debate, depending on the popularity.

[ConHog]

I don't think it's fair to declare a winner or loser. You 2 can have fun going forward with where the vote count stands, but "winner" will always be subjective. We never declared anything in the past, just let the voting go where it wanted and discussed the debate, depending on the popularity.

I only asked Jim b/c I didn't know HOW you did it. You've explained , and I'm cool with it . Simple as that.

[ConHog]

I won when I exposed Connie as the fucking hypocrite she is.:dance:

That wasn't even the topic of the debate, even if you DID prove that. Which you didn't.

[ConHog]

I just wanted a final time for the voting so I could post this pic.


3257


:laugh2::coffee: