Yep.ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:58 pm » wrote: ↑ I just looked over there. It says, "Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: ActionJackson and 0 guests"
![]()
![]()
ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑ Okay, lemme help out you slack jaws.
I was given a label of "child groomer" in my profile. I made a thread asking the power tripping mod--or anyone--to find any evidence to support this claim. So far, nothing.
Your task is to find that evidence. I will be back later to have more larphs.
Good luck!
ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 4:02 pm » wrote: ↑ No, I haven't checked back.
So who would your candidate be?
But you are giving aj undeserved credit. He cannot even set up the board. I think we should be loyal to the truth no matter how tragic it is.Skans » 05 Mar 2024, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑ You're right, but its implied. AJ in his OP challenged "anyone" to a debate. In response, GB stated a concise and debatable premise. AJ took the GB's bait and (inartfully) attacked the GB with an ad hominim attack. But, more than that, AJ failed to make any other point whatsoever to discredit GB's premise. Therefore, GB did win the debate. He was right to declare himself the winner.
I agree, AJ is too stupid to debate. But, GB is not. GB accepted the challenge and stated a topic/premise for debate. AJ was set up, and got checkmated on his very first move (which is impossible in chess). I have to call it the way I see it.
Good debating, bro.ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:15 pm » wrote: ↑ And just when I thought the witty intellects were coming along. Here comes Hamster.
right and my point is that two back to back presidents have been pro israel, so is kennedy. williamson wants an immediate cease fire. gaza has suffered way too much.Vegas » 05 Mar 2024, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑ No. That's wrong. He has no business doing that. Another example of America sticking out heads where they don't belong.
But he DEBATED you. He called you names!GHETTOBLASTER » 05 Mar 2024, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑ Compared to Caucasians.....full blooded Sub Saharan ****** have contributed / introduced almost nothing of a revolutionary, ground breaking, technical nature to the advancement of mankind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ific_field
GAME, SET, MATCH....
Which of wiki's claims do you dispute?ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑ "wikipedia!"
https://media.tenor.com/ARxKwOT19mIAAAA ... tennis.gif
ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 4:02 pm » wrote: ↑ No, I haven't checked back.
So who would your candidate be?
Thread resolved.FOS » 05 Mar 2024, 3:27 pm » wrote: ↑ What is funny is that actually he didn't 'lose' any debate...he failed to even provide any response to your claim. He did not make a point. He did not make a counter claim. And without a claim you certainly cannot offer any evidence for anything.
He simply lacks the intellectual ability to engage in debate..and he clearly was unaware of that fact when he offered his challenge.
for this guy, the word 'debate' is like a magic sound he hears the sentient people say to eachother...and he feels a desperate need to be included and validated in some way...so he wants to try doing it. But he cannot do it and he never will...and his ego is spared by the fact he is too stupid to even realize that truth.
Out of morbid curiosity, is posting that gif "debate," in your mind?
Yep...!
Whoa, captain. Where's the hand clapping emoji? You know, the one that signifies you won that particular exchange.RedheadedStranger » 05 Mar 2024, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑ Yep.
That should tell you something about coming to a forum like this and looking for serious debate...

@GHETTO BLASTER Achtung, Ghetto Bastard. Post the thread showing where you and me "debated" your "SSN" subject.Skans » 05 Mar 2024, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑ No, actually @ActionJackson did lose the debate. He made one statement, and it was an ad hominim attack, an attempt to discredit GB's argument by personally attacking him instead of discussing the premise itself. AJ would have lost points for that in a debate. And, because he did not even attempt to make any points beyond the ad hominim attack, he actually lost the debate.
Evidence?Vegas » 05 Mar 2024, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑ You couldn't answer simple questions about it. That kind of evasion is evidence enough. They should be a hard no across the board.
But you love to evade, that's just what you do.
You are a child groomer and sexual predator.
My use of emojis really pisses you off doesn't it?ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 4:25 pm » wrote: ↑ Whoa, captain. Where's the hand clapping emoji? You know, the one that signifies you won that particular exchange.
He debated you right here, kid. And you won by smirking. You're truly a wonderful debater.ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑ @GHETTO BLASTER Achtung, Ghetto Bastard. Post the thread showing where you and me "debated" your "SSN" subject.
And don't deny you don't have it. You keep following me around with it. Bring it.
That kind of evasion is evidence enough.ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑Evidence?Vegas » 05 Mar 2024, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑ You couldn't answer simple questions about it. That kind of evasion is evidence enough.
Well, looky here. The power tripping mod shows up. Another one who couldn't debate.Cannonpointer » 05 Mar 2024, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑ Out of morbid curiosity, is posting that gif "debate," in your mind?
Is he allowed to use your original account, or only your so account, rodent?ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑ Okay, lemme help out you slack jaws.
I was given a label of "child groomer" in my profile. I made a thread asking the power tripping mod--or anyone--to find any evidence to support this claim. So far, nothing.
Your task is to find that evidence. I will be back later to have more larphs.
Good luck!