VOTE! The REAL Thrembo....

[Catter]

@Warrior-Z go back to Reddit no one cares about your batman can outbrap superman debates holy shit

 

[Warrior-Z]

Another L take. Nigga stop collecting the chromosomes.

Invincible ignorance fallacy and an immoral act of ad hominem.

@Warrior-Z go back to Reddit no one cares about your batman can outbrap superman debates holy shit

Gladly, they're better intellectuals than you low IQ lolcows ITT.

 

[meijak]

Invincible ignorance fallacy.

Gladly, they're better intellectuals than you low IQ lolcows ITT.

Ain't no fallacy cuz I'm actually invincible, cuh.

 

[Warrior-Z]

Ain't no fallacy cuz I'm actually invincible, cuh.

Go ahead and prove that.

 

[Gigafly]

I'm not obligated to reply if I already debunked this and you're just bringing it up again to get a reaction, and you're not involved in me and Mei's discussion so your claim is invalid within the dialectic.

Debunked it where? Also, using "dialectic" doesn't make yourself look smarter, it's pretentious especially when you're misusing it

 

[Catter]

Invincible ignorance fallacy.

Gladly, they're better intellectuals than you low IQ lolcows ITT.

Why do we have a leaky pseudo-intellectual predditor jannying the booru again?

 

[Warrior-Z]

Debunked it where? Using "dialectic" doesn't make yourself look smarter, it's pretentious especially when you're misusing it

On my profile when you made the same arg. How's it misusing it when it's analytically the case that it's a dialectic? Lmao.

 

[Gemerald]

View attachment 172709

@Warrior-Z How can it be "Tranny" to hate reddit when trannies like bardfinn have the ear of the site's administration?

 

[Warrior-Z]

Why do we have a leaky pseudo-intellectual predditor jannying the booru again?

Actually, where's the evidence that it's psuedo? Do you even know what it means?

 

[Warrior-Z]

@Warrior-Z How can it be "Tranny" to hate reddit when trannies like bardfinn have the ear of the site's administration?

Actually, the administration of the website doesn't represent the userbase of a subreddit, and troons can hate troons. Cope.

 

[meijak]

On my profile when you made the same arg. How's it misusing it when it's analytically the case that it's a dialectic? Lmao.

You're an inbred retard.

 

[Gigafly]

On my profile when you made the same arg. How's it misusing it when it's analytically the case that it's a dialectic? Lmao.

You did not, you just posted one of your 'cord buddies and claimed it was me instead of debating, which you pride yourself on. This isnt a socratic dialogue, this is just you being clowned on for being a faggot

 

[Warrior-Z]

You're an inbred retard.

Ad hominem + not a refutation.
I win. Cope seethe.

 

[Gemerald]

Actually, the administration of the website doesn't represent the userbase of a subreddit, and troons can hate troons. Cope.

You never mentioned a specific subreddit lmao. shifting the goalposts much?

 

[Thrembolone]

I WON!!! YAY!!!! YIPPEEEE!!!!!!

 

[meijak]

Ad hominem + not a refutation.
I win. Cope seethe.

Why are you in Norway btw? Go back to your middle eastern shithole.

 

[Catter]

>Actually, where's the evidence that it's psuedo? Do you even know what it means?

 

[alonso]

I WON!!! YAY!!!! YIPPEEEE!!!!!!

It isn't April fools day yet, ((YOU)) have two more days left

 

[ThremboSchlog]

prove that claim with empirical, non-anecdotal, tautological, epistemological, ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that it is an ethically bankrupt deception of numerological proportion categorically imperatively inept at substantiating your statements. You would need to prove that the connotation is circumstantial to the context so it would be general in entailment, as well as being capable to necessitate various interpretations that possess coherency in the narrative of the position that you have presented. This is contingent upon the proposition of an antithesis’ prominence in negation with agnosticism that is reasoned by skepticism, or an equal interpretation substantiated with inductive reasoning, both inevitable in equalizing or defeating.
After that
prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification

 

[Gigafly]

You did not, you just posted one of your 'cord buddies and claimed it was me instead of debating, which you pride yourself on. This isnt a socratic dialogue, this is just you being clowned on for being a faggot
View attachment 172716

>too scared to respond
Yep I win. Cope seethe, I negs