Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/8/12 02:07 PM, The-universe wrote: Not really an argument, but people who repeatedly watch a tv show/movie just so they can go online and call it offensive to their race/gender/religion etc.

Never, ever go on IMDB boards.

Now I'm gonna have to. lol

At 7/8/12 10:33 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Now I'm gonna have to. lol

I think the walking dead board still has some funny comments, although it's been a while.

"He's right by definition"

This was said in a chatroom on certain website where the leader styled himself a "Professor".
I had found out that this "Prof" had been preventing valid posts to be made in forum arguments before declaring himself the winner of the argument.

I brought this up to the yes-men in the chat room but they didn't seem to mind, if you put "Prof." in front of your name then you can't be wrong.

"Provide proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct."

Started by Youtube user named Shockofgod. He 'apparently' managed to conceive a question (WTF?) that has stumped Atheists. He also keeps an extensive list of people that have 'failed' to answer the question.

For starters the question isn't actually a question.

Secondly, it's incoherent. Proof and evidence (in some cases) are synonymous as well as the words accurate and correct. In scientific terms proof and evidence have slightly difference definitions. Evidence is a collective of verifiable observations to a given field of study that can produce workable, predictive models. Proof is a collective of mathematical formulas that (on occasion) don't require verifiable observations.

However, one could argue that 'accurate' and 'correct' could also have slightly different meanings. Like for instance statistical studies that have a small window of error (e.g. 50-55% of...).

But nonetheless, the 'question' still doesn't make any sense for the fact that Atheism is (at least most of the time) the rejection of a claim, not the assertion of one. If one asserts that god doesn't exist, then the burden of proof has been shifted.

So the non-question really is, provide valid reasons that you're an Atheist.

And that is simple, because the abstract definition of a god(s) has no verifiable evidence supporting the claim of existence, therefore there's no justification in supporting it.

At 7/15/12 09:23 AM, The-universe wrote: "Provide proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct."

Started by Youtube user named Shockofgod. He 'apparently' managed to conceive a question (WTF?) that has stumped Atheists. He also keeps an extensive list of people that have 'failed' to answer the question.

Shockofgod is a joke. Christian youtube preachers have become so cynical that they realized that proving Christianity is impossible. So they attack the opposition instead without realizing that the opposition is basically anyone who is not convinced that Christianity is true. So they accept that you cannot prove Christianity. But they think they can disprove the lack of belief in it instead. When will people realize that atheism is not even a belief or a claim.

At 7/8/12 05:45 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Anything from Homeland Security. Seriously, what kind of fucking moron would openly believe/credit/stand behind/enforce the following....

have you ever seen Macgyver ?...yeah didn't think so

At 7/8/12 05:45 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Anything from Homeland Security. Seriously, what kind of fucking moron would openly believe/credit/stand behind/enforce the following:

I understand where your getting at. But all it takes is for one thing to go wrong, then you would be bitching and complaining about why these things weren't enforced in heaven.

At 7/15/12 11:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: liberals always trying to ban shit.

Change that to "anyone" trying to ban shit, and you'll have an argument with any credibility. The Right tries to ban stuff just as muc as the left, but far toooften that which the right like to ban has nothing to do with anybody else's welfare, while that which the left tries to ban does.

At 7/31/12 11:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/15/12 11:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: liberals always trying to ban shit.

Change that to "anyone" trying to ban shit, and you'll have an argument with any credibility. The Right tries to ban stuff just as muc as the left, but far toooften that which the right like to ban has nothing to do with anybody else's welfare, while that which the left tries to ban does.

Well said. Ban gay marriage, but don't take away our freedoms by restricting our access to firearms.

At 11/12/10 05:16 AM, pyroman544 wrote: Plain is smart...Enough said

Now that is definitely the dumbest argument ever! Anyone who needs something simplified is not better by approximation, defacto or default that in actuality make them worse and a SIMPLETON. If anyone needs an intelligent statement simplified they are a simpleton!

At 6/24/12 12:01 PM, MrFlopz wrote: To Ironclaw...


You had me worried there because you posted a lot and there may have been one or two convincing arguments there. Oh boy was I wrong! That was sheer nonsense!

Oh please! You haven't beaten me in any way shape or form. You can't even keep track of your own arguments. It's as easy as looking back to the previous pages and reading them which is part of the rules. If you think you have remotely jostled me you've failed. If you wish to be an actual debater you'll have to do better than that.

The suggestion/argument that government can and should take care of it's people

At 7/1/10 11:35 AM, Scarface wrote: The fact that gays can't fight in the military because (1) they are too weak and (2) they would be too busy having sex to fight.

(1) Women are generally weaker than men (generally, not always) and they're allowed to fight in the military.

(2) If men and women are both in the military, and THEY aren't too busy having sex 24/7, why would homosexuals be?

If they pass training, they know how to shoot a gun, and they're on our side, hell I'll take them. I don't care if they fuck straight, as long as they shoot straight.

I totally agree, but being a vet, I kinda disagree. You know what spooning is? Imagine you're sitting on a mountain top in Afghanistan, having to spoon with another dude cause its below freezing, now imagine that guy is a lil fruity, yes that's his dick rubbing on you ass checks or, for better or worse, your own weiner, now imagine his gets a lil hard, natural right? you spoon with a girl chances are you're gonna get a lil hard, but on top of a mountain in a combat zone with people who want to kill you. Yea one can see where problems will arise. But in my opinion I would proudly serve with a fairy, as long as I know hes got my back like I got his

"People should have the right to decide whther to join a union or not"
Said in defense of right to work, ignoring that you can't just decide individually to join a union.

Either going to be "Bush was a good president because he kept us safe" or "we had to invade Iraq to kill Saddam Hussein".

Oh wait I got it! "Obama drove us into a recession".

Seeing as the real-estate and stock market crashed near the end of the Bush presidency with a recession following, I don't see how it was possible for Senator Obama to have been the cause.

At 12/23/12 02:57 AM, Knis wrote: "People should have the right to decide whther to join a union or not"
Said in defense of right to work, ignoring that you can't just decide individually to join a union.

That's the entire problem. It's that at most places with a union of some sort you can't work there unless you do join said union.

I take that back about my brother. The dumbest argument I ever heard is anything Fred Phelps said. He said Jerry Falwell went to Hell for supporting gay people even though he said gay people caused the September 11th attacks, just like Phelps did. So he's going to Hell too. For anyone like Bill Maher who equates Fred Phelps with ANYONE IN EXISTANCE is extremely stupid, just like Bill.

Any Chain Smoker who spends sooo much money on cigarettes and never buys a lighter and always bitches when I won't let them use my lighter! Seriously, wouldn't it come with the territory to bring a lighter with you if you're going to be chain smoking? What good are you as a chain smoker who can't light up because you don't have a lighter? Completely and utterly USELESS!

"If Evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?"
*Facepalm.

At 7/15/12 11:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

liberals always trying to ban shit.

This is most definitely going down as the dumbest argument ever. The contrary is that the Conservatives far more likely of banning everything which includes the following:

1. Literature
2. Literacy
3. Marijuana
4. The Means to smoke Marijuana
5. Free Speech
6. Free Thinking
7. New Ideas
8. Immigration
9. Being Gay
10. Being Friends with Gay people
11. Gay Marriage
12. Interracial Marriage
13. Marriage Between Jews and Gentiles
14. An Opened Mind
15. Abortion
16. Foul Language On Network TV
17. Gratuitous Nudity On Network TV
18. Sex On Network TV

They've basically created a continuum of Douche Bags bent on world conquest sadly very few have made it in the election. So what is it that makes them great? Nothing at all!

At 7/8/12 05:45 AM, Iron-Claw wrote:

"We can no longer allow lighters but matches are ok on an airplane."

"We can no longer allow hair gel on an airplane because someone might use that as a makeshift incendiary device."

actually, you can use a lighter and hair spray together to create a makeshift flamethrower. many brands of hair gel are also flammable.

why matches are ok is beyond me.

At 3/24/13 12:04 PM, Korriken wrote: many brands of hair gel are also flammable.

WRONG! I have put this to the test with multiple iterations of Hair Gels and Curl Defining Cream I took a straight line of each iteration then took my lighter to it and each one of them did not even light on fire I know I tried it IT DID NOT EXPLODE! Next time do some actual practical research it would be far less embarrassing for you.

The dumbest argument I have ever heard was when I was arguing with my cousins wife about gun control, her argument was that if the second amendment was meant to defend against the government then she should be allowed to own chemical weapons. Being in the military I feel that this is retarded, first off as has been proven repeatedly in the middle east recently during the "Arab Spring" guns alone are more then sufficient to overthrow a government even when that government has N.B.C. type weapons. There is a good reason for that; in a civil war any government that actually hopes to rule a nation would find it impossible to do after gassing its own people/ own forces since that stuff is so unpredictable and terrible that even Hitler didn't want to use it on the battle field. Also being crazy enough to use that stuff tends to bring in third parties who would have disagreed with the use of such weapons.

At 2/10/13 04:22 AM, redoctober3 wrote: "If Evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?"
*Facepalm.

"I didn't come from no damn monkey!"

At 12/14/12 09:52 PM, LemonCrush wrote: The suggestion/argument that government can and should take care of it's people

What is this Ayn Rand horseshit?

I can't tell you how many people totally convinced of their own superiority namely over me especially when they're fully prepared to fight me to the death using only their physical body but the dumbest argument of them all is when it comes down to the ugly truth: They have absolutely no means to harm me much less kill me because they have absolutely no muscle mass in their entire body it's a wonder they're not confined to a wheelchair considering the sheer absence of muscle mass in their bodies yet fully capable of both standing and walking! I could just as easily kill them simply by grabing them hard and fast by the neck and with the simple flick of my wrist snap their neck in twain, severing their spinal cord in the process and in all likelihood rip their head clean off in a worst case scenario mind you, nevertheless a lot of weak pathetic fools are decidedly weak, I shit you not! May GOD STRIKE ME DEAD IF I'M LYING!

I'm still here. And can someone please explain to my why is it the small and weak are always so asinine and hell bent on killing Big and Strong guys like me, whereas Big Strong Guys like me wind up being in essence A Bradley Linebacker with The Heart of a Teddy Bear? Seriously! Guys like me are only lethal when threatened but if you treat us right we can be The Best Protector To All Who Earn It. It's true.

you can't prove me wrong so im 100% right.

At 3/24/13 04:41 AM, Iron-Claw wrote:

At 7/15/12 11:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

liberals always trying to ban shit.

This is most definitely going down as the dumbest argument ever. The contrary is that the Conservatives far more likely of banning everything which includes the following:

1. Literature
2. Literacy
3. Marijuana
4. The Means to smoke Marijuana
5. Free Speech
6. Free Thinking
7. New Ideas
8. Immigration
9. Being Gay
10. Being Friends with Gay people
11. Gay Marriage
12. Interracial Marriage
13. Marriage Between Jews and Gentiles
14. An Opened Mind
15. Abortion
16. Foul Language On Network TV
17. Gratuitous Nudity On Network TV
18. Sex On Network TV

They've basically created a continuum of Douche Bags bent on world conquest sadly very few have made it in the election. So what is it that makes them great? Nothing at all!

ok 18,17,maybe16,15,12,11,4,3 are true but everything eles u made up on the spot not all consrvites hate gays or jews i presonaly have jewish friends 1,2,5,6 are what consrvates think is corrct and should be ENFORCED not banned

Everything that mouthbreathing dipshit colplayguy77 has said in the politics forum, and the stupid pictures he spams.