Jump to content

Photo
* * * - - 17 votes

You can't survive a debate if you can't handle your critics

debate camp

  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#41 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
705
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 24 December 2016 - 08:59 PM

You're still to fucking scared to grow a pear and defend your fucking views.

I'm on your side of the argument here, but I think you mean "pair."

Then again, I bet growing pears is fun too.
  • 2

If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

 

Daily Evidence Card!

 

 


#42 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
318
Excellent
  • Name:Ben

Posted 24 December 2016 - 09:31 PM

Thank you to Maury for taking one for the team. I and others made the mistake of responding to him, dragging out this crapshow, and I'm grateful that someone is willing to step in and end this.

Edited by Nonegfiat, 24 December 2016 - 09:38 PM.

  • 1

You don't need to have a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff to win rounds.

 

 


#43 AQuackDebater

AQuackDebater

    Kind of a fascist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 461 posts
187
Excellent
  • Name:Patrick Fox
  • School:Jack C. Hays High School

Posted 24 December 2016 - 09:47 PM

Holy fuck I just saw this well then. Got some pretty spicy memes flying.
Anyways, +1 to Maury for stepping up, and I'll go ahead and do the same. PM me and we'll set something up if you want.
EDIT: And while I agree the qualifier of "competitive" can hurt argumentation and debate as a whole (i.e: shit coaches teaching their kids to just run psychoanalysis and Afro-Pess every fucking round so they can win by confusing novices, we all know that one team), but I'd argue the benefits of making it a competitive activity outweigh the disadvantages when we do impact calc.
But a quick question. For someone who talks about debate so strongly and definitively, I was wondering, what's your experience in it? Collegiate or high school? Because it occurs to me that everyone else on this board has their info and experience pretty openly stated either on their profile or in past posts or whatever except for you all, which is more than a bit suspect. Because like we've all said, the only real "keyboard warriors" here seem to be you, as we're pretty open both about our experience and positions both on this forum and in IRL debates.
Just a thought from old Patty Boy though.
EDIT: Oh, and please don't try and call me a little faggot with one of you posters or anything like that, not because it'll hurt my feelings (I lived in Scotland until I was nine, the most common word we use is cunt. nothing you say can faze me), but simply because, like everyone's been saying, this is a debate forum, for substantive discussion about debate, and your ad hominem attack meme posts, while a bit funny at times, a) only detract from that substantive discussion and make you look weak, and b ) are probably gonna get you banned, so if you know what's good for you you'll tone it down just a bit. Cheers mate, PM me whenever.

Edited by pdfox0513, 24 December 2016 - 10:24 PM.

  • 1

Chaos, on 10 Mar 2017 - 7:21 PM, said:snapback.png

a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff

You could just say French?

 


#44 AQuackDebater

AQuackDebater

    Kind of a fascist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 461 posts
187
Excellent
  • Name:Patrick Fox
  • School:Jack C. Hays High School

Posted 24 December 2016 - 09:53 PM

Coming up with random catchy graphics and having a cool domain (seriously, manhood101, much domain such wow) are good ways to avoid material, substantive debates. For example, you may have noticed that deejay keeps talking about ad hominem, but deejay has offered no reason that the original message is true--rather, he continuously dismisses criticisms as ad hominem attacks as proof that the message is true. Deejay, regardless or not of your personal character, if Hitler had said 1+2=4, he would have been wrong, not because he was a genocidal, psychopathic warlord, but because his math is not correct. I would like to cross-apply IonlygoforT's statement:

You have not offered any proof that you haven't cherry-picked these videos, or hell, even staged them, and additionally, you only show recordings of what appear to be Skype calls. I see no real framework (like Oxford-style debate) for a fair and productive debate. Also, you consistently characterize all people who support equal rights or even human rights as "feminists" and force them to take positions they might not fully appreciate. To take your example:

I'm glad you stumbled upon a policy debate board, because this is exactly what we have kritiks for. You are correct, the math 2 + 7 = 9 holds no matter what modifiers you add to the message, but you're wrong that there are no impacts to those modifiers. I will now argue that the way you present your message engages in a culture of violence, and that will lead to extinction. Here's a watered down version of the Gender Kritik:
 
Your use of the word “fuck” engages in a culture of violence—rethink language and its relation to violence  
Schwyzer 9—community college history and gender studies professor.  DPhil, Berkley (Hugo,  “Penetrate” v. “Engulf” and the multiple meanings of the “f” word: a note on feminist language, 4 November 2009, http://hugoschwyzer....inist-language/, CMR)
 
In every women’s studies class I’ve taught here at PCC, and in manay guest lectures about feminism I’ve given elsewhere, I use the “penetrate” versus “engulf” image to illustrate a basic point about the way in which our language constructs and maintains male aggression and female passivity. Even those who haven’t had heterosexual intercourse can, with only a small degree of imagination required, see how “envelop” might be just as accurate as “enter”. “A woman’s vagina engulfs a man’s penis during intercourse” captures reality as well as “A man’s penis penetrates a woman’s vagina.” Of course, most het folks who have intercourse are well aware that power is fluid; each partner can temporarily assert a more active role (frequently by being on top) — as a result, the language used to describe what’s actually happening could shift. Except, of course, in our sex ed textbooks and elsewhere, that shift never happens. If the goal of sex education is to provide accurate information to young people before they become sexually active, we do a tremendous disservice to both boys and girls through our refusal to use language that honors the reality of women’s sexual agency. We set young women up to be afraid; we set young men up to think of women’s bodies as passive receptacles. While changing our language isn’t a panacea for the problem of sexual violence (and joyless, obligatory intercourse), it’s certainly a promising start. As another part of my introductory lecture on language, I talk about “fuck”. I first dispell the urban legends that it’s an acronym (I’m amazed at how persistent the belief is that the word stands for “for unlawful carnal knowledge” or “fornication under the consent of the king”; I have students every damn year who are convinced the word is derived from one of those two sources.) I then ask at what age young people in English-speaking culture first encounter the word. Most of my students had heard the word by age five or six; many had started using it not long thereafter. I then ask how old they were when they realized that “fuck” has multiple meanings, and that its two most common uses are to describe intercourse and to express rage. There’s a pause at this point. Here’s the problem: long before most kids in our culture become sexually active, the most common slang word in the American idiom has knit together two things in their consciousness: sex and rage. If “fucking” is the most common slang term for intercourse, and “fuck you” or “fuck off” the most common terms to express contempt or rage, what’s the end result? A culture that has difficulty distinguishing sex from violence. In a world where a heartbreakingly high percentage of women will be victims of rape, it’s not implausible to suggest that at least in part, the language itself normalizes sexual violence. I challenge my students. I don’t ask them to give up all the satisfactions of profanity; rather I challenge them to think about words like “fuck” or “screw” and then make a commitment to confine the use of those words to either a description of sex (”We fucked last night”) or to express anger or extreme exasperation (”I’m so fucking furious with you right now!”) but not, not, not, both. Rage and lust are both normal human experiences; we will get angry and we will be sexual (or want to be) over and over again over the course of our lives. But we have a responsibility, I think, to make a clear and bright line between the language of sexual desire and the language of contempt and indignation. Pick one arena of human experience where that most flexible term in the English vernacular will be used, and confine it there. Words matter, I tell my students. We’re told over and over again that “a picture is worth a thousand words” — but we forget that words have the power to paint pictures in our minds of how the world is and how it ought to be. The language we use for sexuality, the words we use for rage and longing — these words construct images in our heads, in our culture, and in our lives. We have an obligation to rethink how we speak as part of building a more pleasurable, safe, just and egalitarian world.
 

Masculine lenses make extinction inevitable--reject your gendered lens—it’s the only way to open up new frameworks of thought 
Clark 4—French Cumbie Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University (Mary E, Rhetoric, Patriarchy & War: Explaining the Dangers of "Leadership" in Mass Culture, Women and Language. Urbana: Fall 2004. Vol. 27, Iss. 2; pg. 21, 8 pgs, ProQuest, AMiles)
 
Today's Western patriarchal world view now dominates globalwide dialogue among the "leaders" of Earth's nearly two hundred nation-states. Its Machiavellian/Realpolitik assumptions about the necessity of' military power to preserve order within and between groups of humans trumps--and stifles--other potential viewpoints. Founded on the belief that "evil" is innate, it dictates that human conflict must be "controlled": global "law" backed by coercive force. This view, when cross-culturally imposed, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, thus "legitimating" an escalating use of force. Western leaders (male and female) use a rhetoric couched in a "hegemonic masculinity" to justify their ready use of military force to coerce "those who are against us" into compliance. This translates globally as "national leaders must never lose facet!" Changing this dominant paradigm requires dismantling the hierarchic hegemony of masculine militarism and its related economic institutions, through global cross-cultural dialogues, thus replacing a hegemonic world view and institutions with new, more adaptive visions, woven out of the most useful remnants of multiple past cultural stories. The paper concludes with a few examples where people around the worm are doing just this--using their own small voices to insert their local "sacred social story" into the global dialogue. This global process--free from a hegemonic militaristic rhetoric--has the potential to initiate a planetary dialogue where "boundaries" are no longer borders to be defended, but sites of social ferment and creative adaptation. When the call came for papers on War, Language, and Gender, referring us to Carol Cohn's seminal paper "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals," (1) I at first felt that little more could be added on the subject. But events in Washington in the ensuing weeks stimulated me to a broader "take" on this topic. Defense intellectuals, after all, are embedded in a whole culture, and the interaction is two-way. Not only does their strategic framework with its euphemistic language about war and killing have the outcome of forcing society to think in their terms; their framework and language developed in response to our deeply embedded, Western cultural image of a Machiavellian / neo-Darwinian universe. In other words, militarism and the necessity for organized physical force (2) emerge out of culturewide assumptions about human nature. Throughout historical times these assumptions have repeatedly proved to be self-fulfilling prophecies. The pervasive perception of enemy-competitors has generated violent conflicts that flared up and died back, only to flare up again through our failure to achieve deep resolution and, especially, to alter our basic beliefs about human nature and our consequent social institutions. Today our species, politically, comprises some 180190 "nations" of varying cultural homogeneity and moral legitimacy, not to mention size and physical power. Regardless of their indigenous, internal cultural preferences, their cross-national interactions are institutionalized to fit a framework long established by former Western colonial powers among themselves. In other words, the global "reality" constructed by Western patriarchies-a Realpolitik, ultimately grounded in military power-has come to define day-to-day cross-national politics. During the era of the Cold War, this resulted in small, powerless nations seeking alliances with one or other superpower, which offered not only development aid but military protection, and, for locally unpopular, but "cooperating" leaders, small arms to maintain order at home. The "end" of the Cold War brought little change in this pervasive global militarism (though it did strengthen the role of economic hegemony by the remaining superpower (3)). The enormous technological "improvements"-i.e. efficiency in killing power-in weaponry of all types over the past few decades has now resulted in a dangerously over-armed planet that simultaneously faces a desperate shortage of resources available for providing the world's people with water, energy, health care, education, and the infrastructure for distributing them. While our environmental and social overheads continue to mount, our species seems immobilized, trapped in an institutionalized militarism-an evolutionary cul-de-sac! We need new insights-as Cohn said, a new language, a new set of metaphors, a new mental framework-for thinking, dialoguing and visioning new patterns of intersocietal interaction.

 
----
 
Now that that shpeel is out of the way, I'd like to make a few disclaimers: I understand extinction is very extreme to claim. However, the argument still stands: words have power because power is words. Your entire argument that ad hominem attacks don't refute the message is flat-out wrong; say, for example, if I, ani, told you I would hunt you down and kill you. You'd probably laugh and go back to trolling internet boards. But what if, say, the head of the CIA calls your house and informs you that the agency is going to kill you? Again, the same message, but who is delivering it and the way it is delivered profoundly changes how it is received.



Dude I fucking hate language Ks. Think they're trash.
And yet even so under these circumstances not only did I up vote it I think it's actually justified.
  • 2

Chaos, on 10 Mar 2017 - 7:21 PM, said:snapback.png

a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff

You could just say French?

 


#45 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-49
Bad

Posted 24 December 2016 - 09:59 PM

Holy fuck I just saw this well then. Got some pretty spicy memes flying.
Anyways, +1 to Maury for stepping up, and I'll go ahead and do the same. PM me and we'll set something up if you want.
But a quick question. For someone who talks about debate so strongly and definitively, I was wondering, what's your experience in it? Collegiate or high school? Because it occurs to me that everyone else on this board has their info and experience pretty openly stated either on their profile or in past posts or whatever except for you all, which is more than a bit suspect. Because like we've all said, the only real "keyboard warriors" here seem to be you guys, as we're pretty open both about our experience and positions both on this forum and in IRL debates.
Just a thought from old Patty Boy though.

all our debates are posted: https://manhood101.c...wforum.php?f=30

 

and we've also already answered your argument in the 2nd half of this debate: https://www.youtube....h?v=vlEZnHTv-Pw

 

btw, we have a PERFECT debate record. how's yours?


  • -2

#46 AQuackDebater

AQuackDebater

    Kind of a fascist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 461 posts
187
Excellent
  • Name:Patrick Fox
  • School:Jack C. Hays High School

Posted 24 December 2016 - 10:15 PM

all our debates are posted: https://manhood101.c...wforum.php?f=30
 
and we've also already answered your argument in the 2nd half of this debate: https://www.youtube....h?v=vlEZnHTv-Pw
 
btw, we have a PERFECT debate record. how's yours?


Few things dude.
1 - when you say PERFECT record, is that your record on your site? Or in actual structured competitive debate? E.g, Parli, Policy, PF, LD, etc. Because you'll forgive me for being very skeptical of you saying your perfect record is from debates on your site run by you where you do really poorly structured debates skewed in your own favor, etc. And my record this year is 25-4, three losses in out rounds, one in prelims. Show me a real, competitive record like that and we'll talk.
2 - when you say you answered "my argument" in the second half of that debate (which, full disclosure, I have not watched, too tired, I have pneumonia and shit) what argument are you referring to?
  • 1

Chaos, on 10 Mar 2017 - 7:21 PM, said:snapback.png

a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff

You could just say French?

 


#47 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-49
Bad

Posted 25 December 2016 - 12:17 AM

why don't you bring ALL YOUR BRAVE LITTLE CLAIMS to a LIVE debate where i can answer you back. THEN we'll see how dry your panties stay. keyboard warriors like you don't impress me. 

 

lrhmIH.jpg


  • -2

#48 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
318
Excellent
  • Name:Ben

Posted 25 December 2016 - 06:00 AM

where i can answer you back


LOL
  • 1

You don't need to have a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff to win rounds.

 

 


#49 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
318
Excellent
  • Name:Ben

Posted 25 December 2016 - 06:37 AM

You know if you wanted to invite people on your show to talk about the drawbacks of competitive debate or the issue of censorship within liberal circles, you could have done that without calling everyone faggots and keyboard warriors. I'm sure lots of people would have been happy to discuss those things with you. You may have succeeded in provoking people in an online forum, but when it comes to the actual public sphere of discussion, that tactic isn't going to get you anywhere.

In competitive debate we argue a lot about whether political activism within a debate round is useful for bringing about real-world change. I think you should be asking yourself similar questions about the way you're trying to attract people to come on your show. Because while people from this forum will watch your debate and hear your ideas, most have already decided that you're childish, unruly, and unreasonable which isn't going to help people see your side of the argument. It's the same of divisive rhetoric that has made political discourse so toxic these days. Everyone talks past each other and you're an extreme example of why.

And you know what? I actually agree with you on the question of people being too sensitive to language. The whole political correctness question? I come down on your side. But when I saw this thread I saw you insulting everyone and spamming all these trashy manhood posters, I thought to myself "oh no it's some crazy meninist troll" and I turned hostile. That is what your discourse does. If you care so much about debating to find truth, you need to start communicating more effectively. Because just like the liberals who don't understand that calling everyone racist and sexist right off the bat isn't going to make society more progressive, you coming on here talking about everyone being butthurt and too sensitive and whatever else isn't going to make people earnestly consider your argument. In both cases, people hear the argument, but they don't listen. I would encourage you to think about that as you look for people to debate in the future.

Edited by Nonegfiat, 25 December 2016 - 06:45 AM.

  • 2

You don't need to have a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff to win rounds.

 

 


#50 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-49
Bad

Posted 25 December 2016 - 07:50 AM

LOL

BccVNI.jpg


  • -2

#51 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-49
Bad

Posted 25 December 2016 - 07:53 AM

You know if you wanted to invite people on your show to talk about the drawbacks of competitive debate or the issue of censorship within liberal circles, you could have done that without calling everyone faggots and keyboard warriors. I'm sure lots of people would have been happy to discuss those things with you. You may have succeeded in provoking people in an online forum, but when it comes to the actual public sphere of discussion, that tactic isn't going to get you anywhere.

In competitive debate we argue a lot about whether political activism within a debate round is useful for bringing about real-world change. I think you should be asking yourself similar questions about the way you're trying to attract people to come on your show. Because while people from this forum will watch your debate and hear your ideas, most have already decided that you're childish, unruly, and unreasonable which isn't going to help people see your side of the argument. It's the same of divisive rhetoric that has made political discourse so toxic these days. Everyone talks past each other and you're an extreme example of why.

And you know what? I actually agree with you on the question of people being too sensitive to language. The whole political correctness question? I come down on your side. But when I saw this thread I saw you insulting everyone and spamming all these trashy manhood posters, I thought to myself "oh no it's some crazy meninist troll" and I turned hostile. That is what your discourse does. If you care so much about debating to find truth, you need to start communicating more effectively. Because just like the liberals who don't understand that calling everyone racist and sexist right off the bat isn't going to make society more progressive, you coming on here talking about everyone being butthurt and too sensitive and whatever else isn't going to make people earnestly consider your argument. In both cases, people hear the argument, but they don't listen. I would encourage you to think about that as you look for people to debate in the future.

 

says the SCARED LITTLE GIRL WETTING HER PANTIES BEHIND MOMMY'S KEYBOARD LOLOLOLOLOOL!

 

i'd respect a coward like you if you could actually vocalize your scared little girl musings in a LIVE debate instead of BRAVELY trying to impress me with your hardcore keyboard warrior sentiments.

 

m8JlhA.jpg


  • -2

#52 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
318
Excellent
  • Name:Ben

Posted 25 December 2016 - 08:00 AM

says the SCARED LITTLE GIRL WETTING HER PANTIES BEHIND MOMMY'S KEYBOARD LOLOLOLOLOOL!
 
i'd respect a coward like you if you could actually vocalize your scared little girl musings in a LIVE debate instead of BRAVELY trying to impress me with your hardcore keyboard warrior sentiments.


It's too bad that I dont care whether you respect me. I was trying to help YOU see how YOU can do a better job communicating with people. You can call me a coward all you want, I don't really care.
  • 1

You don't need to have a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff to win rounds.

 

 


#53 PailAmbrose

PailAmbrose

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
101
Excellent
  • Name:Paul
  • School:CU Boulder

Posted 25 December 2016 - 08:23 AM

Can we please stop replying to this? They're a troll. You're never going to beat them or teach them a lesson or get them to make sense because they're not here to present a coherent argument. They'll just shift the goalposts, make a new (terrible) graphic, and laugh at how baited you are. Let this thread die.
  • 3

"They have done the most destructive, entirely insane thing that has ever been done. They've degraded debate. it's offensive. I'm sorry that you judges have had to listen to this, it's people like them that have destroyed the debate community"

 

-Missouri's reaction to a cap K


#54 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
318
Excellent
  • Name:Ben

Posted 25 December 2016 - 08:47 AM

Can we please stop replying to this? They're a troll. You're never going to beat them or teach them a lesson or get them to make sense because they're not here to present a coherent argument. They'll just shift the goalposts, make a new (terrible) graphic, and laugh at how baited you are. Let this thread die.



Yeah. I all know this but I can't stop myself from arguing. So thanks for the reminder
  • 0

You don't need to have a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff to win rounds.

 

 


#55 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-49
Bad

Posted 25 December 2016 - 08:56 AM

It's too bad that I dont care whether you respect me. I was trying to help YOU see how YOU can do a better job communicating with people. You can call me a coward all you want, I don't really care.

why don't you help YOURSELF out of your wet panties BEFORE you try me-- you're a scared pathetic faggot hiding behind your mommy's keyboard trying to lecture me about COMMUNICATION? LOLOLOL! 

 

ZacITW.jpg


  • -1

#56 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-49
Bad

Posted 25 December 2016 - 08:57 AM

Can we please stop replying to this? They're a troll. You're never going to beat them or teach them a lesson or get them to make sense because they're not here to present a coherent argument. They'll just shift the goalposts, make a new (terrible) graphic, and laugh at how baited you are. Let this thread die.

4jJsi9.jpg


  • 0

#57 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-49
Bad

Posted 25 December 2016 - 09:00 AM

NONE of you scared faggots would dare say these BRAVE keyboard warrior sentiments during a live debate. NONE.

 

Look on the bright side- your typing skills are improving #LOL


  • 0

#58 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,157 posts
2,469
Excellent

Posted 25 December 2016 - 09:16 AM

I actually genuinely enjoy the production value of all the Hot Pockets, Doritoes, Mt. Dew references.


  • 3

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#59 deejay

deejay

    Junior-Varsity

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
-49
Bad

Posted 25 December 2016 - 11:19 AM

I actually genuinely enjoy the production value of all the Hot Pockets, Doritoes, Mt. Dew references.

the truth hurts their feelings, which is why they hide their views behind their mommy's keyboard instead of having the BALLS to defend them in a live debate where their critics can answer them back and hold them ACCOUNTABLE to their bullshit claims. 

 

1dODq7.jpg


  • 0

#60 ani

ani

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
31
Good

Posted 25 December 2016 - 11:45 AM

the truth hurts their feelings, which is why they hide their views behind their mommy's keyboard instead of having the BALLS to defend them in a live debate where their critics can answer them back and hold them ACCOUNTABLE to their bullshit claims. 

 

1dODq7.jpg

LIVE DEBATE. LIVE DEBATE. Fun fact: we do live debate. You are literally on a forum board for DEBATE members who debate each other live, in person, regularly. I don't know if you might have valid points on a random political discourse forum, but you chose the wrong forum to go around screaming, "LIVE DEBATE." I present to you nationals, maybe you should enter. https://www.speechan....org/nationals/ . I also love how you took the time to rhyme that poster, so I don't think you understand the hypocrisy you are exhibiting; you're raging about "keyboard warriors" and the "fedora life" while literally creating useless posters that do exactly what you describe. You are fully capable of answering my arguments in text form if you can do it live.

 

I actually genuinely enjoy the production value of all the Hot Pockets, Doritoes, Mt. Dew references.

As do I. This isn't even really a Photoshop job, I feel like they did this in Apple Preview or something. I'm fairly sure you have to be exactly what they are describing to make that many references.


Edited by ani, 25 December 2016 - 11:48 AM.

  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: debate camp

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users