• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paid to Post

sKiTzo said:
What's funny is I can tell you think your responses are clever and effective when in reality they don't represent a response to the quote you are responding to. You make no sense. You won't post anything refuting the "prior knowledge" evidence. I'm wasting my time off topic now. For all these reasons you are definitely one of those shills with the poorest of skills = as bad or worse than Fledermaus.

You're not here to try to win a debate and I'm tired of seeing you lose. I would love to be able to say "I concede. Sandy Hook was the real deal", but I can't do that if you don't post something other than a rant about "confirmation bias" having nothing to do with anything you're responding to. So if you're not going to present a challenge by refuting my post in true debate form (which you won't because shills don't do that), I'm going to save you any further humility and put you on ignore. That way I don't have to waste any more time off topic. Good luck, you should really consider debating sometime.
Click to expand...

Irony meters explode!
 
sKiTzo said:
If you never refute a post correctly by specifically addressing what you are refuting and posting links to information that supports your assertion....chances are you're a shill. If your way of refuting things is a combination stated opinion + personal attack and you think that's good enough.....chances are you're a shill.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur. The person could just be a poor debater. Opinion and personal attack in no way indicate that the person is falsely representing a position with the intent to deceive. To assume that there are shills for any given conspiracy theory, you first have to assume the theory is true and there actually is a conspiracy. If there was no conspiracy or cover up, there would be no one to shill for.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I've heard that drug companies pay people to advocate for their drugs online. Like for example here!

I noticed that any time I criticized the overuse of drugs on any online forum or blog, the same people would defend the drug companies by posting angry and insulting comments. They almost seem like they are following a script, because their comments don't seem thoughtful or rational.

So I think maybe this conspiracy is real, not just a theory.

In the general public, lots of people have become skeptical about the drug companies. But online debates are dominated by drug advocates.

https://www.amazon.com/Overdosed-Am...B72CFNA/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
Click to expand...

What if you're not paid with cash, but social credit points (China) or a favorable note added to your dossier (Cuba) ?
 
*looks at post count*

You're ****in tellin me I coulda been getting paid this WHOLE TIME!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom