• 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!

Quag and the Angel: a dialogue

Is that the time you tried to equate literary romanticism as proof of some concept of divinity? Yes, that was rather silly and I do remember beong somewhat disinterested in the diversion.
No, that's the time you tried to finesse your way out of a losing position by some evasive talk about literary romanticism. And you were "uninterested," not "disinterested," linguist.
That's a prosaic misrepresentation of DD and the so-called new Atheists you so often libel.
No, that's spot on about both, I'm afraid. And you're of their opinion, I believe, and so spot on about you as well.
 
Last edited:
I love this angel thread fail. He claimed (falsely) that he wanted a discussion with me but instead just refused to engage in anything but squabbling over definitions of what I meant when I posted.
Just another example of his dishonorable behavior
Anyhow back to the actual topic at hand
to generalize my original statement
Whatever the quality of the premise used in an argument will be the quality of the conclusion
Since all; of Angels so called argument are based on his personal subjective opinions the conclusions are nothing roe than his personal subjective opinions
Or in other words garbage in garbage out
 
About what you called into question.

Can you just get to the point in your own words instead of name dropping some great philosopher in history? I don't have time to dig through everything this one wrote.
 
Can you just get to the point in your own words instead of name dropping some great philosopher in history? I don't have time to dig through everything this one wrote.
The point was, and still is, that what you called into question as a most outlandish notion is a philosophical idea 2500 years old.
 
The point was, and still is, that what you called into question as a most outlandish notion is a philosophical idea 2500 years old.

So what idea is it and what does its age have to do with its importance or value? Mankind has advanced intellectually quite considerably in 2500 years.
 
So what idea is it and what does its age have to do with its importance or value? Mankind has advanced intellectually quite considerably in 2500 years.
Classsic internet chat! You don't even know what we've been talking about for the last eight posts!
 
Classsic internet chat! You don't even know what we've been talking about for the last eight posts!

Because you didn't specify what it was. You just gave a reference to an ancient philosopher but failed to explain why.
 
Because you didn't specify what it was. You just gave a reference to an ancient philosopher but failed to explain why.
No, I didn't "just gve a reference to an ancient philosopher," David; I gave that reference in reply to a post by you, the content of which specifies and explains the reference.
 
No, I didn't "just gve a reference to an ancient philosopher," David; I gave that reference in reply to a post by you, the content of which specifies and explains the reference.


No, it does not. There is no specific connection between what was posted with something attributed to the ancient philosopher.
 
No, it does not. There is no specific connection between what was posted with something attributed to the ancient philosopher.
Yes, there is. You would know this if you knew what we are talking about and if you knew something about the ancient philosopher.
 
Yes, there is. You would know this if you knew what we are talking about and if you knew something about the ancient philosopher.

So is it too much to ask you to point out the specifics?
 
Uh this isn't about impeachment.

Waste of time. You people think our President will go away like barack "puff daddy" obama ?
Very un religious.
As for Trump 2020 ?
Very religious.
 
So is it too much to ask you to point out the specifics?
Is it too much to ask, the man asks with a straight face, to remind him of what he's been talking about in his last ten posts?!?
Only on the Internet.
 
This thread ended up destroyed...
 
Is it too much to ask, the man asks with a straight face, to remind him of what he's been talking about in his last ten posts?!?
Only on the Internet.

I wasn't talking about anything related to anything said by an ancient philosopher.
 
The lowly ant-religious liberal/Demo impeachment follies has finally ended and as a result,nothing. Only the liberal/Demo controlled networks would carry this shenanigan.
Anything religious ?
Not with the lowly liberal/Demo. " Revenge is ours " says the lowly liberal/Demo as they play God judging our President's accomplishments.
Where's this anti religious whimperblower ?

Where's the proof our President launched a investigation on joey biden and his boy ?
Tough being a Christian President in a anti religious liberal/Demo world.
 
The lowly ant-religious liberal/Demo impeachment follies has finally ended and as a result,nothing. Only the liberal/Demo controlled networks would carry this shenanigan.
Anything religious ?
Not with the lowly liberal/Demo. " Revenge is ours " says the lowly liberal/Demo as they play God judging our President's accomplishments.
Where's this anti religious whimperblower ?

Where's the proof our President launched a investigation on joey biden and his boy ?
Tough being a Christian President in a anti religious liberal/Demo world.

You seem to have posted in the wrong thread
 
Back
Top Bottom