It also plans to gain 37 trillion dollars,  but whatever

I'm not saying that the goal is bad. The way Sanders wants to get there is another story.

I don't see anybody else proposing anything better. Not Clinton, and certainly none of the GOP.

Quote from: Icy on March 07, 2016, 12:23:31 PM

I'm not saying that the goal is bad. The way Sanders wants to get there is another story.

I don't see anybody else proposing anything better. Not Clinton, and certainly none of the GOP.

Rand Paul was.


was.

Bernie Sanders has the best tax plan of all currently running candidates.

That's an argument.

I don't think anyone has a better tax plan than Bernie Sanders.

That's not an argument. It's hardly even a declaration. It's a completely passive statement. Fuck.

Not Clinton, and certainly none of the GOP.

The GOP plans are pretty much fiscal dumpster fires, although Rubio has good policy when it comes to fighting poverty and Cruz has good policies on trade and healthcare.

I don't know why you think Sanders has a better fiscal plan than Clinton, though.

"I don't see[...]"

Are arguments usually phrased like that, genius?

Sure, all the time on here. It's not a formal debate setting.

See, though, that's not really a "definition" so much as its an explanation of the word's function, but not the meaning.
(Because it has no meaning.)

A good definition would allow you to replace the word with it in a sentence, but you can't really do that with indefinite articles.

I know, I just wanted to be a smartass.

Can't holler at the scholar.

Quote from: Icy on March 07, 2016, 12:31:14 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 07, 2016, 12:24:24 PM

Quote from: Icy on March 07, 2016, 12:23:31 PM

I'm not saying that the goal is bad. The way Sanders wants to get there is another story.

I don't see anybody else proposing anything better. Not Clinton, and certainly none of the GOP.

Great argument.

It's NOT an argument, jackass. I'm merely stating the fact that I believe Bernie Sanders to be the least worst option (if you're not a slack-jawed retard). Where exactly was I arguing anything?

"I don't see[...]"

Are arguments usually phrased like that, genius?

No. They're not.

If I'm merely stating that I don't see anything better, then the onus is on you to show me something better. Why the fuck am I obligated to defend my position to you, when I'm not the one arguing anything? Provide me with a reason to believe that Hillary's tax plan is so much better than Bernie's first, and then maybe I'll engage.

Why do we allow you in Serious again?

Quote from: CIS on March 07, 2016, 09:42:16 PM

Why do we allow you in Serious again?

Why do we allow YOU in Serious?

When have you ever contributed anything at all? Ever?

Literally all you do is stir shit.

Saying that I stir shit isn't incorrect. However, I am generally civil in Serious and I try to make threads that are of some discussion value in this board. 

Quote from: CIS on March 07, 2016, 09:42:16 PM

Why do we allow you in Serious again?

Why do we allow YOU in Serious?

When have you ever contributed anything at all? Ever?

Literally all you do is stir shit.

Icy said something really fucking stupid, so I smacked him for it. Cry about it.

You just described yourself, your only function here is to act like an edgy redditor who just discovered Richard Dawkins.

Arguing about arguing shows that your opponent wasn't the stupid one in that situation, so there's no reason to claim you "Smacked" someone who was objectively right. Contrary to your name, you're capable of implications as well. You made the comment that you didn't see any better plans. Not only is that comment entirely subjective, but implies that we should do something bad anyways just because there isn't any other good outcomes by "your" reasoning. Hence, you DID argue that point regardless of whether or not it was intentional on your end.

literally what

No, you just don't want to read. Although I'll dumb it down for you.

The first point is that you have no high ground to call someone's comment stupid when you're literally arguing about arguing afterwards. That's completely fucking pointless.

The second is that the comment wasn't stupid at all. You implied that the only good plan was the best out of all negative options regardless of the fact that it was still negative. You're arguing it's okay to do something bad because it's not quite as bad as the alternatives, ignoring the possibility of not doing anything at all if all situations are bad. So hence, you did make an argument despite swearing up and down you didn't and derailing a thread because of it.

Literally none of this made any sense. The mental gymnastics are insane.

Yes you did. Your argument was implying that Sanders plan was the only "Good" one because it was the least shitty out of all others.

I never made an argument. Saying that I did doesn't make it so. Sorry.