Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay
Ya ya ya leave your opinion on the doorstep and I'l pick it up later. Just don't make yourself comfortable. We don't have room for weaksauce arguments like the ones you left in the pirate bay thread. "You couldn't convince me so you're wrong" if you said anything like that in here I would be forced to strap your body to my debate tank with wire in hopes that your physical being would be able to hold together better when things get heated than your glass arguments.
Maybe this should be done over pm's in stead of?
What do you mean about making myself comfortable?
I never wrote "You couldn't convince me so you're wrong", if you'd reread what I wrote I wrote that he'd failed to use his extra knowledge through his background to convince others, I never wrote anything as absurd as what you cliam I did, I actually did also write back in that thread I didn't wrote that, and made it clear that he'd failed to convince others meant that he hadn't made his school justice, not that he was wrong. However I'd argumented way earlier for why he was wrong, which he hadn't been responding to, which made me assume he was wrong of course, and just because he later on writes that he's right, but doesn't want to debate anyway, that makes me critizise his style of debating.
Again the very fact you believe I ever wrote that make me get the idea that you only read what SaroDarksbane wrote and neither my reply to him or what I wrote earlier. However if you believe I actually wrote something like that, please quote it.
Edit: To make it clear:
I know that you're / have studied the law, but that doesn't mean you're right in all circumstances about the subject, it just means that you can take advantage of your studies, which you've failed to do, as then me and others would have been convinced by your points.
"I'm don't agree, therefore you must be terrible at debate." is very poor logic.
I don't critize him for being bad at debating, but being bad at using what he knows from his studies in this debate.
That should make it pretty clear, the thing that you further reads the bad at debate to be wrong about your point makes it even worse, it's like a feather that becomes 5 chickens to be honest.
Again I believe he's wrong about his point, I've argumented why way earlier in the thread and he left after we'd a brief conversation where many others where on the same side as I was, which meant he failed to convince others. As it's something he has studied he's likewise failed to use his studies to convince others, unless it's not the subjects he has studied, however then he has no authority and that makes claims like "I know it all, but I don't want to tell" very inappropiate (eventhough it'll always be inappropiate to write it like that).
Believing that you've to vote for everything is plain wrong, sure there need to be a general agreement on the basic rights for everyone of us, so we don't have to vote on those cases, as it doesn't make any sense, it's like if you asked people to vote whether or not a minority should pay extra tax due to them not being like the rest of us. 
