[–] ▶ №654341[Quote]
brap^
▶ №654357[Quote]>>654358
supadrayk winning rn
▶ №654358[Quote]>>654360
>>654357Even though two of the guys just conceded and begged the question.
▶ №654362[Quote]>>654364
>>654360? Are you not tracking?
▶ №654370[Quote]
Why even countinue posting on the /QA/ when you know you will get BTFO'd?
▶ №654371[Quote]
This vc is kind of boring
▶ №654384[Quote]
>>654332 (OP)fighting is gay
▶ №654389[Quote]>>654394
>>654345no arrow so you look like this, you can't duel brappior z
▶ №654392[Quote]
whats up with the background niggas
▶ №654396[Quote]
>>654394this is bald man glasses site where we use arrows, speech bubbles are discord
▶ №654425[Quote]
my buddy is unironically a jew I'm sorry for his brap session
▶ №654429[Quote]>>654431
>>654426don't sage saar :*
▶ №654433[Quote]>>654436
lfg we won
▶ №654436[Quote]>>654438>>654443
>>654433Blud your friend legit said "You got me" and you just sat there.
▶ №654437[Quote]>>654438
Garf you lost blud, khalas.
▶ №654438[Quote]>>654442
>>654437>>654436that's aryan shemmycuck
▶ №654441[Quote]
>>654439z got btfo by me, a jew, and a black kid
▶ №654442[Quote]
>>654438It may be Aryan but you still lost.
▶ №654444[Quote]
>>654439Garf and his two buddies conceded the debate.
▶ №654445[Quote]
wait come back i have something
▶ №654447[Quote]>>654449
>>654446come back i have a debat etopic
▶ №654449[Quote]>>654451>>654454
>>654447What debate topic?
▶ №654451[Quote]>>654452
>>654449join vc this is gqrf
▶ №654454[Quote]
>>654449it's a powerscale
▶ №654458[Quote]>>654460
>>654452it's actually me on his pc join its a powerscale
▶ №654470[Quote]>>654472
>>654399Nah, x was there just to get a reaction out of z since he loves poking fun of him over winning a debate twice and refusing to rematch because z under the exuse being " z is obsessed " and " braps nothing burgers " clearly he got under z's skin to the point z made a slopjak of him and he acted nice saying how he loved it and then criticized it for " looking too much like warrior-z "
▶ №654472[Quote]>>654474>>654487
>>654470Warrior-Z won the debates btw
▶ №654474[Quote]>>654476
>>654472He didn't against x though
▶ №654480[Quote]>>654482>>654505
>>654476But he didn't though.
Z was demanding a rematch over x saying " he won "
▶ №654482[Quote]>>654486
Warrior Z is much bestest debater in Lesotho and would never lose to a white boy like x!
>>654480▶ №654486[Quote]>>654488
>>654482xhe cant duel though
▶ №654487[Quote]>>654491
>>654472he just lost against a jew and a black kid tho
▶ №654490[Quote]>>654493
>>654488snca namefag drama, they can't soyduel for sure.
▶ №654492[Quote]
Chimpan-Z should debate Garf on how women with septum piercings are fucking ugly
▶ №654493[Quote]>>654497
>>654490Shut up or I will rape u with mi bbc that I use to goon to funny o algo
▶ №654496[Quote]
you lost all ddebates in the wrld
▶ №654501[Quote]
Anyone wanna debate me on why septum piercings are fucking ugly?
▶ №654505[Quote]>>654528
>>654480Z never demanded a rematch kek.
▶ №654506[Quote]
>>654502Niggercoal + you lost the duel already
▶ №654512[Quote]
>>654510Why do you keep quoting me with this literal who?
▶ №654532[Quote]>>654550
>>654528Go ahead and prove it.
▶ №654546[Quote]
I have a question do you actually mge or is it larp?
▶ №654550[Quote]>>654554>>654555
>>654532The past threads exist you know. We seen you leak to the point you found out x made a thread and then you made your own thread whinning about it and how you claim to win and x was telling you " Nah you didn't " and then you demanded a rematch telling him to go to discord to debate
▶ №654554[Quote]
>>654550And xe denied it and made zer mad
▶ №654555[Quote]>>654566
>>654550Lmao Champion-X just log in already.
You're lying about the threads that I personally archived myself???
How sad can you be?
So pathetic.
▶ №654559[Quote]
Warrior z is bad at tf2
▶ №654566[Quote]
>>654555>Lmao Champion-X just log in already.You're lying about the threads that I personally archived myself???
How sad can you be?
So pathetic.
>Super Villan speechZ turning into the batman who laughs after x denied a rematch after winning
▶ №654573[Quote]
WARRIOR Z IS BAD AT TF2
▶ №654575[Quote]>>654578
the black kid just called you racist Z
▶ №654578[Quote]>>654585
>>654575Septum piercings are ugly
▶ №654596[Quote]
WARRIOR Z CANT MGE GEEEEEG
▶ №654607[Quote]>>654609
>>654587why do I voice mog u
▶ №654609[Quote]>>654633
>>654607You havent heard my voice though
▶ №654621[Quote]>>654623
this is like beating up a dead carcass geg
▶ №654628[Quote]
I cant believe this thread is on the exact same board as the mlp zellig gooning board.
▶ №654633[Quote]>>654634
>>654609I was in vc when you debated warrior z months ago
▶ №654634[Quote]>>654639
>>654633you lost your debate and I won mine lololol
▶ №654635[Quote]
>>654631chuds, euromutts and meximutts
▶ №654636[Quote]>>654638
>>654631That rule does not apply kek, go ahead and prove it's official.
variant:unknowns are allowed because I love them.
▶ №654638[Quote]>>654641
>>654636'ki says so nigga
▶ №654639[Quote]>>654646
>>654634You didnt win fag.
▶ №654641[Quote]>>654644
>>654638'ki can be edited by any autistic faggot who got butthurt because they lost a duel.
▶ №654644[Quote]>>654651
>>654641it was like that for as long as i remember doebeit
▶ №654649[Quote]
Nigga is debating on wheter soyduel rules are official lol get a job nigger
▶ №654651[Quote]>>654663
>>654644Not as I remember.
>>654646You literally conceded both times mutt.
▶ №654660[Quote]
>>654657do you goon to 'p o algo
▶ №654663[Quote]>>654668>>654674
>>654651meds papi you couldn't prove uncle grandpa isn't outerversal he's literally on my boxers so he can transcend all realities o algo
▶ №654668[Quote]>>654687
>>654663Prove that's the actual fictionalized version also that's not my burden to prove you massive retard.
▶ №654674[Quote]
>>654663Uncle grandpa says women with sceptum piercings are ugly. He told me when I wnt to the north pole and i met up with him, mecha hitler and Santa Claus
▶ №654682[Quote]>>654684
>>654678Are you the next namefag?
▶ №654687[Quote]>>654690>>654692
>>654668so what you're saying is kratos is trans and uncle grandpa isn't? ez no diff grandpa wins
▶ №654688[Quote]
>>654681Why is Warrior-Z killing his favourite characters?
▶ №654690[Quote]
>>654687Kratos is trans just like the woman that use septum piercings
▶ №654692[Quote]>>654698
>>654687W strawman fallacy son.
▶ №654693[Quote]
>>654689I made that one kek
▶ №654698[Quote]>>654702>>654703
>>654692no homo but you look like you enjoy bbc
▶ №654702[Quote]
>>654698Black kid told me to say that sorry
▶ №654703[Quote]>>654704>>654708
>>654698Just like women who use septum piercings
▶ №654708[Quote]
>>654703keep raging on emoGODS
▶ №654838[Quote]>>654840
>>654332 (OP)warrior z do you like prototype the game
▶ №654849[Quote]>>654851
>>654847Can you debunk my question
▶ №654852[Quote]>>654854
You said you would but I haven’t seen a debunk of Muhammed taking bbc
▶ №654854[Quote]>>654857
>>654852The false hadith you mean?
▶ №654857[Quote]>>654862
>>654854show me the debunk doe
▶ №654862[Quote]
>>654857I'll just create a post.
▶ №654934[Quote]>>654937
>>654931Posted the same jak twice award
▶ №654937[Quote]>>654940
>>654934You also did but you deleted it. I'll delete mine too since I meant to send 136
▶ №654942[Quote]
>>654941This is the main one so quote this one.
▶ №654944[Quote]
>>654939I did this one as a replacement o algo.
▶ №654947[Quote]>>654952
soysneed hates muzzies therefore warrior z is an uncle tom
▶ №654951[Quote]
debat eme im on vc
▶ №654952[Quote]>>654957
>>654947False albeit. Also fake Quote.
▶ №654957[Quote]>>654960
>>654952Prove me otherwise towelhead
▶ №654972[Quote]>>654977
FACT: kratos gets easily mogged by cthulhu and all lovecraftian deities
▶ №654977[Quote]>>654984
>>654972Lovecraft is fodder.
▶ №654984[Quote]>>654987
>>654977Non sequitor cause if Azathoth woke up he would kill everthing
▶ №654987[Quote]>>655011
>>654984Go ahead and substantiate how that's a non sequitur.
Also prove that would apply for Kratos' essence since his essence is outerversal++.
▶ №655011[Quote]>>655015
>>654987when i say everthing i mean everytning therefore no matter what tier kratos is he would get mogged
▶ №655015[Quote]>>655024
>>655011Yeah no that's a contradiction since atemporal beings CANNOT undergo change no matter what so that wouldn't apply nice try though cuckold.
▶ №655024[Quote]>>655027
>>655015>reddit tier comebackshave yall fallen this low? lol you must not be in the know
▶ №655027[Quote]>>655031
>>655024How are these reddit tier?
Also this isn't a refutation KEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
Nice try though, you're retarded.
▶ №655031[Quote]>>655033
>>655027you must not be in the know
how pathetic :v
▶ №655033[Quote]>>655038
>>655031Not a refutation.
I win.
Keep crying upon my shoulder.
▶ №655037[Quote]>>655045
>>655029So what will it be?
▶ №655038[Quote]>>655043
>>655033you must not be in the know KEKKK
▶ №655043[Quote]>>655047
>>655038Not a refutation, son.
▶ №655045[Quote]
>>655037Let's make it the longest soyduel you've had in your life.
▶ №655047[Quote]>>655053
>>655043you must not be in the know
▶ №655053[Quote]>>655061
>>655047Not a refutation, son.
▶ №655055[Quote]>>655069
OOO 2 SLIPS
▶ №655059[Quote]>>655063>>655069
Getting tired, are you?
▶ №655061[Quote]>>655064
>>655053you must not be in the know, muzziepedo
▶ №655064[Quote]
>>655061Not a refutation you autistic child predator.
▶ №655069[Quote]>>655071>>655072
>>655055>>655059geg why does warriorz think he is like a mustache-twirling supervillain when he is really a neckbearded stinky brownie
▶ №655071[Quote]>>655076
>>655069Not a supervillain you fat ass tub of brown lard who gets BTFO'd by anyone outside your house you weak cuck.
▶ №655072[Quote]>>655076
>>655069Not a supervillain you fat ass tub of brown lard who gets BTFO'd by anyone outside your house you weak cuck.
<flood detected ▶ №655076[Quote]>>655078
>>655071>>655072warrior z probably leaked his clitty and clicked enter twice cause his internet is shit and he lives in a slum in norwedistan
▶ №655078[Quote]>>655083
>>655076No it's because I cucked you down so hard the website broke for a second you mutt KEEEK
▶ №655083[Quote]>>655087
>>655078>making excuses for your shitty slumtier internet cause you are afraid of admitting your clitty leakednew low, wowsie guys
▶ №655087[Quote]>>655090
>>655083Anti-Nordic rage coming from the massive fat ass who lives in some crackhouse in New York kek.
▶ №655090[Quote]>>655094
>>655087new york is a bold guess, i live somewhere with better cuisine and culture
go back z
▶ №655094[Quote]>>655097>>655098
>>655090Kek she's flexing that she eats fast food muttslop everyday.
Keep coping that NorwayBVLLS mog whatever raisinhole you live in.
▶ №655098[Quote]>>655102
>>655094>Norwaybullsdid u mean norwedistan? cause your kind ruined it
▶ №655102[Quote]>>655107>>655109
>>655098We can debate that btw.
▶ №655107[Quote]>>655111>>655112
>>655102debating is for black women warrior 'P is an obese negress with an ego (TRUTH)
▶ №655109[Quote]>>655112
>>655102>we MUST debooooooooote that now deboooooooote that but if u point out muh fallacies i will ignore ur valid criticisms and attack ur snca pointsyou must not be in the know
▶ №655111[Quote]
>>655107youre no better faggot
▶ №655112[Quote]>>655116
>>655107Absolute falsenvke, also you're mad that I broke your arm in that one thread.
>>655109You've never pointed out any fallacies or gave anything valid.
Nice try, diddy.
▶ №655114[Quote]>>655118
Warrior-p is a literal shitskin soyjak and it's not even funny
▶ №655116[Quote]>>655118
>>655112you must not be in the know geg stop talking like a redditor towelhead
▶ №655118[Quote]>>655124
>>655114Says the fat tub of lard soyboy, also you're getting slapped up retard.
>>655116And you must be in the slums because of how retarded you are, mutt.
▶ №655124[Quote]>>655126
>>655118holy projection geg
▶ №655126[Quote]>>655128
>>655124No response award so says "projection".
Yov lost.
▶ №655128[Quote]>>655132
>>655126"yov" pack it up guys, warrior z is officially a retarded uncle tom froot soysneed bootlicker
▶ №655132[Quote]>>655137>>655240
>>655128Soysneed isn't against Muslims.
Never bootlicked Froot.
This is a fail, you're low IQ and a mutt.
▶ №655137[Quote]
>>655132americans are whiter than the new population of scandinavestan
▶ №655145[Quote]
>>655140you are mixed but im pure and whiter than you kek
▶ №655154[Quote]
>>655148i dont look like that FAIL
im half irish and german and prob whiter than u LOLLLL YOU MUST NOT BE IN THE KNOW
▶ №655161[Quote]>>655165
>>655158you arent even denying the fact that im whiter than u kek
▶ №655162[Quote]
sheeit foegot muh name
▶ №655165[Quote]>>655171
>>655161You might be. Doesn't matter though.
I'm pale, that's all.
▶ №655171[Quote]>>655174
>>655165ok goatfucker, you must not be in the know
▶ №655174[Quote]>>655178
>>655171Even though bestiality is punishable by death, nice try, Diddy.
You lose again.
▶ №655178[Quote]>>655181
>>655174u use reddit and cord kys
▶ №655181[Quote]>>655185
>>655178Retarded mutt award, I use it for my powerscaling.
▶ №655185[Quote]>>655187
>>655181coverups are a thing of the past
you must not be in the know
▶ №655187[Quote]>>655197
>>655185Go ahead and prove it's a cover-up, Amerishart.
▶ №655197[Quote]>>655200
>>655187i am whiter than ur bloodline
▶ №655200[Quote]
>>655197Nice dodging the question, pathetic.
▶ №655232[Quote]>>655234
>Popular muzzie "apologist" admitting that maphammad raped a kidhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzXN6Mv9k8A>Popular sheikh admitting that maphammad raped a kidhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLWxhn3Pmvkwhy do muzzies worship a pedophile? do bug people just have no moral compass?
▶ №655241[Quote]>>655248
>>655234I don't care about whatever fantasy land disney version of pisslam you believe in, I'm talking about the fact that 99% of all muzzies in the world today practise a faith in which they worship a pedophile who raped kids
That's why it's directly influencing legislation today and causing harm to children:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/iraq-lowers-age-consent-just-34531737 ▶ №655246[Quote]>>655247>>655252
>>655240Sheet forgot my name.
>>655242Trvst me after My Trvke, Xhe will be brapping past xer bedtime. good luck powersky, may god help you.
▶ №655248[Quote]>>655269>>655277
>>655241Go ahead and statistically prove it's 99%.
Also Iraq has a corrupt government, it's literally known.
People protest against the government all the time.
>>655240>Xes copingYou do realize that none of this actually applies and yes I already knew it was you Champion-X because nobody is as autistic as you ITT, and yes you did lose all 3 times since you never replied to the refutations and you just call them nothingburgers, I even had people from outside the soysphere that are debaters judge it and they said I won. You got bitched and you lost the debate inherently. You're ass, never try to talk again or try to debate. You lost, nobody thinks you're good at debating and Amerimutt land lost and you probably would chicken out in VC.
▶ №655252[Quote]
>>655246Champion-X is probably one of the most delusional namefags I've ever seen lmao.
▶ №655257[Quote]>>655261>>655263
i expected a fight in VC
▶ №655261[Quote]>>655265
>>655257There was but you're late.
▶ №655265[Quote]
>>655261>>655263omg just kiss you two
▶ №655272[Quote]>>655275
warrior 'p can't quote for shit
▶ №655275[Quote]>>655312
>>655272Champion-X logged out after she switched proxy for CP.
▶ №655277[Quote]
>>655248>Go ahead and statistically prove it's 99%.it's obviously enough to pass child rape legislation lol
>Also Iraq has a corrupt government, it's literally known.>IT'S KNOWN!!!>Proponents of the changes defend them as a means to align the law with Islamic principles and reduce Western influence on Iraqi culture.what is this bizarre cope
>People protest against the government all the time.the protests are coming from secular and womens rights groups influenced by western morality, thats why this law is proposed as a literal return to islamic values lol
every child that isn't being raped in MENA is thanks to western influence.
even saudi arabia didn't have an age of marriage until 2019, and that's an american proxy, though, though also have other pisslamic laws like oppression of minority religious groups, authoritarian rule and no political freedoms
▶ №655282[Quote]>>655285
Hello?
▶ №655283[Quote]>>655315
>it's obviously enough to pass child rape legislation lol
That's a non sequitur, it doesn't logically follow to derive the amount of percentages of Muslims that believe this specific narrative for a corrupt government's choice.
>what is this bizarre cope
Not a refutation, so cool ad hominem fallacy faggot.
>the protests are coming from secular and womens rights groups influenced by western morality
And I'm gonna need some evidence for this to be epistemically certain, otherwise I'll just dismiss it via Hitchens razor.
>every child that isn't being raped in MENA is thanks to western influence
Another baseless claim with no evidence, go ahead and substantiate how it would be based off of western influence.
>even saudi arabia didn't have an age of marriage until 2019
And what quantifies Saudia Arabia as a reliable source for the theological framework despite many Muslims being against said nation?
>though also have other pisslamic laws like oppression of minority religious groups, authoritarian rule and no political freedoms
Again, how would this apply to the Islamic theological framework?
▶ №655285[Quote]
>>655282Was debunking that faggot.
▶ №655312[Quote]
>>655275I don't keep up on namefag drama who's champion x
▶ №655315[Quote]
>>655283>That's a non sequitur, it doesn't logically follow to derive the amount of percentages of Muslims that believe this specific narrative for a corrupt government's choice.Attributing the passing of this legislation to just "gumint corupt o algo" is more retarded than anything I've done in my entire life. Even the fact that this "corrupt gumint" would go out of its way to pass an incredibly internationally controversial piece of legislation that allows child rape, which gets protested fiercely by activist groups, proves that this theocratic pisslamic end of the government and their base and supporters are belligerent and gung ho about raping children to go to this extent
>Not a refutation, so cool ad hominem fallacy faggot.You obsess over every word find little reddit comments to make because you are afraid of confronting the spirit of the argument
>And I'm gonna need some evidence for this to be epistemically certain, otherwise I'll just dismiss it via Hitchens razor.Read literally any article about the subject and you'll see the main opposition is coming from minority groups and womens rights groups, not the islamist theocratic end of the government that supported the fucking bill, that much should be obvious
>Another baseless claim with no evidence, go ahead and substantiate how it would be based off of western influence.If you harped on every inactionable claim mentioned during a court process the judge would charge you for contempt
>And what quantifies Saudia Arabia as a reliable source for the theological framework despite many Muslims being against said nation?You're addicted to saying "not true muslims", "only a minority", "not supported by others" to each and every instance of this pervasive trend across muzzie cultures.
>Again, how would this apply to the Islamic theological framework?Not relevant to the argument
Brevity is the soul of wit, responding to every individual line of text with some reddit phrase isn't confronting the spirit of the argument. condense your words
▶ №655317[Quote]>>655319
>>655316Gonna take a little longer to reply to your next quote because I'm gonna debunk that retard hold on.
▶ №655320[Quote]
>Copy
holy admin worship cuckfaggot
▶ №655322[Quote]>>655357
>Even the fact that this 'corrupt gumint' would go out of its way to pass an incredibly internationally controversial piece of legislation that allows
Cool story, no refutation though. You’re still appealing to emotion and building a strawman based on your assumption that any law passed = unanimous Islamic consent. That's not logic, try again, retard.
>You obsess over every word…
Still not a counter-argument. You’re crying about formatting and tone like it somehow invalidates the actual substance of my rebuttals. That's a red herring. You're getting bodied by precise logic.
>Read literally any article…
Appeal to anonymous authority fallacy, if it's so obvious, then show me one actual source that links the entire Islamic theological framework to that legislation and not just some authoritarian state's policy. Hitchens' Razor applies here which is what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>If you harped on every inactionable claim…
Random analogy that isn't applicable, I'm not on trial, you're just failing to back your claims. Cope harder.
>You're addicted to saying 'not true Muslims'…
The dumbest attempt at a gotcha yet. You’re mad that Muslims aren’t a monolith and that theology has internal diversity? You’re attacking nuance because it’s inconvenient for your cartoonish narrative. Again: how does this legislation derive from Islamic theology? Still waiting.
>Not relevant to the argument
Because you keep dodging actual theological discussion as you're ranting about politics, culture, and vague trends while avoiding the core question: what makes this law Islamically justified? If you can’t answer that, you’ve got nothing but trying to bring up political frameworks that ALSO; you didnt bring any evidence because you're a retarded racial supremacist.
▶ №655324[Quote]
>>655319Alright thanks for waiting saar.
▶ №655330[Quote]>>655332>>655334
you guys can stop now
▶ №655334[Quote]
>>655330More nuvariants for the soyim!
▶ №655352[Quote]
>>655336Was it you that I was dueling or was it someone else?
▶ №655357[Quote]
>>655322>Cool story, no refutation though. You’re still appealing to emotion and building a strawman based on your assumption that any law passed = unanimous Islamic consent. That's not logic, try again, retard.You're the one appealing to authority by insisting that you cannot extrapolate any meaningful sociological conclusion because it doesn't have a golden stamp of approval from Muslim HQ ™️
>Still not a counter-argument. You’re crying about formatting and tone like it somehow invalidates the actual substance of my rebuttals. That's a red herring. You're getting bodied by precise logic.It's a criticism of your turn of phrase as bad-faith and deliberately obscuring
>Appeal to anonymous authority fallacy, if it's so obvious, then show me one actual source that links the entire Islamic theological framework to that legislation and not just some authoritarian state's policy. Hitchens' Razor applies here which is what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.How about the article I literally sent in this thread? Or were you so insecure about reading the effects of islamic values that you couldn't even bring yourself to read a one page article?
>Random analogy that isn't applicable, I'm not on trial, you're just failing to back your claims. Cope harder.>I'm not on trialThat wasn't the implication with the analogy, and it wouldn't be relevant because I'm using it to criticize your behavior as something considered bad-faith in a more formal circumstance. That's why it's an analogy. The point being that objecting to each and every rhetorical, inactionable claim is characteristic of someone that wants to pad for time to avoid arguing the topic at hand.
>The dumbest attempt at a gotcha yet. You’re mad that Muslims aren’t a monolith and that theology has internal diversity? You’re attacking nuance because it’s inconvenient for your cartoonish narrative. Again: how does this legislation derive from Islamic theology? Still waiting.Having diversity doesn't mean you can't extrapolate a trend from anecdotes about the behavior of muzzie culture and states in recent and distant history. There is no appeal to "islamic theology", only a recognition of the trend of the oppression of religious minority groups by muzzie states in the past.
>Because you keep dodging actual theological discussion as you're ranting about politics, culture, and vague trends while avoiding the core question: what makes this law Islamically justified? If you can’t answer that, you’ve got nothing but trying to bring up political frameworks that ALSO; you didnt bring any evidence because you're a retarded racial supremacist.I'm not "dodging theological discussion", you're dodging sociological discussion by appealing to some central islamic framework or authority and simultaneously saying that authority doesn't exist and therefore knowledge and trends from history can't be extrapolated onto it
▶ №655362[Quote]
Yello?
▶ №655367[Quote]
>You're the one appealing to authority by insisting that you cannot extrapolate any meaningful sociological conclusion because it doesn't have a golden stamp of approval from Muslim HQ
LMAO no, that's not an appeal to authority, that's basic epistemic standards, you made a religious claim about Islam and now you're trying to pivot into sociological trends because you can't justify it within the Islamic framework. Throwing a tantrum after I asked for actual links between a state's actions and its religious justification. That's not an appeal to authority, NOT EVEN THE DEFINITION OF IT, DEFINE IT RQ KEEEEEEEEK.
>It's a criticism of your turn of phrase as bad-faith and deliberately obscuring
You cried about my tone because you can't deal with my arguments when I'm literally dissecting each of your logical failures line by line. Soo ironically you committed a tone policing fallacy and it doesn't change the fact that you still haven't shown how the legislation is inherently Islamic.
>How about the article I literally sent in this thread?
Yeah, one article from one news source with NO empirical evidence btw, talking about one regime doesn't amount to an indictment of an entire theology or global population. Show me the Quranic verse or hadith that justifies this legislation. If your argument is that Islam promotes it, then prove that Islam promotes it, not that some corrupt state with Muslims in it did something contradictory.
>That wasn't the implication with the analogy
Then your analogy is ass. You're trying to call me bad-faith for demanding standards of evidence? GEEEEEEEEEEEG, you have BARELY any proof, and have just been saying unevidenced assumptions THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION
> There is no appeal to 'Islamic theology', only a recognition of the trend…
So now we’re shifting the goalpost from Islamic justification to cultural trends (that you presupposed even though the POLITICAL FRAMEWORK is the one promoting it). Make up your mind are you attacking Islam as a theology or airing your frustration about geopolitical patterns? Because if it’s the latter, then it's a socio-political one, and your entire anti-Islam rrhetoric collapses.
> You're dodging sociological discussion by appealing to some central Islamic framework
You were the one who said the law is Islamically justified. You made it theological. I’m just holding you to it. Now you're retreating to sociology because you realized you can't argue theology for RAISIN.
Also, trends from history aren't evidence of theological causation unless you demonstrate the causal link between doctrine and action. That's what you've consistently failed to do.
▶ №655376[Quote]>>655378
Tie? It's midmight for me, I need to sleep, I have work tommorow.
▶ №655378[Quote]>>655380
>>655376We gotta make it the longest duel of your career.
▶ №655386[Quote]
Warrior 'p lost, islam lost
▶ №655395[Quote]
Body too long.
>LMAO no, that's not an appeal to authority, that's basic epistemic standards, you made a religious claim about Islam and now you're trying to pivot into sociological trends because you can't justify it within the Islamic framework. Throwing a tantrum after I asked for actual links between a state's actions and its religious justification. That's not an appeal to authority, NOT EVEN THE DEFINITION OF IT, DEFINE IT RQ KEEEEEEEEK.
There's not "pivot" to sociological trends, I said literally at the beginning of this argument that I was talking about what muzzies believe, which you can extrapolate from the behavior of muzzie cultures and states in history. You're DESPERATELY trying to claw your way back to some cope bible maths where you arbitrarily claim you have more authority and capability to interpret and evaluate the validity of ancient historical texts than both the entire historical consensus, and the vast majority of muslim scholars.
>You cried about my tone because you can't deal with my arguments when I'm literally dissecting each of your logical failures line by line. Soo ironically you committed a tone policing fallacy and it doesn't change the fact that you still haven't shown how the legislation is inherently Islamic.
You're the one crying about my rhetoric and whining about fallacies because you don't want to talk about how the ISLAMIST part of the iraq government passed child marriage legislation with the stated goal of returning to ISLAMIC values.
>Yeah, one article from one news source with NO empirical evidence btw, talking about one regime doesn't amount to an indictment of an entire theology or global population. Show me the Quranic verse or hadith that justifies this legislation. If your argument is that Islam promotes it, then prove that Islam promotes it, not that some corrupt state with Muslims in it did something contradictory.
It's a report of statements from political actors within iraq, retard, not a scientific journal about the manufacturing of liposomes. There are no tables and figures. You are absolutely grasping at straws. Nobody said one anecdote condemns a global population, but anecdote after anecdote does for sociological matters. Islam promotes child marriage, the mechanism is not through some quranic verse, but through the behavior of islamic institutions and states over history that perpetuates harm to children as a fundamental tenant of the religion. That's why I'm bringing up ancedotes like iraq's child marriage legislation, saudi arabia and other states' poor and late sexual law, etc.
Arbitrarily claiming that what iraq is doing is contradictory doesn't mean anything because A. I believe pisslam is contradictory anyway and B. it isn't relevant considering i don't care about your constructed idea of some ideal islamic law, I care about what MUSLIMS are doing and have been doing throughout history
>Then your analogy is ass. You're trying to call me bad-faith for demanding standards of evidence? GEEEEEEEEEEEG, you have BARELY any proof, and have just been saying unevidenced assumptions THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION
I'm calling you bad faith for saying
>SOUUURCEE???!?!?! WHERE'S THE SOURCERINOOO???
Everytime I call you a retard
▶ №655396[Quote]
>So now we’re shifting the goalpost from Islamic justification to cultural trends (that you presupposed even though the POLITICAL FRAMEWORK is the one promoting it). Make up your mind are you attacking Islam as a theology or airing your frustration about geopolitical patterns? Because if it’s the latter, then it's a socio-political one, and your entire anti-Islam rrhetoric collapses.
1. It's not relevant. I don't need to look inside and find a duck liver to convince myself it's a duck, I just look at what the duck's doing.
2. You're not interested in viewing the history of islamic decisions on the matter because you just handwave it away as "not real islam", so even this objection from its foundation is bad faith
>You were the one who said the law is Islamically justified. You made it theological. I’m just holding you to it. Now you're retreating to sociology because you realized you can't argue theology for RAISIN.
You're lying. You keep lying because you are afraid of talking about the effects of pisslamist ideology. This argument from the beginning has been about condemning the common beliefs of muzzies and their effects on the world today and in history, not about whether or not they comport with your personal disney-brand version of pisslam. I'm saying the proponents of the child marriage legislation themselves consider it islamically justified, and I'm using that as a part of the evidence of the effects and islamic culture.
Claim that I'm directly reliant on some real islamic justification (that you want to obsess over) one more time if you admit that you're bad faith
>Also, trends from history aren't evidence of theological causation unless you demonstrate the causal link between doctrine and action. That's what you've consistently failed to do.
The causal link between doctrine and action is an interpretation of the detailing of the like of maphammad of having raped a child as authentic verifiable sunni narration in conjunction with the qurans command to emulate maphammad, causing an policy of child sexual exploitation as justified by god. That's the causal link, it's quite obvious, I don't care if you want to arbitrarily claim with your limitless authority and qualifications that those narrations aren't authentic, because it isn't relevant to the argument.
▶ №655399[Quote]>>655403
Kek it took xher half an hour to write all these claims that don't address the argument. Watch me debunk it shortly.
▶ №655403[Quote]
>>655399Was busy talking with my muslimah side ho
▶ №655413[Quote]
HOLY SHIT HURRY I HAVE TO LEAVE IN LIKE 5 MINUTES
▶ №655414[Quote]>>655417
FUCKING SLOW TYPING MUTT IMMIGRANT RAPEFUGEE NIGGER
▶ №655415[Quote]>>655421
>There's not 'pivot' to sociological trends, I said literally at the beginning of this argument that I was talking about what muzzies believe…Then why the hell did you say the law was
Islamically justified? If your point was just "look at what Muslims do," then your own words contradict that. You moved from a claim of theological justification to cultural trend because I cornered you on it. That’s a textbook goalpost shift, bitch. Pick a topic or admit you lost both. Also, you keep talking about "extrapolating from culture" while admitting Muslims aren’t a monolith, and then blame me for wanting accuracy. Religion based on what people who CLAIM they follow it loosely do crap that contradict it is like saying Christianity promotes imperialism because of the British Empire.
>You’re desperately trying to claw your way back to some cope Bible maths where you arbitrarily claim you have more authority than Muslim scholars…”Yeah, that’s what we call a strawman. I never claimed I’m the authority, I’m asking you to show the theological link you said exists. And now you’re the one trying to dodge it by saying you don’t care about the theology anymore. So again: if you’re gonna cry that Islam justifies this law, then don’t backpedal into
<muh sociologyThe moment you're asked for receipts.
>You're the one crying about my rhetoric…”You have no rhetoric and I bet 200 dollars you wouldn't have any jabs in VC at all because you'd get cucked down HARDER. I'm pointing out how you keep leaning on tone and vibes instead of making a point. I debunk you line-by-line, and you go
<STOP CALINK OUT MY FALLACIES SAAR YA KUCH AUR I WILL JERK MY TINY JEET PECKER ON MUSLIMAHinstead of defending your argument. That’s not rhetoric.
>It’s a report of statements from political actorsExactly. It’s a political action, not a religious one. You said Islam theologically justifies child marriage. You can’t now say "well, actually it’s just politics" and still act like it indicts the religion. The burden of proof is on you to connect the religion to the law.
>Islam promotes child marriage not through a verse, but through behavior of Islamic institutionsYou just admitted it’s not doctrinal. Thank you for confirming your entire argument is based on guilt by association. You're not arguing against Islam, you're arguing against how certain states interpret or misapply it which you could do with literally any religion or ideology. This is just a lazy generalization fallacy wrapped in 4cuck retardation.
>I don’t care about your constructed idea of ideal Islamic lawThen you’re not arguing theology at all kek, which again means you’ve conceded the point. Your original claim was that Islam justifies child marriage. If you’re now saying "I don’t care what Islam says," then W concessions.
>You keep asking for SOURCERINO I’m calling you bad faith!As if asking for sources are bad, KEEEEEEEEEEK low IQ mutt. You made claims, and now you’re mad I didn’t just nod and agree with your low-IQ reddit-tier hot takes.
>It’s not relevant. I don’t need to look inside and find a duck liver to convince myself it’s a duckThat is just disanalogous kek, the duck isn't the Islamic doctrine, when you've shown is that some corrupt governments say they’re Islamic even though that doesn't make it true just because they say so.
>I'm saying the proponents of the legislation themselves consider it Islamically justified…3And I asked you to show how that justification tracks within Islamic doctrine, not just that someone claims it. You’re making a motivation fallacy which is claiming someone's rationalization proves your point.
>The causal link is the hadith about AishaDebunked:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MiupfAM3Sb5GNC9HkP58MbhYUQe2JW38-W9QuZ9e2o8/edit?tab=t.0Try again, jeet?
Even the majority of modern Islamic scholars reject child marriage based on Qur'anic criteria and by the way, this doc is based off of multiple Islamic books made by the most reliable scholars and historians.
>Also I was talking with my Muslimah side hoeThanks for proving you’re just here to bait and screech.
▶ №655420[Quote]>>655423
i dont really like you warrior-z but you put a lot of dedication into debates and that makes you gemmy
▶ №655421[Quote]>>655423
>>655415Literally nowhere in this thread am i justifying an interpretation of pisslam that supports the conclusion that child marriage is good, I'm explaining what the vast majority of muzzies throughout history have interpreted, the reason why they think that, and it's negative effects.
You're boxing with shadows, I'll give you time to re-read the thread while I'm driving
▶ №655423[Quote]>>655501
>>655420Then you're gemmy as well.
>>655421>Literally nowhere in this thread am I justifying an interpretation of pisslam that supports the conclusion that child marriage is good…FALSENVKE
You literally said earlier
>Islam promotes child marriage>I'm saying the proponents of the child marriage legislation themselves consider it islamically justified>The causal link is the hadith about maphammad raping a childin conjunction with the Quran's command to emulate himThe amount of times you just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole is insane, you’re either lying now, or lying then.
So I'm gonna consider your CURRENT position either way:
>I'm just explaining what the vast majority of muzzies throughout history have interpreted… So now it’s not about Islamic doctrine, it’s about historical interpretation? Okay, fine. Then the only thing tyou're actually arguing is: Some Muslims in history believed something bad.Cool. That’s true for literally every religion, every political system, and every culture in existence. Congrats, most lukewarm take I've heard today. When I challenged you to show how Islam doctrinally justifies child marriage, you tried to force a theological cause-effect using Aisha’s marriage and Quranic emulation of Muhammad PBUH. So yeah dude you're baked.
▶ №655455[Quote]>>655456
Took too long to respond, I'll check the thread tomorrow.
▶ №655459[Quote]
evdoe xhey all goon to slopjaks on der 'ru
▶ №655501[Quote]
>>655423>FALSENVKE>You literally said earlier>>Islam promotes child marriageIf you're prepared to call the vast majority of muzzie states throughout history, not muslim, then that would be incorrect
You're yet again deliberately misinterpreting my argument
>>I'm just explaining what the vast majority of muzzies throughout history have interpreted… So now it’s not about Islamic doctrine, it’s about historical interpretation? Okay, fine. Then the only thing tyou're actually arguing is: Some Muslims in history believed something bad.It is about islamic doctrine, just not your idealized RETCONing of islam.
I'm arguing that the vast majority of muslims throughout history believed in a set of facts that drove them to ritualize and institutionalize the harm of children, the influence which still effects the world today, and is still perpetuated and affirmed by the vast majority of muzzie scholars and religious leaders in the world.
This is without a doubt the most obvious, simple interpretation of the history of pisslam that will be affirmed by any secular historian and sociologist.
You're not out deconstructing the motivations and justifications for child marriage in the islamic community (not that you're qualified to do that anyway), you're shilling for pisslam, saying iraq's legislation is a nothingburger, telling people not to care, because you're fundamentally every other muzzie rapefugee NPC: you want to defend your "group" and handwave all criticism as "not true pisslam", and then simultaneously justifying and encouraging immoral behavior committed by your friends back home (i.e. free palpatine people).
You're an asset to child abuse
