Reasoned Argument; Petty Insult

Given the propensity for intelligent individuals with varying perspectives to develop opinions and ideas which may differ on key levels, and combining that with the inevitably of those views coming to light and remaining at odds with one other, it is appropriate for there to be a space designated specifically to hold such conflicts as well as the frustrations produced, ya dipshit.

In this thread it is expected that reasonable, intelligent discourse over a variety of topics will be held, with each argument coupled with a juxtaposing and potentially humorous insult - you dimwitted dog pluckers.

Of course, while the actual argument and content within should be taken very seriously, the trailing jab should not, and should never be a legitimate or earnest attack, fartface.

In effect, the insult should mostly serve to lighten the mood, and while continued and combined insults may be thrown between two consenting orators (and such an exchange is highly encouraged) the entire exchange should be universally recognized as little more than a humorous exercise and should immediately cease if it becomes anything more serious than that. You smell like butts.

While the topic may change at any time, and anyone is welcome to introduce their own focus of discussion, I will start off the conversation with the following prompt:

"The virtues and vices of space exploration. Your fingers are stubby."

I now concede the floor to the next poster, who's mama is so fat.

This sounds like an interesting concept, FOUR-EYES.

I agree with the pervo shithead above me. This seems like an excellent opportunity.

If you're a TOTAL ASSHOLE maybe.

(or me, i'm not an asshole)

(jerks)

Posting this here instead of gen-chat because that thread shouldn't stay too serious for too long, square-face!

I've never liked the term "throw away vote". As if your vote is any less meaningful when pooled against thousands of other voters. You lemming.

Voting is one of the most basic forms of political expression; how you vote correlates to how you feel and what you believe about critical issues. Yet voting third party, or simply voting for someone who publicly supports your views, has the potential to be a much more powerful indicator. To an outside observer, your vote may still be just a statistic, but it would be much more meaningful personally. Unless you're a heartless husk, yeah you!

Presidental politics are always presented in a bite-sized fashion. It's designed to be easy - pick one or the other. You can base your vote on whatever you'd like, on as much thought or as little thought as you'd want. There's nothing critically wrong with that (though I would enjoy seeing a greater candidate diversity in the general election), but it's the idea that doing anything other than either-or is simply a waste that seems to stem from that system which bothers me. So shut your stupid face!

I'm pleased to say my first vote ever in presidential elections is going to a woman. I really hope she wins 'cause she's the least worst.

Posting this here instead of gen-chat because that thread shouldn't stay too serious for too long, square-face!

I've never liked the term "throw away vote". As if your vote is any less meaningful when pooled against thousands of other voters. You lemming.

Voting is one of the most basic forms of political expression; how you vote correlates to how you feel and what you believe about critical issues. Yet voting third party, or simply voting for someone who publicly supports your views, has the potential to be a much more powerful indicator. To an outside observer, your vote may still be just a statistic, but it would be much more meaningful personally. Unless you're a heartless husk, yeah you!

Presidental politics are always presented in a bite-sized fashion. It's designed to be easy - pick one or the other. You can base your vote on whatever you'd like, on as much thought or as little thought as you'd want. There's nothing critically wrong with that (though I would enjoy seeing a greater candidate diversity in the general election), but it's the idea that doing anything other than either-or is simply a waste that seems to stem from that system which bothers me. So shut your stupid face!

You moron, if you vote for a third party candidate over your more-likely-to-win preference, you and many others like you have split the vote of the likely-to-win candidate's into two sources and often, this leads the candidate that most people DIDN'T want winning. It may not be an ideal situation, but it's the parameters in which we have to work, so get your head out the clouds and also your ass.

While your argument is valid, it only applies for a specific situation: when you absolutely do not want a particular candidate to take office, dumbo.

This is often the argument put forth by opposing candidates. "If the other guy is elected, terrible things will happen." (though you probably deserve it.)

That argument is meant to cater towards the fear motivator in voting. It breaks down when you really look at the details. For instance, the US is structured in such a way that a bad president cant ruin the country (and conversely, that a good president can't aid it much). But not only that, individuals who are not qualified for the presidency rarely make the final two. Both candidates are completely capable of preventing national disasters and keeping the ship afloat. (despite of all your rampant obesity problems draining our economy! Health/finance burn!)

If neither candidate appeals to you, but neither seems horrible, then you are free to vote however you'd like! Express yourself and your politics! You mindless vote-monger.