Larztheloser is a troll

To start my argument out this round let me begin with a conversation on just what my ‘rights’ are and your rights larztheloser and the rights of anyone reading this debate or for that matter not reading this debate. I have every ‘right’ to post a gut call that think you’re were the troll, I have every right to say you let your emotions override your better judgments when voting on one of my last debates causing to vote bomb against me. I have every right to say I think you are an idiot, oversensitive, psychotic. As far as my rights to freedom of speech goes I could post that I think you suffer from this . http://en.wikipedia.org... Having facts or data is not a prerequisite to enable my ‘rights’ to free speech. I simply have that right to start with I do not have to earn it. What I do NOT have an inherent right to is for people to take what I say seriously, my gut calls, without evidence. And that is better censorship mechanics than anything the government wants to enact with SOPA. You seem to think it should stop me from posting something because there is no need of posting that particular something. If I applied that logic to everything I would never post I don’t even ‘need’ to be a member of this sight. It is my hope that one day we all will learn to do more than just what we have to do. You seem to think it should stop me from posting because it personally offends you. If I applied that logic to everything I would never post because on this sight you are inevitably always going to be offending somebody. While I cant control whether or not you take rational due personal offense to something I post, I can control whether or not I pander to your sensitive ego, which is all that would be accomplished by ‘retracting’ my statements. Sometimes I have gut notions about what might be going on, and even those gut notions can be wrong its still good for me to post them. This provides people who play the mafia games with me some background for knowing how seriously to take my ‘gut-calls’ in mafia games and what inevitably is a factor when they are wrong. Or even bases for seeing the ‘improvement’ of my gut calls overtime. Anyway, not that we have dealt with this ridiculous inference that I lack the ‘rights’ to post anything I fancy at all, let us press on… You still don’t understand the whole point of the ‘combining’ of the coincidences. You suggest that because they mean nothing apart they must logically mean nothing put together. That simply is not true, and not just with this debate but any topic of interest (particularly conspiracy theories). Standing close to a piece of art you may see nothing but the paint that means nothing by itself but step back and you will see the formation of the whole bigger pitcher. That is why I press on with making a point of not retracting any statements because that is what this whole debate is about. You have put me in a position to be defending the basic principal behind sniffing out any and all conspiracies out there. It may mean nothing that the sound barrio was broke shortly after the ‘weather balloon crash’ in Roswell New Mexico, but it does start to mean something when you combine considering that with all the other numerous technological advances that happened right after that crash. It may not mean anything when a single or a just a few individuals report they saw bigfoot, it does start to form a pattern though when almost half of the American population say they have seen bigfoot or know someone who has. Something’s going on with the UFO cases or the bigfoot sighting, what I will leave up to you for this debate is not on those specific topics, but basis of those kind of topics in general. It matters to a rational mind when things, even if meaningless independently, form a pitcher together. A rational person should start forming a conspiracy theory in there head when they see a troll degrading a debate by excepting it at the same time as some other member attacking it as ‘warped and twisted’ in the comment section. A rational person would get even more suspicious when that conspiracy theory, being based on theorizing a member who does not want to be associated with the shame of troll killing a debate would secretly multi-account to troll kill, said suspect proves the first half of that theory right away, that he does not want to associated with troll killing a debate, so much even that he will not let one barely notable post that no big deal was being made about. But like I said I admit I cant prove the second half of that theory nor can my opponent prove against it. Any ‘evidence’ provided for it would either be guesswork toward another mans psychology from soulless internet post or from just taking his word (not exactly rational and sometimes dangerous over the internet) On a final note I would like to point out the self-righteous hypocrisy of my opponent if any of you reading this debate are emotionally feeling sorry for him wanting to be on his side at this point. While he says I should not be posting unnecessary things that could ‘offend’ him personally he had no problem himself personally insulting me calling my mind ‘warped’ a purely derogatory statement that HE SLANDERED ME with long before I even acknowledged his existence on this website. One of which he does not retract even now. He is in no position to be telling me or any of you what is or is not ‘nice’ to post or what we should or should not ‘retract’ and say ‘I take it back’.