Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

Here are some more rebuttals. 1. "I did indeed click the incited link, and it is you who also didn't click MY link, as you can see, if you look up the roast game, with out typing Bryan mullins, you just get nothing about your theory. because it is no longer noticed by the public, which means it is unproven and forgotten, people notice proved theories, You want a new argument? answer me this, if children got eaten, where are their bodies?, you see, you misunderstood me when I said "is there any proof" instead, you thought I said "does anyone else believe it" because just a few more people believing the theory does not mean it is proved true" Your link is irrelevant, without spelling my name is completely ignoring the fact, which you made an irrelevant argument. You are completely missing the point. My name has to be searched in with it, in order to see it. If you purposely chose not to put my name with it, you are just missing the point. You still didn't make a new argument. You still go by the old burden of proof argument. You made an irrelevant argument at the end of the quote saying something I never said. You can't claim I said something when I clearly didn't say that. The question seems irrelevant, because first of all, you did not give me a new argument, it still abides by the old burden of proof argument you're trying to push; Second, they get rid of the evidence of the bodies, if they haven't, they would've linked the entire family to the crime, then arrest the family. I'm not saying that they leave dead bodies behind. All in all, this was just another desperate attempt to push the old burden of proof argument again. 2. "and that's what I want, evidence. real proof that parents eat their kids, are their any skeletons? dead bodies? arrested parents who have consumed said child? I have asked you this throughout this debate, and you still haven't given me an answer. it would seem that you are using the word "misrepresent" to try and twist my arguments, and adding new "facts" to your theory to make me think I got it all wrong. In the wikia, it says that "if they freak out, they are guilty" no, they are freaking out because some random dude is asking if they are eating their own child" They get rid of the evidence, as explained in this video: https://m.youtube.com... This is a poor argument, asking all these pointless questions, and using the same old burden of proof argument that doesn't work anymore. They freak out because they don't want to be caught or arrested by police. Where does it say that if they freak out, they are guilty? You misrepresented the wikia page. Now you misrepresented three things now, my first argument, my link to the google search (includes my name), and now, the wikia page. If you can't seem to make a legit argument, give me a reason not to give me a legit argument. I'm not twisting any of your arguments, you're twisting mine, trying to make my arguments seem false and wrong by using the same old debunked burden of proof argument, and completely ignoring my link (by hypocritically made your own link). Your arguments are useless now. 3. "Except the person who typed this, showed no proof in this paragraph, he/she was just spouting some theory with no physical evidence to back it up. in the end, your not going anywhere in this debate, your just repeating the same thing over and over, and you just confessed you used website you made as a source, making it false. Finally, it would seem that in the wikia, your the only one who made the pages, this is reason to believe you have few, if not zero, fellow members, this contradicts your "everyone is talking about it" statement." You are completely missing the point, as I mentioned before, the burden of proof argument you're desperately trying to push has been debunked. If you can't seem to use something else, give up. You can't just basically repeat yourself, and not prove anything wrong. Next argument, Con.