Cultcow Mikemikev / Michael Coombs / Twinkle Toes / Velcro Pants - Pedo Teacher and Neo-Nazi, Advocate of Child Murder, Secret JewMuslim ANTIFA, A-Logs Null Constantly

[Mikemikev]

Nothing you just said here has proven that Jews are involved with a declined birthrate of any kind, which is the task I have thrust upon you. A rhetorical question does not count as evidence.

Describe how, in your own words, in intricate detail, the Jews are forcing the birthrate to decline.

I'm constructing an argument so I'd like to go through it point by point, rather than have you dismiss the premises. Answer the question.

The whole story of Jewish propaganda based attacks on White nations is huge.

I'm just going over one small part with you.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The whole story of Jewish propaganda based attacks on White nations is huge.

What a shit excuse. You're fully willing to sit here and stalk your own thread from your job day by day but when you're brought to task, when you're given the opportunity to make your case, you pussy out.

By the way, the notion of the Jewish using propaganda to "attack" Caucasians is a pretty fucking milktoast and ineffective method of exterminating a race.

 

[Mikemikev]

What a shit excuse. You're fully willing to sit here and stalk your own thread from your job day by day but when you're brought to task, when you're given the opportunity to make your case, you pussy out.

By the way, the notion of the Jewish using propaganda to "attack" Caucasians is a pretty fucking milktoast and ineffective method of exterminating a race.

Obviously you were going to deny any evidence put before you. If you can't accept simple facts such as disproportionate Jewish involvement in New Labour immigration policy, what's the point making a longer case? I haven't pussied out at all. I presented one fact of thousands from which such a case would need to be made, and as expected you simply ignored it and declared yourself the winner.

Net immigration to the UK under Jew Labour.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Obviously you were going to deny any evidence put before you.

Rich coming from the person who denied the evidence presented by @Vitriol that the Holocaust, did, in fact, happen.

I presented one fact of thousands from which such a case would need to be made

You didn't present any facts at all, you asked a rhetorical question. You were merely attempting to steer the narrative in your favor by leading the debate.

Net immigration to the UK under Jew Labour.

What the fuck is this shit? In what way does this prove that the Jews want to exterminate Caucasians?

 

[Mikemikev]

Rich coming from the person who denied the evidence presented by @Vitriol that the Holocaust, did, in fact, happen.

You didn't present any facts at all, you asked a rhetorical question. You were merely attempting to steer the narrative in your favor by leading the debate.

What the fuck is this shit? In what way does this prove that the Jews want to exterminate Caucasians?

I asked whether you accept a disproportionate Jewish involvement in New Labour immigration policy. Do you? If not why not? We have to establish the facts. There are going to be a lot of facts.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I asked whether you accept a disproportionate Jewish involvement

That's a rhetorical question, not evidence.

 

[Luminous Being]

I asked whether you accept a disproportionate Jewish involvement in New Labour immigration policy. Do you? If not why not? We have to establish the facts. There are going to be a lot of facts.

You make a claim by saying the Jews are heavily involved in immigration policies. The onus to provide factual evidence supporting your claim is on you.

Youa re not establishing any facts by posting an unlabeled graph that, for all intents and ourposes, could show information on how many éclairs the average human eats every year over a period of almost two decades.

You're bad at this.

 

[Mikemikev]

That's a rhetorical question, not evidence.

If it's rhetorical then it's something which is not in dispute. And therefore evidence.

 

[Alberto Balsalm]

If it's rhetorical then it's something which is not in dispute. And therefore evidence.

Okay. Why are you so retarded?

 

[Mikemikev]

You make a claim by saying the Jews are heavily involved in immigration policies. The onus to provide factual evidence supporting your claim is on you.

Youa re not establishing any facts by posting an unlabeled graph that, for all intents and ourposes, could show information on how many éclairs the average human eats every year over a period of almost two decades.

You're bad at this.

I'm not doing any of the things you accuse me of and you're just being an obtuse prick.

 

[Luminous Being]

I'm not doing any of the things you accuse me of and you're just being an obtuse prick.

simple facts such as disproportionate Jewish involvement in New Labour immigration policy

Try again.

 

[Autphag]

So I'm here, as my fabled presence was foretold. Mike, I'm not going to read pages and pages of your doggerel. Name your debate topic anew. Cheers.

 

[Mikemikev]

Since my opponent has accepted Jewish involvement in New Labour immigration policy by calling it rhetorical, next I would ask whether the same was the case for the 1965 immigration law in the US, and who the principle architects of that act were.

 

[Adamska]

Since my opponent has accepted Jewish involvement in New Labour immigration policy by calling it rhetorical, next I would ask whether the same was the case for the 1965 immigration law in the US, and who the principle architects of that act were.

That's not what rhetorical means bro. It means you tried to make a statement and assertion by using a question. You have not provided any evidence on the matter, and thus you are still not even at point one, how the hymies are exterminating culture by somehow making them not fuck. The closest you managed to do is pull an unsourced bar graph you claim is about immigration (which you never ever bothered to explain how it meshes with what you are trying to prove) that I could shit out in Microsoft Excel. Actually worse than that, since you don't even have titles and the like to denote what it means or link to the source data.

The best part is I can tell quite easily you know you don't have a case with how closed you are on sources and how you try to weasel out of reading anything that disproves it.

 

[Mikemikev]

That's not what rhetorical means bro. It means you tried to make a statement and assertion by using a question. You have not provided any evidence on the matter, and thus you are still not even at point one, how the hymies are exterminating culture by somehow making them not fuck. The closest you managed to do is pull an unsourced bar graph you claim is about immigration (which you never ever bothered to explain how it meshes with what you are trying to prove) that I could shit out in Microsoft Excel. Actually worse than that, since you don't even have titles and the like to denote what it means or link to the source data.

The best part is I can tell quite easily you know you don't have a case with how closed you are on sources and how you try to weasel out of reading anything that disproves it.

I simply asked whether he accepted a fact and rather than answer he called the question rhetorical. Obviously he's just being an obtuse asshole. All I'm really doing is clarifying beyond any doubt that this is a forum of assholes.

 

[Luminous Being]

I simply asked whether he accepted a fact and rather than answer he called the question rhetorical. Obviously he's just being an obtuse asshole. All I'm really doing is clarifying beyond any doubt that this is a forum of assholes.

Again you say you are asserting facts without having provided any evidence that would make them appear as such.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

If it's rhetorical then it's something which is not in dispute. And therefore evidence.

No, it means to ask a question expecting there to be no answer as the answer is implied. It's a method of persuasion.

Aren't you supposed to be college educated? What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Adamska]

I simply asked whether he accepted a fact and rather than answer he called the question rhetorical. Obviously he's just being an obtuse asshole. All I'm really doing is clarifying beyond any doubt that this is a forum of assholes.

Said the willfully ignorant and dishonest man who knows he has no case.

Because again you use the term fact, which means a proven quality. You have yet to demonstrate or get into why this is a proven quality so ergo he doesn't have to give a shit until you at least shart out some elements to back up the assertion you're making with that rhetorical question.

I'd comment that you also still use an improper definition of the terms rhetoric and rhetorical, but @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid did that for me.

Hell, lemme give you a low hanger and try to build from there: start with the founding population of most Socialist parties.

 

[Mikemikev]

Obviously you morons are just being obtuse. But I find it funny you spill so much ink on nonsense.

"Do you accept a fact" is a prelude to demonstrating a fact. The answer is requested not implied.

"Do you accept disproportionate Jewish involvement in New Labour immigration policy" is not a rhetorical question.

But then you know that and you're just being an asshole, on your forum full of assholes.

I think it really goes go show just how clear the crimes of Jewish anti Whites are when people cannot discuss the issue with even a modicum of integrity.

 

[Adamska]

Obviously you morons are just being obtuse. But I find it funny you spill so much ink on nonsense.

"Do you accept a fact" is a prelude to demonstrating a fact. The answer is requested not implied.

"Do you accept disproportionate Jewish involvement in New Labour immigration policy" is not a rhetorical question.

But then you know that and you're just being an asshole, on your forum full of assholes.

How dare we demand sources and reasons as well as the initial assertion. Hell, I even gave you a freebie to play with for this apologia and you reply with sobbing since you know you have nothing.

I think it really goes go show just how clear the crimes of Jewish anti Whites are when people cannot discuss the issue with even a modicum of integrity.

Said the man who provides generic graphs and misuses words on purpose because he knows he has no case.