The War Room Bet Thread V3

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage came very close to calling you a can.

I felt the need to stand up for you.

Polish is a great poster, and you know that I hold him in very high regard.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Could you quote the post of Cubo's that led you to believe that Cubo was claiming that Warren claimed to be "full-blooded" Native American?

I don't see one in his response.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You can't even say what I lied about. Meanwhile, you were busted red-handed lying about my own claim on multiple occasions. You should probably just delete your account.

It's like the Twilight Zone with you. What a brutal self-own. I did indeed say what I'm accusing you of lying about. Here it is again. The statement in the parentheses is what I'm challenging. Do you see?

In context, yes. The statement is that that was the extent of her claim (as opposed to you falsely suggesting that she claimed to be full-blooded NA).

Oh the irony of your second sentence. Doing exactly what the first sentence falsely criticizes me for (i.e. not even saying what I supposedly lied about).

In that third sentence you originally posted that I should kill myself? Gotta say that puts a smile on my face. Not sure I've ever elicited anything around here as "gotten to" before.





So how about that bet?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I bet I could beat @Jack V Savage in a debate over whether this statement he made is true regarding Elizabeth Warren.

True statements like Warren only claimed to have a distant NA ancestor.

Jack says that statement is true and I say it's false.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's like the Twilight Zone with you. What a brutal self-own. I did indeed say what I'm accusing you of lying about. Here it is again. The statement in the parentheses is what I'm challenging. Do you see?



Oh the irony of your second sentence. Doing exactly what the first sentence falsely criticizes me for (i.e. not even saying what I supposedly lied about).

In that third sentence you originally posted that I should kill myself? Gotta say that puts a smile on my face. Not sure I've ever elicited anything around here as "gotten to" before.

So how about that bet?

I still believe you should. That you are happy that other people don't respect you just reinforces my belief about your fundamental worthlessness.

You've conceded the point under dispute, and at this point all you have left is lying, isn't it?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I still believe you should. That you are happy that other people don't respect you just reinforces my belief about your fundamental worthlessness.

You've conceded the point under dispute, and at this point all you have left is lying, isn't it?

Tuck that dick.

 

[Lead]

@Clippy

The end has no end

 

[Clippy]

@Clippy

The end has no end

The end has no end

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@Clippy

The end has no end

This thread is for putting up or shutting up, yeah? Based on Jack's meltdown, it looks like it's ending.

 

[Lead]

The end has no end

This thread is for putting up or shutting up, yeah? Based on Jack's meltdown, it looks like it's ending.

The end has no end

 

[Clippy]

The end has no end

The end has no end

 

[Jack V Savage]

This thread is for putting up or shutting up, yeah? Based on Jack's meltdown, it looks like it's ending.

There's no meltdown on my end. As far as I'm concerned, the substantive discussion ended when you conceded my point (and then denied ever arguing against it).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There's no meltdown on my end. As far as I'm concerned, the substantive discussion ended when you conceded my point (and then denied ever arguing against it).

I'm offering you sure wins and you're not taking them? You're the guy who called me a coward for not responding to one of your posts. What do you call not taking a bet over debates you claim to have already irrefutably won? Prudent?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm offering you sure wins and you're not taking them? You're the guy who called me a coward for not responding to one of your posts. What do you call not taking a bet over debates you claim to have already irrefutably won? Prudent?

It's stupid, though. The bets are all about the future. You're just betting on being bailed out by tribalism.

Again, you already conceded that I was right and then made up a new position and gave it to me so you could keep arguing.

 

[Lead]

There's no meltdown on my end. As far as I'm concerned, the substantive discussion ended when you conceded my point (and then denied ever arguing against it).

I'm offering you sure wins and you're not taking them? You're the guy who called me a coward for not responding to one of your posts. What do you call not taking a bet over debates you claim to have already irrefutably won? Prudent?

Can I just be clear here that I don't believe a bet about what was said by who isn't going to help this argument at all. You'd just be choosing an arbiter to pick a side that I doubt either of you would then change your mind on your stance.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Can I just be clear here that I don't believe a bet about what was said by who isn't going to help this argument at all. You'd just be choosing an arbiter to pick a side that I doubt either of you would then change your mind on your stance.

You seem to be implying some insurmountable ambiguity. It's not that hard. He pulls in the part of the conversation where he asserts I said Warren claimed to be full blood NA and I offer my words of dispute. Three judges decide if my words reach that standard, based on the most reasonable interpretation of word meanings (i.e. not something vague that could possibly be misconstrued because multiple interpretations could be argued). Someone wins and someone loses. Changing minds doesn't factor in.

 

[Lead]

You seem to be implying some insurmountable ambiguity. It's not that hard. He pulls in the part of the conversation where he asserts I said Warren claimed to be full blood NA and I offer my words of dispute. Three judges decide if my words reach that standard, based on the most reasonable interpretation of word meanings (i.e. not something vague that could possibly be misconstrued because multiple interpretations could be argued). Someone wins and someone loses. Changing minds doesn't factor in.

But I'm saying doing this is just assigning someone to agree or disagree with the evidence presented. The purpose of this thread was always to make sure the bets were locked enough in that the result would be accepted by both parties. The fact you two are talking about a conversation that already has happened in the open and still don't agree means, the result on the bet won't be agreed on. It defeats the purpose someone. These instances have come to this thread before and been turned down too because it turns everything more into a court case rather than a bet. Also, there probably is some nuance to how you could answer the question/proposal of the bet. It all just isn't solid enough.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The fact you two are talking about a conversation that already has happened in the open and still don't agree means, the result on the bet won't be agreed on.

That's not true at all. The result will be a fact, based on math. It's certainly true that someone won't like the result and that's fine.

I want to bet that Jack can't convince an agreed upon three member jury that I posted something most reasonably interpreted as me claiming Warren claimed to be full blood NA.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It all just isn't solid enough.

You know what, dude. Don't sweat it. Jack dick tucking is satisfying enough. Post #571 is a complete embarrassment of a response. Instead of simply declining the dude went off the deep end by telling me to kill myself.

Victory isn't always in the battle. Mostly it's in the other side backing down from the challenge.

 

[HereticBD]

If we've learned anything today, its that @Jack V Savage has clearly been dishonorably misrepresenting himself as the "nicest guy on Sherdog".