The War Room Bet Thread

[K1levelgrappler]

I'm game.

How about a sig bet? I can change your sig to anything i want as often as i want for a month and you can humiliate me in my sig for a year.

Sounds good, although as I had it originally I would be the one giving up my AV for a year if Hillary croaks before the election. We can switch it to a sig bet though if you'd like or just go straight across one month for one month.

PM me and we'll figure it out.

 

[Quipling]

It birthed this entire thread idea but has yet to meet its full potential. After a few pages. @Fawlty is the only poster among us to have balls. Not only have balls but to whip them out and place them right on the table. We still haven't even had a two way bet yet.

Eh. I've challenged a number of posters to a bet based on positive assertions they've made. All of them have backed down from those assertions, or otherwise clarified them. I don't think I'm the only one.

Please film your reaction when Trump wins on election night.

Bet you he doesn't

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Sounds good, although as I had it originally I would be the one giving up my AV for a year if Hillary croaks before the election. We can switch it to a sig bet though if you'd like or just go straight across one month for one month.

PM me and we'll figure it out.

I think I misread the time limit term of the deal, but we can still do this for sure. PM on the way.

 

[Lead]

Eh. I've challenged a number of posters to a bet based on positive assertions they've made. All of them have backed down from those assertions, or otherwise clarified them. I don't think I'm the only one.


Bet you he doesn't

Oh I know. I was just giving props to fawlty because even before seeing people being cautious on accepting bets, he just threw a one sided bet out there on the first page

 

[Fawlty]

Oh I know. I was just giving props to fawlty because even before seeing people being cautious on accepting bets, he just threw a one sided bet out there on the first page

Which I now regret.

 

[Lead]

Which I now regret.

I didn't mention about how those balls on the table may be getting a hammer to them but it was badass none the less.

You should be happy the bet clearly states trump will be president which means if Clinton does have to step down and another nom steps in, you still have a chance to win it

 

[Lead]

People two weeks ago wouldn't take a 100 electoral point margin bet. That's how much has changed in two weeks.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

People two weeks ago wouldn't take a 100 electoral point margin bet. That's how much has changed in two weeks.

Lol that does put it in perspective, going to be an interesting 7 weeks

 

[Lead]

Lol that does put it in perspective, going to be an interesting 7 weeks

2012 was so boring pre debates. It's crazy thinking how much happened just in August with this race

 

[Fawlty]

People two weeks ago wouldn't take a 100 electoral point margin bet. That's how much has changed in two weeks.

I took Hillary at 363 to 175 a couple weeks ago lol. Right now I see it 306-232, Trump taking Florida and Iowa, but Hillary hanging on in NC and Ohio. Very subject to change obviously. And 306-232 is way closer than it sounds.

 

[Lead]

I took Hillary at 363 to 175 a couple weeks ago lol. Right now I see it 306-232, Trump taking Florida and Iowa, but Hillary hanging on in NC and Ohio. Very subject to change obviously. And 306-232 is way closer than it sounds.

Yea. When I said the 100 margin, I did mention Flordia would be the thing that makes it happen or ruins it. The polls narrowed but the state map still seems to favor her.

 

[lfd0311]

Fuck it, I will quote the bet, just so that anyone following along can see how full of shit you are.

LOL, how exactly am I full of it? You're getting mad that I won't agree to your very narrowly parameterized bet. You don't even want to have a bet on the bulk of the argument, you want to have a bet on semantics, so please, feel free to quote away. Here, I'll just go a step further and post a link to the thread.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/g...-from-debates-potential-game-changer.3307787/

I'm really the one playing games, huh? Nobody else seems to understand what it is you want to bet either.

 

[VivaRevolution]

LOL, how exactly am I full of it? You're getting mad that I won't agree to your very narrowly parameterized bet. You don't even want to have a bet on the bulk of the argument, you want to have a bet on semantics, so please, feel free to quote away. Here, I'll just go a step further and post a link to the thread.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/g...-from-debates-potential-game-changer.3307787/

I'm really the one playing games, huh? Nobody else seems to understand what it is you want to bet either.

The bet is written clearly.

You are coward, that won't shut the fuck up, and also won't take the bet.

 

[lfd0311]

The bet is written clearly.

You are coward, that won't shut the fuck up, and also won't take the bet.

It's not clear. I said that I said that, and you still are determined to have me bet on it, despite me clarifying what I said. You still won't back off of that. Yet I'm the coward. LOL. Because you know you can't win a bet based on the body of the argument. Only on isolated semantics. Do you know why? Because you're a child.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It's not clear. I said that I said that, and you still are determined to have me bet on it, despite me clarifying what I said. You still won't back off of that. Yet I'm the coward. LOL. Because you know you can't win a bet based on the body of the argument. Only on isolated semantics. Do you know why? Because you're a child.

Of course you admitted to saying it, how would you deny something that could be quoted?

What you won't admit to is that these are not equivalent statements you made, or the absurdity of claiming men = soldiers, because of some obscure use of the word, or at the very least, not the common use of the word.

You call Zinn a liar, and yet don't hold yourself to the same standard of lying you hold Zinn to.

Zinn tells half truths so he is a liar. lfd0311 tells half truths and HRG is being unfair in calling him a liar.

 

[lfd0311]

Of course you admitted to saying it, how would you deny something that could be quoted?

What you won't admit to is that these are not equivalent statements you made, or the absurdity of claiming men = soldiers, because of some obscure use of the word, or at the very least, not the common use of the word.

You call Zinn a liar, and yet don't hold yourself to the same standard of lying you hold Zinn to.

Zinn tells half truths so he is a liar. lfd0311 tells half truths and HRG is being unfair in calling him a liar.

Zinn is a liar, I've said that a number of times. Ive states repeatedly that a half truth is a lie. That makes Zinn a liar. Ive also proved that. That's why you don't want to bet on the actual discussion. You want to bet on semantics. Literally everyone can see that, or have you not noticed that nobody is liking your idiotic comments?



And point me in the direction of a single half truth I've told in this or the other thread. I'll wait

 

[VivaRevolution]

Zinn is a liar, I've said that a number of times. Ive states repeatedly that a half truth is a lie. That makes Zinn a liar. Ive also proved that. That's why you don't want to bet on the actual discussion. You want to bet on semantics. Literally everyone can see that, or have you not noticed that nobody is liking your idiotic comments?



And point me in the direction of a single half truth I've told in this or the other thread. I'll wait

Claiming that Zinn said Columbus brought 1200 soldiers, when he said Columbus brought 1200 men. LIAR!

See you are a liar, because you were telling a half truth.

What don't you get about the fact, that your own measuring stick, makes you a liar?

BTW, @Cubo de Sangre, did I not predict that this was what would happen, that he would obfuscate, and contaminate this thread while insisting that he wasn't wrong, while also refusing to take the bet?

You didn't actually think that he would man up and take the bet, or have enough shame in refusing the bet, that he would stop making his absurd argument did you?

Of course not, he will just claim over and over that my bet isn't clear, while never clarifying what about my bet isn't clear.

 

[ncordless]

Claiming that Zinn said Columbus brought 1200 soldiers, when he said Columbus brought 1200 men. LAIR!

See you are a liar, because you were telling a half truth.

What don't you get about the fact, that your own measuring stick, makes you a liar?

@Mods . . . in this official dispute resolution process, are there sanctions for frivilous claims?

 

[VivaRevolution]

@Mods . . . in this official dispute resolution process, are there sanctions for frivilous claims?

Of course it is frivolous, but what you have to understand is that this guy then engaged in personal attacks against me for calling him on his BS.

He keeps coming back to quote me after a week will pass to pick up the argument again.

He won't give ground here. When I call him out for claiming Zinn said 1200 men, not 1200 soldiers, he goes and pulls the definition used in fuedal times for men, and claims he was right all along. Men equals soldiers, I am right, and HRG is a liar.

Of course i am going to continue to escalate this in the face of that kind of absurdity.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Claiming that Zinn said Columbus brought 1200 soldiers, when he said Columbus brought 1200 men. LAIR!

See you are a liar, because you were telling a half truth.

What don't you get about the fact, that your own measuring stick, makes you a liar?

BTW, @Cubo de Sangre, did I not predict that this was what would happen, that he would obfuscate, and contaminate this thread while insisting that he wasn't wrong, while also refusing to take the bet?

You didn't actually think that he would man up and take the bet, or have enough shame in refusing the bet, that he would stop making his absurd argument did you?

Of course not, he will just claim over and over that my bet isn't clear, while never clarifying what about my bet isn't clear.

Seems to me the impasse is that your proposed bet isn't addressing what he considers to be the crux of the disagreement, and that what you're harping on is of little consequence, and has already been conceded on his part. He's accusing you of ducking the bigger picture of the disagreement in order to save face.

In short, you appear to be trying to win the battle without acknowledging the war.