The War Room Bet Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quipling said:
Sig bet that Trump doesn't win. Same terms I offered everybody else. You win, I have 'Trump - Making America Great Again' or something similar for a month. I win, you have 'Clinton - stronger together" for a month.
Click to expand...
I only bet MMA fights. Sorry bud.
 
Quipling said:
So you don't actually believe what you said. Gotcha. Because if you did, this would be a 0 risk bet.
Click to expand...
No, we have to embrace the reality Trump or Hillary could pass out and die before the election for all we know. One may go insane. With MMA betting there is commissions ensuring health and all that. I might give it a consideration the week of election.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
@lfd0311

Call out bet. 3 month AV bet.

I believe that I can show 4 quotes from you from the GJ thread, that are not the same statements.

Where you started with a claim that said Howard Zinn said in his book that Columbus brought 1200 soldiers with him, and this made him a liar.

You then were forced to provide the quote, and it says 1200 men. You also then backtracked to saying Zinn was telling half truths.

The mod is the deciding factor in the bet, they will decide whether you are being dishonest, or if my accusation of dishonesty on your part is false.

You will get to provide context to your position in 1 post. I will get a 1 post rebuttal, you will get a closing 1 post argument. The mod must side with one party or the other.
Click to expand...

Again, you want to bet on something I've already told you I said. If you want to bet on having a mod decide who is right or wrong in this argument, I'm all for that. I'm not going to get into a semantic argument based on my statements over a three week period, and not on the actual substance of our argument.
 
Jin Akutsu said:
No, we have to embrace the reality Trump or Hillary could pass out and die before the election for all we know. One may go insane. With MMA betting there is commissions ensuring health and all that. I might give it a consideration the week of election.
Click to expand...
You said "Hillary is done. Trump just won. ". Did you not mean it when you said it?
 
Quipling said:
You said "Hillary is done. Trump just won. ". Did you not mean it when you said it?
Click to expand...
I did. My previous comment still stands. He did just win. He can just lose just as easily. Can you give me an absolute certainty that Trump or Clinton will not suffer major health issues before election?
 
lfd0311 said:
Again, you want to bet on something I've already told you I said. If you want to bet on having a mod decide who is right or wrong in this argument, I'm all for that. I'm not going to get into a semantic argument based on my statements over a three week period, and not on the actual substance of our argument.
Click to expand...


So just to be clear here, you refuse to take my bet, which is clearly written out, with very clear parameters?

59713180.jpg
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
So just to be clear here, you refuse to take my bet, which is clearly written out, with very clear parameters?

59713180.jpg
Click to expand...

No, it's not clear. I've already said I said those things. What is there to "prove" or bet on when I've been saying for days I said them, and that that was my entire point and you can't read?

Secondly, why are you wanting to bet on semantics and not on your argument itself? Is it because you're scared?
 
lfd0311 said:
No, it's not clear. I've already said I said those things. What is there to "prove" or bet on when I've been saying for days I said them, and that that was my entire point and you can't read?

Secondly, why are you wanting to bet on semantics and not on your argument itself? Is it because you're scared?
Click to expand...


So then you admit those are dishonest, and conflicting statements?

Because if you are about to give your defense of Queens' dictionary definition of "men", that would be for the mod to be arbitrator of, and the bet you are refusing.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
So then you admit those are dishonest, and conflicting statements?

Because if you are about to give your defense of Queens' dictionary definition of "men", that would be for the mod to be arbitrator of, and the bet you are refusing.
Click to expand...

LOL, again, if you want to bet on the body of the argument, of which the definition of "men" is certainly part, I'm all for that. I'm not going to bet on semantics. Like forgetting I said something over the course of a three week long discussion. That's literally all you have to argue at this point.

And no, I never said that anything I said was dishonest or conflicting. My position has always been that Zinn is lying. M position has always been that Zinn intentionally twisted statements to fit his narrative. My position has always been that a half truth is a lie. Your position is that I'm "lying" because I forgot that a week prior to one specific comment I made that I used the term "half truth", and want me to bet that you can't prove I didn't say that, when I just said I did in regards to that comment. You've been making dishonest and twisted arguments from the beginning, which is continued in your attempts to make a dishonest and twisted bet.
 
Last edited:
JosephDredd said:
There has to be a forum member who posts in the Mayberry as Lead Salad. Otherwise I'm losing my damn mind.
Click to expand...

I believe I have a distant relative who posts on that end of the forum and is TruthBeTolds gimmick account. I am JVSs gimmick account.
 
Lead said:
Tin foil hat.jpg

I'll stick with the berenstein Bears theory.
Click to expand...
You know something interesting about the berenstein bears theory? The scientest who made it famous never actually performed any research on it. All of the purported test subjects just mistakenly believed they were subject to a study and submitted results.
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
its stunts like that, that result in people like hendoruagoat.
Click to expand...

This reminds me we need to petition for him to change his username to Bernie and then tell people it was always that
 
Quipling said:
You know something interesting about the berenstein bears theory? The scientest who made it famous never actually performed any research on it. All of the purported test subjects just mistakenly believed they were subject to a study and submitted results.
Click to expand...

The plot thickens
 
Lead said:
This reminds me we need to petition for him to change his username to Bernie and then tell people it was always that
Click to expand...

If users had the option to change usernames, his timeline would go: Hendorua - Bernie - Trump - Stein - Johnson - Begrudgingly Hillary - BackToTrump
 
@HendoRuaGOAT , do you even post in the heavies? Wouldn't Bernie be a far more appealing username for the War Room? Just talking about Jack and Bernie hashing things out sounds far better than Jack and HendoRuaGoat. Don't get me wrong. Hendo is my favorite fighter and I loved those fights
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
If users had the option to change usernames, his timeline would go: Hendorua - Bernie - Trump - Stein - Johnson - Begrudgingly Hillary - BackToTrump
Click to expand...

True, his support has changed but that's because Bernie left the race. Also, I think most of his changes have always been in respect of being anti Hillary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,957
Messages
58,330,938
Members
176,002
Latest member
Shock7

Share this page

Back
Top