Flamefest 2.0

DeletedUser

Guest
ive got tons of proof for my stuff, but cant prove it through the internet :(

matt come to Estonia i'll prove every sentence i wrote there

in my history books that is :|
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I really want to see scott get pwned by someone though.

His opponent mysteriously disappeared in flamefest v1.0 too

im suspecting he kidnaps them when the fest is about to start.

DONT DO IT UBM, he'll come for you
 

DeletedUser

Guest
thenonseen said:
ive got tons of proof for my stuff, but cant prove it through the internet :(

matt come to Estonia i'll prove every sentence i wrote there

in my history books that is :|
Click to expand...

I'm doing History GCSE too.
Predicted A* ( A+ for Americans)
But still a year till the exam.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
well the whole last year my history lessons have focused on religion :|
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Since i couldn't reply in the thread, i wanted to reply to few parts here. I won't answer all since the time's up , but i wanted to answer these 3 that i REALLY want to argue about
[SPOIL]
What's the proof it didn't work?
There's no more/less proof that they didn't work than they did work.
Also, if they made people feel good about themselves , why is that bad?
Click to expand...


they didn't work since, there exists nothing like hell. Those supposedly didn't let you go to hell (if you buy them, and give church your money).
And why is that bad? People were already poor, without having to give their money away. Yes they had a choice to buy them, but since they were afraid of hell they just had to buy those.
If you'd stolen something , like your example here. The get rid of that sin they'd have to pay the amount in scrolls, that they stole and maybe extra. So there would be no logic to it what so ever.
Click to expand...
Those scrolls (supposedly) worked more like "buy one for each of your sins".
Taught alot of the poor how to read and wright.
Click to expand...
They never taught people to read and right, not before Martin Luther and the protestants came. That was one thing Martin Luther wanted to fight. Before Martin Luther, the Catholic church didn't teach people Latin (the language the bible was written in) so even if they had somewhere learnt reading/writing, they couldn't understand it. They wanted to be the only ones able to translate Bible to people so they could change it a bit, accordingly to their own wanting (change the translation, not the bible ofcourse)

You told me Martin Luther didn't like Catholics as they were greedy. I proved your statement was wrong.
Click to expand...
I proved you that Martin Luther didn't like Catholics as they were greedy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther said:
Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German priest and professor of theology who initiated the Protestant Reformation. Strongly disputing the claim that freedom from God's punishment of sin could be purchased with money
Click to expand...

The 2 main things Martin Luther wanted was the fact that sins couldn't be "freed" with money and that people should be taught to read and write themselves, so they could understand the Bible themselves, as Bible should directly give answers to people, not through any church.[/SPOIL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Non, you do realise that Matrin Luther quote shows be didn't like the fact you could buy away your sins.
Nothing to do with being greedy.
Anyway round ended.
Goodluck.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
yes, but the fact that the church sold things which supposedly take away your sins, shows that they were greedy. They came up with the idea when they "needed" more money. Anyway u said their like the government, you do agree that the government is kinda greedy too right? i mean have you seen how much money they get for making up a new law once in a while (im not talking about everyone in all governments, but i mean theres alot of people like that too up there)

but yes round eded.
GL to you too.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
don't forget they make laws that charge more money to deter people from the product, like alcohol laws.
 

DeletedUser71572

Guest
Sbymarch vs UBM

Winner:

[spoil]UBM[/spoil]

Thenonseen vs I less than 3 you

Winner:

[spoil]I less than 3 you[/spoil]
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I want the opinions of the judges


otherwise this is pointless
 

DeletedUser

Guest
and scott wins by unanimous decision. and the crowd goes wild!!!!
 

DeletedUser71572

Guest
Lolz, If you want a breakdown of your posts non, and you want the judges to tell you why you failed, im happy to tell you once the others are online :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Some very good posts there Non, could of gone either way.
You actually made me think :p
o/j ;)
Nah, but well played.
 

darkaniken2

Guest
thenonseen said:
I want the opinions of the judges


otherwise this is pointless
Click to expand...
Matt won because you argued not only invalid, but often incorrect points. While the Catholic church did sell "Indulgences", not all religions did. And since the topic was NOT the Catholic church's past policies, but the effect of religion on society, you lost points for that.

You also held to the fact that a "Jew" had to belong to a certain religion, when this is not the case.

However, Matt also had some mistaken points in his posts, so it was close. However, matt did provide both better reasons to support his point, and also flustered you into making yourself look like a fool.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i know we had this convo in skype but

i didn't say jew-s belonged to a certain religion, i said most jew-s do

but that-s actually what i wanted to hear

hearing "you lost, haha" from judges is just lame after something, it-s the opinions and stuff what i wanna hear
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Okay, who here is currently living in america, has lived there or watches its news?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top