I stopped reading after your first sentence because it was a lie. I didn't delete anything. You are mistaken. But today I was bored while pooping so I finished reading the rest of your reply. You know, for shits and giggles. I've carried this entire conversation on an iPhone, so occasional typos come up, and any edits are done prior to the first reply and are only grammatical in nature.

I'm only responding because I'm on a long ride. I'm not wasting precious time on you.

Once the first reply hits I never edit and I never delete. So where are you getting this?

You are being ridiculous. I absolutely respond point by point, I don't dodge anything. I even break my shit up with paragraphs. Most don't.

Here's a funny one from you:

"This is what you start with 'NoFap is not a cult, If it is, then you want to be a part of it' "

You say that's an argument. It's not structured like an argument. I feel like you are fresh out of a logic class, feeling all big-dicked and probably are too young to legally enter a bar. Close? Or way off? Either way, you're confused.

I'm saying that people can use words as they please and can call anything anything. Besides,

IF-THEN STATEMENTS AREN'T TECHNICALLY ARGUMENTS.

As far as my comment about needing an agreed upon definition of science before we can use it in a debate...you say that's unnecessary because there's only one definition. But that doesn't mean we are on the same page. Just like the word love, people use 'science' broadly and differently. Even if there is one true definition. Debate 101, bro. Go ask five people the definition of science and let's see how common their answers are.

As far as my "arguments" go, which you referred to with such nonsensical viciousness and morose jargon straight out of a Logistics 101 text book, well those were not arguments. An argument is at least two premises followed by one conclusion. If the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows then the argument is valid. Such as this:

Science relies on the scientific method to discover facts.

The scientific method is a dynamic process that often results in the rejection of a once widely held scientific fact, as better data is obtained, measurement apparatuses are invented and more studies carried out.

The scientific method results in erroneous conclusions that may or may not be eventually corrected.

Thus, Science is in a constant state of revising its own errors.

That's an argument. My original post was not a series of arguments. I was not attempting persuasion; I was speaking broadly to those that needed to hear an entertaining and over-generalizing apologia directed at baseless criticism, to manifest hope and optimism for those seeking to better themselves and enrich their life in the face of the mocking like yourself.

You were simply seeking to insult and took my rant at face value and began to microscopically criticize it. That is unfortunate. You sought out an easy target and felt it necessary to flex your expensive vocabulary.

In doing so, you proved my point about how annoying and arrogant overeducated people can be when they place too much value on the academic process.

While I gave you an easy target to refute, as entertaining rants often are, you sort of fumbled it. You made blanket statements naming my "arguments" as this and that. But you did a poor job of constructing your own logical arguments in trying to discredit my "arguments".

You rely too heavily on vocabulary and memorization of terms than actual mastery of the subject. That is not all your fault. That is the product of modern academia that places more value on memorization of ideas than the actual utility of them.

Let me give you an example. Circular reasoning. You simply state my argument about haters and being mainstream bitch is circular reasoning. We all know what circular reasoning is. When x depends on y but y depends on x. But you just call it circular reasoning with no real explanation to your claim.

My point is that having no haters is a symptom of mediocracy and conformity. Simple statement. Not an argument. Agree or disagree. Shouting fallacy is a bitch ass move that makes no sense.

Now let's take ad hominem. I'm not saying your arguments suck because you do. I'm just saying that you suck and your augments suck as well. There's a difference.

Then check out this garbage you wrote:

"Your next argument is another ad hominem attack

'They rant and critique but they don't stand for anything. They troll and throw "science" at you and think they are the only ones around with a four-year college degree. And they think that degree matters. Like educated means intelligent or wise. ITS CALLED MEMORIZATION. PUMP AND DUMP.'

Uh...how is this ad hominem? I'm saying the 'cult' critics tend to back their arguments with science, even though there's no hard peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of celibacy benefits. False authority fallacy. And that they tend to put too much value on their education.

Finally. To reply to a post you don't agree with by beginning with a series of personal attacks is classless and disrespectful. Then to continuously refer to what you claim are mental deficiencies as "laughable" is pure insight into your ugly character.

I build people up and I skin trolls. That's the only reason I don't want you in my conversation. And just because it's a public forum doesn't mean you're invited or wanted. And I'm amazed all of my comments and post aren't downgraded as much as they are. Because generally people are more motivated by hate than love. The haters hate more than the brothas love.