💊 Manosphere manhood101.com - The Cuck Academy

  • Thread starter Thread starter HG 400
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
sugoi-chan said:
I like when he keeps appealing to authority like this. He said this a bunch of times in the "debate" too, like he's making something this whole thing (his site, our site, this "debate") out to be something of genuine public interest that people outside of these two sites will care about.
Click to expand...

He's putting it out for public scrutiny. He welcomes critics. I find that admirable. You guys couldn't even challenge him on his ideas, which only helps his cause look strong.

Valiant said:
I didn't know that calling people faggots was considered winning.
Click to expand...

He's abrasive sure but his arguments seem solid because nobody has been able to win a debate against him yet including this community.
 
Koumori said:
He's putting it out for public scrutiny. He welcomes critics. I find that admirable. You guys couldn't even challenge him on his ideas, which only helps his cause look strong.

He's abrasive sure but his arguments seem solid because nobody has been able to win a debate against him yet including this community.
Click to expand...

List down a few of the arguments then.
 
Koumori said:
He's putting it out for public scrutiny. He welcomes critics. I find that admirable. You guys couldn't even challenge him on his ideas, which only helps his cause look strong.
Click to expand...

I would be legitimately joyous if you were to present any factual, reasonable evidence towards how screaming about one's sexual preferences at the top of their lungs facilitates the strengthening of a belief or movement.

Edit: I'd almost forgot to welcome you back again, Charles.
 
Alan Pardew said:
List down a few of the arguments then.
Click to expand...

In this debate you mean? None. You were supposed to be the challengers, but the few people who actually talked only made vague accusations, and when he asked to elaborate or argue why you couldn't.

I've listened to his other debates, and when his opponents actually have an argument to bring to the table he always gives them the time to explain them. The moderator even steps in and mutes the professor when he isn't letting the opponent talk.
 
Koumori said:
In this debate you mean? None.
Click to expand...
You basically admitted that he made no arguments at all for this 40-minute circlejerk you call "debate" despite you posted, quote and unquote:
Koumori said:
his arguments seem solid
Click to expand...

You were supposed to be the challengers, but the few people who actually talked only made vague accusations, and when he asked to elaborate or argue why you couldn't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, of course it's impossible to elaborate or argue because all I heard from this "debate" is just him muting mics before a critic gets to make one.

But I'll give you credit though, the recording did give me a good laugh.
 
Koumori said:
In this debate you mean? None. You were supposed to be the challengers, but the few people who actually talked only made vague accusations, and when he asked to elaborate or argue why you couldn't.

I've listened to his other debates, and when his opponents actually have an argument to bring to the table he always gives them the time to explain them. The moderator even steps in and mutes the professor when he isn't letting the opponent talk.
Click to expand...
Nah we weren't challengers, we were there to stroke his long, hard ego. From the fluttering touches of the tip of his narcissism to the languid licks of his balls of insecurity. His anger and sorrow when he called us all faggots and muted all of us when we didn't deny nor confirm our consent - oh we lapped it up like source of youth. When he saw our BIG RED DICK be presented Charles shuddered in fear as we took control of his streaming services.

Oh yeah.

We fucked him good.
 
It's HK-47 said:
I would be legitimately joyous if you were to present any factual, reasonable evidence towards how screaming about one's sexual preferences at the top of their lungs facilitates the strengthening of a belief or movement.

Edit: I'd almost forgot to welcome you back again, Charles.
Click to expand...

You guys had the opportunity to defeat his ideas in a debate. It should have been easy if his ideas were as ridiculous as you claim, but you couldn't. That's what shows strength in his ideas.

Alan Pardew said:
You basically admitted that he made no arguments at all for this 40-minute circlejerk you call "debate" despite you posted, quote and unquote:



Yeah, of course it's impossible to elaborate or argue because all I heard from this debate is just him muting mics before a critic gets to make one.
Click to expand...

I meant his general rhetoric (the ebook), not the arguments he made in the video. The only arguments he made in the video was against accusations such as him being a PUA, an MRA, scam artists or a woman abuser.

Valiant said:
Nah we weren't challengers, we were there to stroke his long, hard ego. From the fluttering touches of the tip of his narcissism to the languid licks of his balls of insecurity. His anger and sorrow when he called us all faggots and muted all of us when we didn't deny nor confirm our consent - oh we lapped it up like source of youth. When he saw our BIG RED DICK be presented Charles shuddered in fear as we took control of his streaming services.

Oh yeah.

We fucked him good.
Click to expand...

Just trolling. Convenient. A picture to help describe this situation:

LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png
 
If I may, @Kuomori, since you seem so versed in the pathology and the success of The Professor, what is the penultimate point of these shouting matches he colloquially refers to as "debates"? For that matter, how does one even enter a debate where-in there is no proposed topic or overarching argument whatsoever that was established beforehand?

If Charles "The Professor" Gellman is so extraordinarily skilled in these debates, as you claim, how is it that the one group of people whom were clever enough to unearth his personal and private (Though he did little to properly conceal it at all) information also happen to be the one group who is so conveniently "stupid" that they can't hold to the i̶m̶p̶o̶t̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶u̶r̶n̶a̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s debate?

The Farms sent him into a sudden, violent recoil where-in he began to delete any possible information about himself or this "movement" en masse the moment that his name became linked to this objectively extremist-style cult. To a rational mind, that's a bit of a paradox.

For one such as Charles Gellman, who holds himself as the paragon of masculinity and touts himself as the highest of the high in regards to reappropriating the male ideals, the very notion that he'd be sent into a screaming panic of a fit the moment any potential trouble arose from his actions is nothing if not terribly hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
@Koumori:

Exhibit A:
Koumori said:
I just listened to the debate. You guys not only lost but you came out looking bad.
Click to expand...

Exhibit B:
Koumori said:
In this debate you mean? None. You were supposed to be the challengers, but the few people who actually talked only made vague accusations, and when he asked to elaborate or argue why you couldn't.
Click to expand...

Exhibit C:
Koumori said:
I meant his general rhetoric (the ebook), not the arguments he made in the video. The only arguments he made in the video was against accusations such as him being a PUA, an MRA, scam artists or a woman abuser.
Click to expand...

lol.

First you said that the members here lost the debate. Okay, fine.

Then when I asked you what are the arguments he made in the debate that ended up making us lost the debate, you said there are none. Okay, it's contradicting, maybe alright, since perhaps he could win a debate without producing any arguments.

Then you contradict further and said that he made arguments about accusations against him.

Now tell me which part is correct then based on the quotes above.
 
It's HK-47 said:
If I may, @Kuomori, since you seem so versed in the pathology and the success of The Professor, what is the penultimate point of these shouting matches he colloquially refers to as "debates"? For that matter, how does one even enter a debate where-in there is no proposed topic or overarching argument whatsoever that was established beforehand?

If Charles "The Professor" Gellman is so extraordinarily skilled in these debates, as you claim, how is it that the one group of people whom were clever enough to unearth his personal and private (Though he did little to properly conceal it at all) information also happen to be the one group who is so conveniently "stupid" that they can't hold to the i̶m̶p̶o̶t̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶u̶r̶n̶a̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s debate?
Click to expand...

Well I don't personally agree with calling the opponent a faggot, but ultimately it doesn't matter. The arguments matter, not the way he presents them. If I said "1+1= fucking 2 you bitch" instead of "1+1= 2" I would still be correct.

"For that matter, how does one even enter a debate where-in there is no proposed topic or overarching argument whatsoever that was established beforehand."

The topic should be whether his ideas on developing relationships are correct or not.

Alan Pardew said:
@Koumori:

Exhibit A:


Exhibit B:


Exhibit C:


lol.

First you said that the members here lost the debate. Okay, fine.

Then when I asked you what are the arguments he made in the debate that ended up making us lost the debate, you said there are none. Okay, it's contradicting, maybe alright, since perhaps he could win a debate without producing any arguments.

Then you contradict further and said that he made arguments about accusations against him.

Now tell me which part is correct then based on the quotes above.
Click to expand...

You lost the debate because most of you didn't present arguments, and those that did, couldn't elaborate on them.

It's like a loss via forfeit.

A boxer who is too injured to fight loses. It's simple.
 
Is it really trolling if he came here spamming us first? Listen to the whole thing. There was literally no argument, just him being angry.
 
Koumori said:
The arguments matter, not the way he presents them. If I said "1+1= fucking 2 you bitch" instead of "1+1= 2" I would still be correct.
Click to expand...
Koumori said:
You lost the debate because most of you didn't present arguments, and those that did, couldn't elaborate on them.
Click to expand...
Koumori said:
In this debate you mean? None. You were supposed to be the challengers, but the few people who actually talked only made vague accusations, and when he asked to elaborate or argue why you couldn't.
Click to expand...

:story:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom