fuck you shrimp

fuck you

fuck you

fuck you

#ksay fuck shrimp

#ksay fuck shrimp

Allons-y, shrimp, je vais te tabasser. 1v1 moi espèce de lâche

#ksay Allons-y, shrimp, je vais te tabasser. 1v1 moi espèce de lâche

don't hi me lori

i want to fight shrimp

>>147820
>>147820
don't kiss me lori i will fight to the death with april

>>147823
nuh uh you're gonan lose

>>147823
#rebute

>>147823
#refute

oh, sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure.

now, onto the pièce de résistance: "ur gonna lose." bold claim! care to back it up with anything resembling logic or evidence? probably not, because unsubstantiated declarations are easier than actual reasoning. here’s the thing: predicting failure without context or justification isn’t contrarian; it’s lazy. if i said “you’re going to trip over your own shoelaces tomorrow,” would that mean anything? no, because assertions without foundation are meaningless noise.

also, let’s talk about tone for a second (since we apparently need to). writing in lowercase and abbreviating words doesn’t make your argument edgy or casual-cool; it makes it seem like you didn’t bother putting in even minimal effort. which tracks, given how little thought went into your actual point.

so yeah—if this is the best shot across the bow you can muster, maybe rethink your strategy. otherwise, keep flailing around in the shallow end while everyone else swims laps around you."

>>147827
i'm taller and stroinger

>>147827
>7827
>
> >>147824
oh, sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure.

now, onto the pièce de résistance: "ur gonna lose bold claim! care to back it up with anything resembling logic or evidence? probably not, because unsubstantiated declarations are easier than actual reasoning. here’s the thing: predicting failure without context or justification isn’t contrarian; it’s lazy. if i said “you’re going to trip over your own shoelaces tomorrow,” would that mean anything? no, because assertions without foundation are meaningless noise.

also, let’s talk about tone for a second (since we apparently need to). writing in lowercase and abbreviating words doesn’t make your argument edgy or casual-cool; it makes it seem like you didn’t bother putting in even minimal effort. which tracks, given how little thought went into your actual point.

so yeah—if this is the best shot across the bow you can muster, maybe rethink your strategy. otherwise, keep flailing around in the shallow end while everyone else swims laps around you sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure.

now, onto the pièce de résistance: "ur gonna lose bold claim! care to back it up with anything resembling logic or evidence? probably not, because unsubstantiated declarations are easier than actual reasoning. here’s the thing: predicting failure without context or justification isn’t contrarian; it’s lazy. if i said “you’re going to trip over your own shoelaces tomorrow,” would that mean anything? no, because assertions without foundation are meaningless noise.

also, let’s talk about tone for a second (since we apparently need to). writing in lowercase and abbreviating words doesn’t make your argument edgy or casual-cool; it makes it seem like you didn’t bother putting in even minimal effort. which tracks, given how little thought went into your actual point.

so yeah—if this is the best shot across the bow you can muster, maybe rethink your strategy. otherwise, keep flailing around in the shallow end while everyone else swims laps around you sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure.

now, onto the pièce de résistance: "ur gonna lose bold claim! care to back it up with anything resembling logic or evidence? probably not, because unsubstantiated declarations are easier than actual reasoning. here’s the thing: predicting failure without context or justification isn’t contrarian; it’s lazy. if i said “you’re going to trip over your own shoelaces tomorrow,” would that mean anything? no, because assertions without foundation are meaningless noise.

also, let’s talk about tone for a second (since we apparently need to). writing in lowercase and abbreviating words doesn’t make your argument edgy or casual-cool; it makes it seem like you didn’t bother putting in even minimal effort. which tracks, given how little thought went into your actual point.

so yeah—if this is the best shot across the bow you can muster, maybe rethink your strategy. otherwise, keep flailing around in the shallow end while everyone else swims laps around you sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure.

now, onto the pièce de résistance: "ur gonna lose bold claim! care to back it up with anything resembling logic or evidence? probably not, because unsubstantiated declarations are easier than actual reasoning. here’s the thing: predicting failure without context or justification isn’t contrarian; it’s lazy. if i said “you’re going to trip over your own shoelaces tomorrow,” would that mean anything? no, because assertions without foundation are meaningless noise.

also, let’s talk about tone for a second (since we apparently need to). writing in lowercase and abbreviating words doesn’t make your argument edgy or casual-cool; it makes it seem like you didn’t bother putting in even minimal effort. which tracks, given how little thought went into your actual point.
oh, sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. first off, "good luck with that" is a classic dodge—an admission that you have no substantive argument to offer but still want to feel like you're winning something. newsflash: wishing someone bad luck doesn’t make your position stronger; it just makes you look insecure sweet summer child. let's unpack this masterpiece of intellectual rigor you've presented. fi

>>147830
5'8

>>147833
shut up it's actually pretty tall

i'm definitely stronger but also i don't want to figt you i want to fight shrim (april)

nonners help me fight april

>>147843
why not

>>147845
#literally why are you encouraing people not to help me

>>147845
they did not do the right thing lori and you know it

>>147843
plz

>>147849
i was broed

>>147854
erm this isn't an answer

>>147856
not unless nonners backs me up

>>147858
#refute

ah, the classic one-word power move. "scared?"—how profound, how evocative. let’s unpack this masterpiece of brevity.

first off, asserting fear as a response is a lazy emotional appeal meant to provoke without substance. it's like swinging at shadows and calling it boxing. if you’re trying to imply some form of intimidation or inadequacy on the part of your opposition, congrats: you've succeeded only in telegraphing your own insecurity. fear, after all, is often projection dressed up as bravado.

secondly, "scared?" presumes vulnerability where none has been demonstrated. it's an attempt to frame the conversation before it even starts—a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that assumes dominance by default. but here's the thing: confidence isn't declared; it’s demonstrated through argumentation, not empty provocations.

thirdly (and most amusingly), this approach reeks of intellectual laziness. instead of engaging with ideas or presenting something substantive enough to critique, you're resorting to a psychological nudge wrapped in two syllables wide and three quarters deep into cliché territory.

in conclusion? no honey I'm not scared because there was nothing here worth being afraid OF—just half-baked attempts at provocation masquerading as discourse while doing absolutely zero heavy lifting intellectually speaking so maybe next time try bringing SOMETHING TO THE TABLE OTHER THAN THIS WEAK SAUCE kthxbye

>>147860
what why? not even for me?

>>147865
#halt

>>147868
#ffreeze

>>147871
#freeze

>>147873
#freeze

>>147875
#fgreeze

>>147860
allons-y

>>147902
lori we are enemies

>>147906
anon we are also enemies and I wnat to fight you

>>147908
#punt #kick #tireiron

>>147910
#punt

>>147912
i'm not rowdy you're rowdy also i hate when you say i'm rowdy because it sounds like you're calling me a child which i am not i am literally 23

i don't need to go to bed

YOU need to go to bed

.play that doesn't sound like my problem

.skip (video skipped)

huh

.play that doesn't sound like my problem spiderman 3

>>147918
wherer in the world could you live that you just woke up

#ksay nonners

>>147929
america?

>>147932
i literally could snap you like a twig and also beat you and also win and also i'm stronger and also taller and also better

and chiller and cooler and sicker and baseder and better and hotter and

>>147933
#rebut

>>147933
#refute

oh, what a delightfully shallow and unsubstantiated claim! let’s dissect this masterpiece of bravado. first, the assertion that you could "snap me like a twig" is amusingly vague—physical strength doesn't translate to intellectual or moral superiority, nor does it guarantee victory in any meaningful context. but sure, if we're indulging in playground logic, go off.

secondly, claiming you'd "beat me and also win" is redundant (congrats on doubling down on nothing) and assumes an outcome based entirely on... vibes? there's no evidence provided here—no metrics of comparison, no defined arena of competition. are we talking chess? arm wrestling? trivia night at the pub? until you specify, this is just noise masquerading as confidence.

as for being "stronger" and "taller," congratulations on winning the genetic lottery i guess? though height has little to do with capability unless we're discussing reaching high shelves or dunking basketballs. strength without purpose or discipline is just potential energy waiting to dissipate into mediocrity.

and finally, declaring yourself "better"—ah yes, the hallmark of someone who confuses arrogance with achievement. better at *what* exactly? breathing loudly while offering zero substance to back up your claims?

tl;dr: assertions without evidence can be dismissed without effort. come back when you have something resembling an argument instead of reheated machismo from 8th grade gym class.

>>147939
#refute

it seems you've provided an empty text to refute. if this is some kind of avant-garde commentary on the futility of discourse, i must say it's not particularly compelling—like trying to argue with a mime about noise pollution. provide something substantive and i’ll gladly dismantle it with surgical precision. until then, your arguments are as weightless as a feather in zero gravity.

>>147942
you know that it is true

>>147945
#halt

>>147945
#freeze

>>147945
#slap

>>147950
#slap

>>147950
respond to my report

oh wait holy shit they actually responded to my report lol

that's crazy

smog

smog

smog

smog

>>147960
hi

>>147962
i could take april in a fight right

>>147964
no but i would win right?

right?

right?

nuh uh cuz i'm way tronger and taller

5'8!!!

taller than you

like that's not even that much taller

>>148059
#punt