• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Regarding the existence of Composite human: Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm Blue daba dee daba die said:
it's their choice for why they vote disagree.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why content revisions shouldn't be based off of a voting system. One solid argument trumps numerous arguments that miss the point, especially when some of those voters have likely been countered by this point, from either side. Liking Composite Human alone doesn't excuse it from going against our policies.
 
What's making CH remain is if the amount of diagree votes is more than the agree votes.

Making it based off "good reasoning" is faulty because "good" is in the eyes of the beholder and is subjective
 
Except arguments can be objectively better and more relevant than other arguments. It should only come down to votes if there's a stalemate between two solid arguments for opposing sides.
 
But then we get to the issue of unmotivated arguments or arguments that don't answer the opposition, or FRA trains that lead to debunked arguments winning.
 
Walker21232123 said:
Domestic Cat Should deatle or renamed that cat in the picture because we are not allow to make Domestic Dog.
Click to expand...
Domestic cat feel like a composite profile for cat. And the bee page get renamed for be composite page.
 
Animal profiles mostly just incorporate universal characteristics most members of the species have, so its not really a composite, or at least not even nearly as much as CH.
 
Animal profiles mostly just incorporate universal characteristics most members of the species have, so its not really a composite, or at least not even nearly as much as CH.
 
1. The idea that fun isn't an exception that is acceptable in your opinion is just as arbitrary as your desire to follow the rules. You start from the premise that the rules should be followed to a T irrelevant to the consequences, just as you start with "fun" not being good enough. Despite the fact tha we're doing this whole thing for fun. It screams out that you see this as a business. Lighten up. Jesus.

2. If you concede there's no harm to it's presence, then there's no reason to delete the page beyond your desires to. It just sitting where it is did no tangible harm to the system, and the only flaw you cite is a simple disagreement with the premise of it being allowed here for fun. You want it gone arbitrarily. That's not anything anyone can debate with, making all of these threads pointless. How are we supposed to debate you out of your feelings?

3. Your first solution should have been blogs, as the insistence that it be deleted or moved created unnecessarily chaos and drawn out this issue for far longer than necessary.

4. I don't care if it's an appeal to motive. It's blatantly true. Your lack of desire to preserve the information on the page, no, your desire to eradicate the page made this even harder than it needed to be. Had you just thought conservatively for a moment instead of fighting against it, we wouldn't be having to go through all of this, and there wouldn't be blogs of it on Prom's wiki. This caused needless expenditure of energy.

5. The exception has already been made. You misunderstand your position here. You're arguing for something that already exists to become different. You need to support an argument where it needs to become different. Currently, that page is harming nothing. To ask for it's removal is arbitrary and, again, requires a needless expenditure of effort. You're begging the question and working backwards from your conclusion trying to get your oh so hated page deleted. And that's relevant, whether your bias is conscious or not or your actions drenched in malicious or benign intent. It shapes your argument into an anti CH profile narrative with no reasoning to support it besides it braking rules that were already established to not apply to it, ruining many other people's fun just because you don't enjoy the same thing.

6. People agreed because they're trained by society (and this wiki especially) to follow the rules just because they're rules. Many of them make the same or similar mistake to you, starting from the premise that rules should be followed unless given reason otherwise, instead of recognizing that we are now applying rules for no other reason to something that doesn't need to be regulated. It's an arbitrary application of a regulation. And I don't know if you noticed, but you're now outnumbered and there were almost just as many people who disagreed with this as there were those who agreed.

7. And that's an arbitrary conclusion you've come to that's just as subjective and meaningless as what can be considered fun. You're doing the EXACT same thing I knew you would, saying "Follow Rules because they're rules." Not an argument. Many people believe that rules should only exist and be followed due to necessity. In California, there's a law that you can't wear high heels without a permit. In some states in America, like Maryland, oral sex is illegal. No on follows those rules. No one applies those rules. It's not inherently logical to follow rules just because they're rules. That's just your own arbitrary personal axiom that you take as a given, that has equal, if not greater reasoning to be disagreed with on an equally arbitrary level. I asked you to argue why we should follow the rules outside of this assumption, and you've failed to do so. I asked you to state a harm in not following the rule, which there is none even by your own admition and according to all the non-existent evidence of it being a bad precedent, along with how implying such is a slippery slope fallacy that you deny you're making. You failed. Your only argument is that we should delete CH because it's the rules and we should retroactively apply the rule to it (that we deliberately decided not to before) because we should follow the rules.

8. I don't care. It is painfully obvious to me that your adamant desire to remove this page whilst not seeking the most sensible compromise FIRST has influenced your judgement. Especially given how you're arbitrarily deciding it's important to "follow the rules just cuz they rules" as what you see as a convenient counter to anything you see in opposition to you. It's very easy to argue that your judgement has been influenced by your opinions, both on this and on how rules should be interacted with in general. Again, the proper response to my question would have been to state the harm of CH's continued existence to support the idea that we should change our ruling on him, as following rules just because they're rules is a bad argument. You should have provided reasons for it, provided harms. This way, we're following the rules in this case for a reason— the same reason many rules are created and followed— to regulate harmful or otherwise interfering factors out of a system that would be preferred to work seemlessly. But no. It's cause rules are supposed to be followed, yeah? Rulee's Aren't followed because they prevent issues, they're followed because they're rules. And arguing that it's important to think about what issues are being propagated by taking exception or breaking them before blindly following them is heresy. Lmao.

Of course, I don't mean any harm Paulo, i'm just stating my case.
 
1 - It being an entertainment website does not mean you can simply ignore the regulations because "it's fun", you need an actually good reason. And before you respond, please keep in mind at no point in this comment I ever mention CH starting a slippery slope, since I never said this one exception would result in others.

2 - There is harm to his presence, the fact that he breaks the rules; the only case in which there would be no harm would be if an exception was made, which is why I am asking you to provide a good reason for it to be made. If you want reason for it to be deleted, there's an entire previous thread with nearly 500 replies explaining why. What I'm still waiting or is a good reason for an exception to be made.

3 - Again, blogs are fine. It doesn't matter where he ends up, all that matters is that he shouldn't be a page.

4 - "I don't care if it's an appeal to motive" doesn't change the fact that it is appeal to motive. If your argument revolves around a logical fallacy, you can't fix it by just saying "I don't care".

5 - The exception was made because of popularity, which was agreed by most to not be a valid reason. If the reason isn't valid, you an't use it as an argument; please give me an actual valid reason for an exception to be made.

6 - No argument here, just saying you don't like that rules have to be followed. What was the point of this paragraph?

7 - "Follow the rules because they're rules" is how the rules work; if you want the rules to be changed, feel free to make your own CRT. Again, at no point I ever said that making an exception for CH would result in other exceptions, all I asked was for you to provide a valid reason for the page to be kept around (which you still haven't done), I did not make a slippery slope fallacy at any point, you just assumed that this is what I mean by your own accord and is now acusing me of making an argument I've never made.

8 - "I don't care if it's an appeal to motive" doesn't change the fact that it is appeal to motive. If your argument revolves around a logical fallacy, you can't fix it by just saying "I don't care".

Also:

  • "Arguing that it's important to think about what issues are being propagated by taking exception"
    • Again, I never made this argumen, quite the opposite in fact, I've said many times that an exception could be made if a valid reason was presented. You just misunderstood what I meant, and is now accusing me of a allacy because of your own misuderstanding.
  • "Arguing that taking exception or breaking them before blindly following them is heresy"
    • I've been saying for hours that an exception could be made if a good reason was given, and asking you to give a good reason; how the hell did you get "not following the rules blindly is heresy" from that? You just have to present a valid reason for an exception to be made like I've been asking.
 
1. Then why argue against it being an exception? It doesn't necessarily need a "good reason", which is clearly arbitrary to you, especially since you don't need a good reason to follow the rules. A meaningless, if not unattainable standard based on personal opinion, nothing to argue with. Can I pull a Jojo and say "Next thing you'll say is, 'But if we start making an exception for no reason with CH, we can do that with anything!'"

That's a slippery slope fallacy. By definition. Your requirements heavily imply that you want to avoid this conclusion because of the fear that it will grow into bigger problems. When it HASN'T.

2. Again, you're simply restating that the rules should be follows because they're rules. That's not an argument. Is getting oral sex something to be avoided because it's against the law to you as well? Do you not recognize that breaking the rules isn't what is bad, but the consequences of such actions are what is to be avoided? You sound like a tyrant when you argue that rules shouldn't be broken because they're rules, and you contradict what we've already done for CH before this problem people arbitrarily honed in on does— with little consequences, again. And in that previous thread, which I did read before commenting here, I saw much of the same argument you're giving currently. Arbitrary notions surrounding it being bad to break the rules because they're supposed to not be broken, which by itself implies the worse conclusion to that behavior is chaos— a slippery slope argument. You don't have to say something for it to become clear. That's what implications are, and what you get when you think about them and the consequences of actions. Your opinion on what is and isn't a good reason is absolutely worthless, as it seems you agree with my assertions about your dogmatic rules lawyering. You're not interested in compromise or change because you're starting from the position that you're correct, when the burden is on YOU to demonstrate why we should apply rules to CH that we didn't before. And no, it's not a good argument "objectively" to appeal to the rules and say "just because rules should be followed". There needs to be a REASON for the following of those rules and why the damage caused by their disregard is qualified as "damage" in the first place. You continue to fallaciously stand by the idea that they should be followed just because, without providing the important aspect of why we should now all of a sudden apply a rule that we made an exception to. That's what you're doing. Applying a rule to something that wasn't being applied before. You need to argue why,Paulo.

3. You should have used Blogs first instead of being so careless, is my issue. We wouldn't have wasted half of the first thread hearing people complain about its fall into obscurity and we'd easily have no problems with anything. In fact, I would argue had you and Yobo start with that, no one would fight against you because we'd lose nothing.

4. You don't care that you're being fallacious with thinking that "dem's the rules" is enough to make any decisions on this matter. What's more, in your mind, that conclusion likely holds? Why should I feel compelled to operate any differently? Tell you what, you give me a real reason to follow this rule that we already decided not to apply as an acception (again, "Dems da rulez" is not an argument) and I won't "appeal to motive" even if it's true! :)

5. The jury is still out on that. You count the majority as the people who AGREE with you, but more than half of people voting now disagree. Not just that, but your fallacious appeal to the rules made many people convinced that it's not enough, so it wouldn't really be right to count people who were convinced by faulty reasoning as people who agree with you. But even without that, the burden of proof is on you for why it should go. Beyond "because rules".

6. The point of that paragraph was to explain to you how illogical your "argument" is because it's based in your opinion and nothing more. You start from the idea that you're correct in this case, and because not many saw this, no one decided to put you in the place you're supposed to be and argue why things should change. Instead, because we're usually good whittle kids, we take your fallacious argument as a given because "rules are rules". And they should be followed. Accept, that's just a restatement of your claim, not your reasoning. Your claim is that we should follow the rules, and by consequence, YEET CH. but you believe your evidence is that "We should follow the rules." Or worse, you're basically saying "YEET CH because the rules don't allow him." As if the latter was enough on its own LOGICALLY. This has objectively nothing with my opinion. My problem, for ANOTHER time, is that you're using your opinion to justify something. Your opinion is arbitrary. You, who is advocating for a change, need to provide reason for that change beyond "just cause", not ANYONE here. If the only harm is that they break the rule just this once, and there are no negative consequences to breaking that rule— unless you wanna argue that creates a negative precedent— that's a Slippery Slope you sliding on my dude, too much lube— then... Your argument is worthless. Because it's a broken window that no one cares about— it doesn't matter. It's a needless restriction that makes things less enjoyable around here, which means we lose more than we gain, which, I will support with evidence if you ask, instead of simply presupposing you agree with the idea that we should midigate losses and maximize benefits, but unlike with following a rule we made up, this perspective is generally held reasonably and has an actual non-fallacious basis. I doubt you want me to send you an essay on why we might want to preserve resources we desire (like "fun") in this thread, so, just know that you're actually costing us more than you're helping, and many would argue that it's a "bad thing", you see. It has nothing to do with my disregard of rules, it has everything to do with the disregard of logic in the philosophy of adherence to those rules. If there's no reason to use them, there's no reason to follow them.

7. That's not how rules work, that's how you personally view them. By that logic, we can't even change the rules, and what's worse to me is that not only do you refuse to concede to the idea that it is YOUR responsibility to support your own position, but you also want me to "make a CRT" to change... What? Philosophy on how we view things in a rule based system— there's no content to revise my dude. This is literally my least favorite deflection tactic, because it's a cowardly attempt to make me go elsewhere so you can have your fixed conclusion, instead of directly addressing my point as they are relevant to the topic at hand, and here, it doesn't even make any coherent sense. What am I supposed to CRT? Don't bother answering, because the whole idea itself was a disingenuous attempt to get me to go somewhere else and it's best you spend time supporting your argument instead of trying to clarify meaningless drivel.

8. You're, again, doing the same thing by doubling down on your arbitrary baseless principle that "all rules should be followed because they're rules". Why, again, should I argue differently? If you can deny you're using a logical fallacy and appeal to the system and try the "Make a CRT" disingenuous deflection trick, I can tell you what you're saying, especially when you don't understand the greater implications of your words. You say that you want a good reason, but the fact that you plant your argument as if YOUR premise needs to be argued against, despite the fact that the reality is that you need to argue against the premise it should stay (and getting a temperature check on a thread where half of the posters disagreed with you isn't arguing against the premise), on top of the fact that the reasoning for WHY any reason at all is required is implicitly linked to the prevention of a slippery slope demonstrates my point.

The need for a reason implies that if you don't have one, that's bad. It's bad because you can slippery slope your way into applying whatever things you want. That's, again, a slippery slope argument. I've seen you and others talk about how "it's fun" is similar to "you just want to keep it", which is a call out to their arbitrary desire to keep CH. Why call out their arbitrary actions if not to caution against capricious application of judgement, which would lead into bigger impacts across the wiki? You WERE making slippery slopes arguments. People don't have to be consciously aware of what they are doing to preform actions. They don't have to intentionally act in that direction to produce that affect. You asking for a good reason directly demonstrates your hand, because you believe rules should be followed unless there's a good reason, which doesn't work here, because you're asking for a change in the current context. You can't go into an argument where the burden of proof and the purpose is to change your opponents' opinions and say "Here's my opinion, change my mind." When... That's the... Opposite of the purpose of the discussion. Don't be Steven Crowder. Lmao. Like him, people can be bigots and deny their bigotry whilst directly demonstrating it. Think of yourself as doing that, but not cancelable.
 
Toxic? I said one person's name as a benign reference to the "Change my Mind guy" who most people don't even really know— especially with how bad he is as a person. I didn't say anything about BLM or Neonazis. But if you understand the implications of simply knowing that guy, then... Hm. Maybe that's a problem. I dunno. Depends. Either way, no one knows who he is outside of people into politics, so, I didn't MAKE anything political.
 
Well, here's something about this whole thing.

CH is based on everything humanity has done in the real world, yes?

Are we bringing in real world people in Vs Battle wiki, like John Cena vs Walter White?
 
1 - Yes, you need a good reason to make exceptions to the rules, because that's the point of having rules, they have to be followed. Again, I never said it would start a slippery slope, you simply assumed that yourself.

2 - Yes, the rules should be follows because they're rules. There can be exceptions, obviously, which is why I'm giving you the change to give a good reason or an exception to be made for CH, yet you reuse to give any. Again, I never said it would start a slippery slope, you simply assumed that yourself. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why we should make an exception for CH when it was decided that "it's popular" is not a valid reason.

3 - It doesn't matter where he ends up, all that matters is that he shouldn't be a page.

4 - Following the rules is not a fallacy. Burden of proof, however, is a fallacy, such as "give me a reason to not make an exception for CH", when the question should actually be "give me a reasonto make an exception for CH". Also, "we already decided not to apply as an acception" isn't really valid, since it was agreed that "it's popular" is not a valid reason to make an exception.

5 - Yeah, most people agree that "its popular" isn't a valid reason, that was the conclusion we got in the last thread; the people voting for CH are only really asking for an exception to be made without really giving any real reason behind it. And even then, the burden of proof is on you as to why CH should be made an exception.

6 - It's not based on oppinion, it's based on the rules; CH fits almost every category that was used as a justification to delete te other Composites, and the only reason CH wasn't deleted was due to popularity; popularity was decided to not be a valid reason, so until a better reason is given (which I've been asking people to give for hours), CH has no reason to be kept around. Again, i never said it creates negative precedent, you made up that yourself (honestly, at this point I would really like if you stopped talking about this slippery slope argument I never made. You made that argument up). If you think rules are a needless restriction, go make a CRT to change the rules, but that has really nothing to do with what this CRT s about; this thread is about whether or not CH follows the rules, and it doesn't. If there's no reason to break the rules, there's no logic in doing so.

7 - No, that's not how my logic is, you're once again misunderstanding my argument and using your misunderstanding as an argument against me. The rules can be changed, as long as it is done in a thread that is about changing the rules, but this isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about whether or not CH follows the rules, and it doesn't; if you want the rules changed (which is kind of what you just said, that you want to change the rules), go make your own CRT instead of deraying this one. If you want to say I'm using a "cowardly attempt to make you go elsewhere", go ahead (specially since that's an ad hominem attack, calling me a coward), but it is simply not my problem whether you agree with the rules or not, and that's really not what the thread you're responding to is about, so you really shouldn't be trying to debate this with me, or trying to debate this here. Basically, what you're saying is that you don't want to follow the rules, and this thread isn't about whether you should follow the rules or not, so if you want to talk about not having to follow the rules, go make another thread instead of deraying this one.

8 - Yeah, my premisse is the one who needs to be argued against, because the burden of proof is always on the positive claim. Your claim is that "an exception should be made for CH", so you are the one who must provide a reason as to why this exception should be made. Also, this has nothing to do with slippery slope; you were the one who assumed my argument was a slippery slope, but I never made the argument you're talking about, you just assumed I did by your own accord. The burden of proof would be on me if I said "the rules should be followed no matter what, peripd", but that's not the argument I'm making; I've said multiple times that exceptions can be made, but you still haven't given a reason as to why this case should be one of them. Following the rules is the standard, eceptions are, like the name says, exceptions, so please provide a valid reason as to why CH is an exception.

Now you're once again making baseless assumptions just so you could accuse me of a slippery slope fallacy I've never made. You assumed that "would lead into bigger impacts across the wiki" was part of my argument, but I never said that at any point, you made that up. My argument doesn't have anything to do with it impacting future instances, it's just that you haven't given any reason to make an exception for CH; how this would impact the wiki is irrelevant, since I'm talking about this case and this case only, not any future cases of similar things happening.

Yes, the rules should be followed unless there's a good reason. The burden of proof is on you, just give a good reason as to why an exception should be made for CH. This has nothing to do with changing my mind, it's just that you've so far failed to provide any good reason to make an exception, so there's really no reason to do so.

Also, I don't know who Steven Crowder is, so I'm not sure if saying that I'm just like him is an ad hominem attack or not, but either way, this really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about, so I'm not sure why you brought this guy up.
 
So, you're just gonna repeat the same thing over and over again, not realizing that you need to support your position rather than just stating your position is supposed to be self evident? Ok.

And no. it wasn't an Adhom. I was saying that you can make an argument without realizing that's what you're doing. And me pointing that out to you and you denying it doesn't change that you are, evidently, making that claim. If I said that I think I should be allowed to kill whoever I want, I am also saying it's ok for me to kill people. But if I deny the latter based on the fact that I didn't explicitly state the latter, when they're implicitly (or explicitly) the same due to being synonymous, then it doesn't matter as a response.

Why should the rules be followed? What happens if we don't follow rules? See, your answer would be that we'd do more bad things. That's not necessarily true. That's a slippery slope. But you're clearly not arguing that! :)

Ok. So, why should we follow the rules then, if there's no consequences? Saying we just should because we should is not an argument. At all. I literally went over how your side is the one attempting to propose a change, so it's you that should necessarily prove that the change needs to happen, not us who should prove that your claim isn't inherently true. It's like walking into a debate and making a claim and asking others to destroy it when you were summoned to argue your point and change everyone else's opinion. Now, we have to change yours? Why? Especially when everything was just fine before you asked.

At this point, you're not arguing with me. Not only are you arguing with a straw man of me, you're arguing with a straw man that isn't even accurate to a shadow of my points. You fundamentally don't understand what's wrong with your arguments, and there's nothing I can do to fix that.
 
I am supporting the position. Again, following the rules is the standard, and I am willing to agree that CH could be an exception if a good reason to do do is given, but you simply refuse to support your position by providing any reason as to why an exception should be made.

So calling me "cowardly" isn't an ad hominem now? But regardless, as I've said multiple times, "would lead into bigger impacts across the wiki" was never part of my argument in the first place, you just assumed it was, and is now using your own assumption to accuse me of a slippery slope fallacy I never made. If you think I made an argument that I didn't actually made, that's not my fault for "making an argument without realizing" that's your fault for wrongfully assuming what my argument was.

The rules should be followed because that's the standard, and that's what rules were made for. Once again, I do agree that exceptions can happen, and I never said it would cause a slippery slope, but you simply refuse to give any reason as to why CH should be an exception.

I've already provided proof as to why the change needs to happen: CH is just like all the other dleted Composites, and the only reason he wasn't deleted along with them (popularity) was agreed by most in the last thread to not be a valid reason. Right now I'm waiting for another reason to be given for an exception to be made (since "popularity" isn't considered valid, he needs a valid reason to replace it), but none has been given so far. You're acting as if no evidence as to why CH should be deleted was given, when there is a thread with nearly 500 replies where all the reasons where explained in detail, and now I'm waiting for the reasons as to why an exception should be made.

If I have misunderstood any of your arguments, I am sorry for doing so, and please know that wasn't my intention. However, meanwhile, you have been straw maning me for hours, accusing me of using a slippery slope argument that I have never made.
 
You said the same shit 3 times in the exact same way that I knew you would, and I made clear what my perception of your argument is. I didn't strawman anything. You just don't understand and that's your business.
 
If you think I made an argument that I didn't actually make, that's not my fault for "making an argument without realizing" that's your fault for wrongfully assuming what my argument was.
 
So, uh

The hell do we do with an Inconclusive?
 
Has any conclusion been made based on the arguments of both sides?

At this point, it seems that we're just going in circles.
 
If this doesn't get concluded, CH stays until someone gets enough support to remove it I guess
 
Yobo Blue said:
Technically most of the staff are in favor of removal </div>
Click to expand...
Oh lord, people would be even more pissed off if the justification for removal was "Well, more staff agreed to it compared to regular people."
 
Did we already remove the votes with faulty reasoning for both sides?

I ask, while being way too lazy to check every vote one by one and do so myself.
 
if we ever keep CH because "hE's fUn"


then can we make a page for composite tree by that logic?

seriously, can you imagine a tree fighting and keep a straight face the whole time?
 
Actually, before we start to remove votes, we'll have to decide what kind of votes are and are not valid to begin with. So let's try to get to an agreement:

Anyone asking for an exception to be made for CH without giving an actual reason (like saying "it's popular", or "it's fun") is out of the vote count. Anyone who says "FRA" but doesn't explain why is also out (for both sides).

What do you guys think?
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
Actually, before we start to remove votes, we'll have to decide what kind of votes are and are not valid to begin with. So let's try to get to an agreement:
Anyone asking for an exception to be made for CH without giving an actual reason (like saying "it's popular", or "it's fun") is out of the vote count. Anyone who says "FRA" but doesn't explain why is also out (for both sides).

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
What if I'm neutral FRA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yobo_Blue
Regarding the existence of Composite Human
11 12 13
Replies
493
Views
9K
Yobo_Blue
Yobo_Blue
Psychomaster35
(GRACE) Gumball fights a Speaker Box because budget cuts
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
GoCommitDi
GoCommitDi
Bob8999
Velociraptors vs Ewoks
2
Replies
63
Views
1K
Bob8999
Bob8999
Bobsican
Gumball Vs. Riolu
2 3
Replies
88
Views
2K
Soupywolf5
Soupywolf5
Adem_Warlock69
  • Locked
Gumball fights The Snatcher....Again
Replies
21
Views
2K
Adem_Warlock69
Adem_Warlock69
Back
Top