CDZ What is the value of having a debate only with like minded individuals?

[PredFan]

I said: "Again, a lefty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new."
You replied: "You mean like this post"

Also note that I wasn't talking to you in the first part..

That's correct. But as you made the statement in a thread in an open forum - i.e., this one - there are no rules as to who can or cannot respond. If you wanted a private one-on-one conversation, your best option would have been a ->Private<- Message.

Then I said: "Wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?"

To be more accurate, you said "Do YOU even know?" suggesting that there are people in your world who make random statements without knowing what they mean. This would be something I'm not familiar with.

You then claimed to be able to explain.

No. My response was one word: "Yes."

Meaning, yes, I know what I mean.

That was the point at which someone interested in advancing the conversation would have asked a question. It might have been as simple as "Then what do you mean?" You apparently could have embellished it with a few "morons" without running afoul of the rules of the "Clean" Debate Zone (as you've done several times already), but you did not do that.

If you don't ask a question, the best you can honestly say is that you haven't gotten an answer. Only by being dishonest can you make something up and pretend the other person has given that as an answer.

Now, if you have a question, please ask. If not, you can be honest in your disinterest or you can make something up. Make sure to throw in a few more "morons" to accentuate your seriousness.

Last chance, then I'm done with your silliness:

I said: "Again, a lefty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new."
You replied: "You mean like this post"

Explain it or admit you don't know what you are talking about.

Your tone is hostile and your premise is flawed. You've set the stage to dismiss the explanation I'm about to give you, to which you'll respond "See? I told you you don't know what you are talking about." Nevertheless:

You said: "Again, a lefty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new."
I replied: "You mean like this post."

What I meant was that you, Predfan (specifically you; I'm not attributing your behaviors to any other person or group), approach any conversation on this board by first slapping a label on the other person and then filtering their words through your own preconceived opinion.

(The use of the neuter pronoun was a nice touch - just within the rules, apparently, as is the repeated use of "moron." You see, I'm learning something here.)

It's not the words so much as the intent. You've determined that nothing anyone you've labeled a "lefty" says will get through your filter.

Your posts in this thread are exactly emblematic of the question in the OP. If a lefty had been the one to post "Again, a righty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new," the intent on the part of that poster would have been the same.

My question to either of you - PredFan or the hypothetical lefty - would be the same: "If you're only here to surround yourself with people who agree with you, what's the point?"

And if, instead, your reason for being here is to pound the opposition into the floor with your brilliant reasoning, you need to study your "enemy" without filters, hold your temper, and have some facts at your disposal.

If that's not why you're here, then

Your response above is fine as a response to my statement about lefties, but it doesn't explain the unrelated original response.

Only if you persist in seeing it as unrelated.

It is unrelated and to prove that, you cannot show how it is. You tried and failed. Goodbye.

 

[Arianrhod]

It is unrelated and to prove that, you cannot show how it is. You tried and failed. Goodbye.

QED.

 

[320 Years of History]

Dude,you quoted it and you said I was wrong. It led to a discussion involving multiple posts. I don't know what kind of idiotic game you're playing but I don't have time or the patience to play. Since this is the CDZ I can't tell you what I really think of your game. Good bye.

So much for "goodbye." But, since one cannot take you at your word, and for the entertainment value of it....

...

As far as your question, I'll repeat what I said to the OP:

[One] cannot have a meaningful discussion with a lefty. They aren't interested in either reading or listening to any dissenting opinions. They cannot discuss without diversionary tactics, lies, smoke screens and anything else that prevents them from having to admit they are wrong. They will never ever admit wrong, and if defeated on an argument in one thread, will state the same debunked point in another thread. You guys are like a whack-a-mole. The only reason I will argue with any left wing nutter, is if I'm bored, or I just want to abuse someone.​

...

Okay, fine. Now that I've read your claims about politically left leaning individuals, would you now present credible facts, and a cogent argument based on them, to support the implication that your claims necessarily apply to all or most such individuals. I am asking you to do that because, as I wrote earlier, one's saying it's so doesn't make it so, particularly when making, as you have, generalizations about a whole class of people.

And just so we're clear...I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm asking you to demonstrate in a relatively scholarly way that you are correct; I'm asking you to put some rigor into and behind the thesis you've presented.

BTW, here are some links that, by the mere existence of the content found there, show there is a trend among conservatives for wanting to have their discussions/debates participated in only by other conservatives:

• CDZ - Fellow Conservatives: Let's discuss Jeb Bush together. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  
• Ted Cruz Wants Only Conservatives To Moderate Future Debates
  
• Trump on Future Debates: ‘Maybe Every Moderator Should Show That They Vote Republican’
  
• CDZ - Fellow Conservatives, let's discuss Donald Trump together. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  
• What if GOP debates were moderated by conservatives?
  
• CDZ - Fellow Conservatives: Let's discuss Carley Fiorina together. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  
• Time For a Debate Moderated by Experts From Conservative Media
  
• Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion, No Conservative/libertarian/tea party women should post here | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  
• Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  
• Google

That said, the trend is clearly not universally embraced by all Republicans: Establishment RNC Does Not want a Debate with Conservative Moderators .

See? You don't get it. I don't care to discuss things with Progressives. It's, as I clearly stated, a waste of time. I only wanted to answer your question.

Red:
Clearly I don't understand the nature and basis of your assertions; moreover, I also don't know that there is factual support for their verity. Equally clearly I asked you to explain them and provide support for them when I wrote:

Now that I've read your claims about politically left leaning individuals, would you now present credible facts, and a cogent argument based on them, to support the implication that your claims necessarily apply to all or most such individuals. I am asking you to do that because, as I wrote earlier, one's saying it's so doesn't make it so, particularly when making, as you have, generalizations about a whole class of people.​

Now I can't force you to provide that support, but absent your doing so, they remain empty claims. To the extent that I don't see compelling support for the claims you made, as a critical thinker, I have no choice but to consider them as "loud, strong and wrong."

Blue:
I asked you neutrally and clearly to provide cogently an argument that supports your claims and you just won't because you claim it's a waste of time to discuss things with Progressives. Should I conclude then that you feel it a waste of time to discuss political matters with anyone who doesn't come to the discussion having the same points of view that you do? I think your answer to that question must necessarily be "yes" because you've stated that you cannot have meaningful discussions with Liberals and you've stated that discussing things with Progressives is a waste of time.

What impact does your unwillingness or incapability to provide a well developed argument to support your views have on your distaste for discussing politics with people having views different from yours? Surely you don't think anyone (other than perhaps your kids), well educated and rigorously thinking adults, will believe what you say merely because you utter or type the words? You aren't a Pontiff are you? Even if you are, a Pope's infallibility isn't universal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.
I have a question. Why?

The debates between people running for the GOP nomination are intended to help GOP voters decide who they want to vote for in the primary process.
That is, the debates are among like minded people for a like minded audience.

That assumes only Republicans would vote for one of these disparate candidates. It's possible a reasoned, open discussion on USMB might draw in some non-Republicans as well.

In most states, only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary.

 

[Arianrhod]

There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.
I have a question. Why?

The debates between people running for the GOP nomination are intended to help GOP voters decide who they want to vote for in the primary process.
That is, the debates are among like minded people for a like minded audience.

That assumes only Republicans would vote for one of these disparate candidates. It's possible a reasoned, open discussion on USMB might draw in some non-Republicans as well.

In most states, only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary.

Good point. Which could skew the primaries, in the sense that someone might want to vote for Sanders, for example (there's some evidence he's pulling moderate Republicans), but vote for one of the GOP candidates in the primary, possibly putting that candidate over the top, but voting Democratic or other in the general.

Primaries can also build a false sense of confidence. "Oh, well, my guy won the primary, so he'll win the general, too, and I don't have off on Election Day and the lines are too long and I'm gonna sit this one out."

It happens.