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

[Stephanie]

what is the value of having this posted in this forum? the title alone is flame bait

 

[Arianrhod]

what is the value of having this posted in this forum? the title alone is flame bait

Can you respond to the OP?

 

[Arianrhod]

So the OP asks us a question but when we give him the answer, he says "no, you are wrong".

Not in this thread.

Apparently not.

I'll be happy to explain anything you're not clear on. Feel free to ask.

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

Explain that mess.

???? Find my ID in the cited string of discussion above....it's not there.

The lack of response is in fact a response, namely

Unlike you, I have a life. I cannot be on this board 24/7. Why won't you answer the question I asked?

It seems to have disappeared into the same temporal anomaly as Post #74. If you can link to both, I can answer.

 

[PredFan]

Not in this thread.

I'll be happy to explain anything you're not clear on. Feel free to ask.

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

Explain that mess.

???? Find my ID in the cited string of discussion above....it's not there.

The lack of response is in fact a response, namely

Unlike you, I have a life. I cannot be on this board 24/7. Why won't you answer the question I asked?

It seems to have disappeared into the same temporal anomaly as Post #74. If you can link to both, I can answer.

Hey moron, it's right there, expand the discussion. I asked you to explain yourself. You claimed you can but you refuse to. Or is it that you are an illiterate moron?

 

[Arianrhod]

I asked you to explain yourself. You claimed you can but you refuse to.

Unless you can at least indicate in which post I allegedly made this statement, my conclusion is that you're temporizing because you've realized 320 Years of History did not say what you claimed he said.

 

[PredFan]

I asked you to explain yourself. You claimed you can but you refuse to.

Unless you can at least indicate in which post I allegedly made this statement, my conclusion is that you're temporizing because you've realized 320 Years of History did not say what you claimed he said.

How fucking stupid are you really?

All right you illiterate idiot, here it is again:

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 but you felt it necessary to reply with that random disconnected statement.

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

You then claimed to be able to explain. So moron, can you do it?

 

[320 Years of History]

So the OP asks us a question but when we give him the answer, he says "no, you are wrong". Only a liberal can do that kind of thing,

Please show me where I did that....

I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong.

You claimed I received from you an answer to my OP questions and in reply to that answer, you wrote that I asserted that you are wrong. I asked you to show me where I did so. That was a sequence of comments that included post #69 and post #72.

So the OP asks us a question but when we give him the answer, he says "no, you are wrong". Only a liberal can do that kind of thing,

Please show me where I did that....

I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong.

In Post #74, you again wrote, as shown just above: "I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong."

Again, I ask you, please show me where I told your answer to my opening post question is wrong.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

 

[Asclepias]

In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.
― William Penn


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?

There's no point to having a discussion where no materially opposing points of view are presented. There's a reason why in school we must use dialectic structure for argumentative essays. If all one hears is validation of one's own point of view, how is one to discover whether it's actually a meritorious one? If in a deb ate, the only people asking questions are people who already see the merit of one's ideas, how is one to address the inquiries and concerns of folks who don't, folks who see flaws in the proposed ideas and want to know how one would overcome them?

I can think of only a few circumstances whereby I only want to hear from folks who agree with me:

• There is incontrovertible proof that my point of view is correct. Or in other words, there exists a valid deductive argument showing there is only one correct conclusion, and it happens to also be my conclusion.
• The parties involved are subject to me and only me. Of the seven billion people on the planet, three of them -- myself and my two youngest kids -- fall into this group. In this situation, it doesn't matter if my kids agree with me or not. I always agree with myself. <grins & chuckles>

In any other circumstance, I'm more than happy to hear solid arguments that oppose my view. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, so why not? Perhaps that's it. Maybe conservatives are so certain they are a right that they just don't need to challenge their own views?


The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

There really is no value in having a debate with only people that share your views. It quickly becomes a mutual fawning ceremony devoid of any substance or challenges to your views.

 

[PredFan]

So the OP asks us a question but when we give him the answer, he says "no, you are wrong". Only a liberal can do that kind of thing,

Please show me where I did that....

I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong.

You claimed I received from you an answer to my OP questions and in reply to that answer, you wrote that I asserted that you are wrong. I asked you to show me where I did so. That was a sequence of comments that included post #69 and post #72.

So the OP asks us a question but when we give him the answer, he says "no, you are wrong". Only a liberal can do that kind of thing,

Please show me where I did that....

I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong.

In Post #74, you again wrote, as shown just above: "I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong."

Again, I ask you, please show me where I told your answer to my opening post question is wrong.

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.

 

[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.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why do so many people think this thread is about televised presidential debates? Cold it be that they failed to understand the premise of the OP's question?

 

[2aguy]

I specifically try to debate people who disagree with me......

 

[320 Years of History]

So the OP asks us a question but when we give him the answer, he says "no, you are wrong". Only a liberal can do that kind of thing,

Please show me where I did that....

I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong.

You claimed I received from you an answer to my OP questions and in reply to that answer, you wrote that I asserted that you are wrong. I asked you to show me where I did so. That was a sequence of comments that included post #69 and post #72.

So the OP asks us a question but when we give him the answer, he says "no, you are wrong". Only a liberal can do that kind of thing,

Please show me where I did that....

I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong.

In Post #74, you again wrote, as shown just above: "I reference this entire thread.
But specifically, I myself answered your question and you told me I was wrong."

Again, I ask you, please show me where I told your answer to my opening post question is wrong.

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.

It's mighty odd that even at this point you have yet to simply identify the specific post containing the remarks of which you write. I ask you again. Please identify the number of the post where I wrote that your answer to my opening post is wrong.

 

[Arianrhod]

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

 

[320 Years of History]

I specifically try to debate people who disagree with me......

That strikes me a considerably more stimulating an experience. All the better if the opposing party is one's peer.

 

[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

Good try. Your response above is fine as a response to my statement about lefties, but it doesn't explain the unrelated original response. If you are trying to say that my response shows that I only see what I want to see, it fails in that I didn't state that I was seeing anything.

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

Maybe you progressives can't talk to each other without getting bored, but I can spend a lot of time conversing with like minded people, even when we don't agree which is often. If you don't believe me look at how we disagree on our current group of candidates.

It might be interesting to have a rational and logical discussion with someone on the left but it is impossible, arguing with lefties is a complete waste of time.

 

[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 .

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

 

[PredFan]

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.