Debate Now Who are the serious debaters on this forum?

[The Duke]

Actually, it Depends. Some things a short quip is all one needs. If the color is yellow, then yellow, is the sufficient description. However, ever looked deeply into the colorful feathers of a male peacock? Try and reduce that description into red yellow and blue and you will fail miserably.

It's like this: Some things, a word or a phrase, Other things, an essay. Yet other things, a book, yet other things, series of volumes. Your simplistic notion attempting to accurately convey the complexities of life in terms of pithy sentences will obfuscate the finer of it's hues and colors which do exist, which, if not factored in, may lead to unjust policies. You seem like you are looking at an artist's palette, which consists of umber, cadmium, thalo, sienna, indigo, and you see only red, yellow, and blue. A guy like Mondrian can get away with it, but not Titian or Rembrandt though all are valid.

Take the above, I probably could have shortened it to one or two lines, but it wouldn't be as robust. Here, robust works. so why make assumptions? Unless, of course, you are grasping for some one-size-fits-all straws to invalidate more nuanced writing. Life isn't like that. If you don't believe me, try reading the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or "Wealth of Nations", etc., etc., etc.

Thing is, you can't feed Updike or Salinger to someone weaned on the tabloids and comic book movies.

So like uhh..yeah. The peacock raped ya, er wut? He pin ya down with his flare and no one could see what was goin' on for 40 seconds er wut?

Peacock sex is not pretty, IMO.

 

[Orangecat]

Exhibit A for the argument of the OP.

When I argue the pro-life position am I arguing the Democrat position?

When I argue for the 2nd am I arguing the Democrat position?

When I argue for a balance budget am I arguing for the Democrat position?

You can pull out any examples you'd like, everyone knows you're a lib.
I'm pro-choice in the first trimester, but no one thinks that makes me an idiot democrat. General context matters, not just a few cherry-picked positions.
Are you voting for Trump in 2024, or Democrat?

 

[The Duke]

Says the the guy whose sig is a classic circular argument (that the authority that proves God exists is the book who fallible men claim God wrote the line).

Brilliant, robust, dynamic, irrefutable line! (that's sarcasm, in case you are sarcasm challenged).

What's that, smelly pit boy?

 

[The Duke]

A number of persons on this forum do not understand how to frame an argument.

But, some of you do.

the non serious ones make wild claims, vacuous claims without substantiating them.

When asked to substantiate, I often get a snarky 'you do it'. No, the onus is always on the the ones making claims to substantiate their claims. You cannot ask others to do your work for you. That never has been the etiquette in any forum I've ever heard of and I've been on many going back to the 90s, the days of Usenet.

I will always substantiate my claim, if it exists. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to say 'it's just my opinion'. Opinions are okay, just make sure you make it clear that that is what they are. If you are making a claim of fact, then substantiate it to the best you can, and offer a path of reasoning for it, to the best that you can. See, to substantiate could just mean to supplement yuor claim, though proving it would be even better, but at least supplement it with something, or at the very minimum, a well reasoned path of logic and naming some well known examples, that would be okay.

But a wild claim, short sentence, 'Biden family are criminals' without evidence, that's not an argument. To say, 'it's in the news', that's not substantiation. A link would suffice. We could then debate the link, sure, but at least provide something, and the more, the merrier. It's called 'moving the debate forward'. Comments that do not move the debate forward are non arguments. Arguments and counter arguments move the debate forward. It's not complicated.

the non serious engage in ad hominems. The attack the source or the messenger and not the message. (yes, I've done this myself, but I would love to argue on a forum that doesn't allow it).

They who do not know how to debate do not engage in a real argument, they riddle their comments with rant words, weasel words, words of emotion and sentiment, engage in petty name calling, and wild claims without substance to them, and do not understand what a real argument is, and they do not understand the difference between an opinion and an argument, the difference between a non argument and a real argument.

For example:

Conservatives are morons. Liberals are idiots.

No, those are not arguments. Those are rants, they are sentiments, weasel words, ad homs, non arguments. Got it?

But, if I wrote: AOC's 'new deal' has issues, which are as follows (list them ) which is supported by (link to authoritative sources which supplement the argument [which, by the way, is not a violation of the 'appeals to authority' logical fallacy, because it's supplementation, not reliance upon] ).

That would be an argument. No snarky quips, no hate-AOC remarks, etc. Real arguments aren't supposed to be impressive by clever word use designed to get likes, they are supposed to be persuasive.

Who are the members of USMB who know how to debate?

Please tell me who you are and you will be the ones invited to future OPs by me on this forum. I don't care if you are right or left or something else. It's not about whether your are right or wrong, that is why we are here, to debate what is right and wrong, but some of you are disingenuous and are here only to get likes from your friends. Some of your I simply cannot take seriously. And, of course, those of you I can't take seriously will typically shoot that same claim back at me, which is, in fact, a cop out.

Who are the serious debaters? Let me know, please. PM me, if you prefer.

Please understand, I do not claim to be the god's gift to debate forums, it's not about how well we argue, I am probably even guilty of some of the sins I eschew, (but I strive, at least, not to, but, at times, it feels like I have to, with some of you) it's about how to at least adhere to a form that allows for constructive debate, and that is what I'm after.

And, another thing, we are anonymous here. All that matters is the argument, not who we are. Some are from foreign countries, it doesn't matter, all that matters is the text in the argument. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm from Texas, in case you are wondering.

Let me know, thank you.

Rumpole.

Smelly pits, Smelly pits, it's not your fault!

Owait, yes it is. There's this thing called soap and water..

 

[pknopp]

You can pull out any examples you'd like, everyone knows you're a lib.

Do I have positions that are generally considered liberal? Yes. Anti-war. Helping the poor. Not being hateful.

You know what other position that is often times considered?

Christian, (or at least it used to ).

That isn't what you initially claimed.

Barring a few exceptions, you're pretty much a cheerleader for the democrats.

I'm pro-choice in the first trimester, but no one thinks that makes me an idiot democrat. General context matters, not just a few cherry-picked positions.

You are all over the place. Make up your mind what you are trying to argue.

 

[The Duke]

Do I have positions that are generally considered liberal? Yes. Anti-war. Helping the poor. Not being hateful.

You know what other position that is often times considered?

Christian, (or at least it used to ).

That isn't what you initially claimed.








You are all over the place. Make up your mind what you are trying to argue.

You're a leftist shitbird shill. Prove me wrong.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Reported for unclean start with no link.

Jerbroni sez wut?

Authoritarian leftists love to use the clean debate forum so they can indulge in pre-emptive dismissal of posters who are not haughty idealogues like they are.

It's their way of dishing it out, but not having to take it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Do I have positions that are generally considered liberal? Yes. Anti-war. Helping the poor. Not being hateful.

You know what other position that is often times considered?

Christian, (or at least it used to ).

That isn't what you initially claimed.








You are all over the place. Make up your mind what you are trying to argue.

You would not recognize actual liberal political ideology if your life depended on it.

 

[pknopp]

You're a leftist shitbird shill. Prove me wrong.

If you would like to reply unlike a 12 year old that would be great and I would be happy to reply.

 

[pknopp]

You would not recognize actual liberal political ideology if your life depended on it.

More vast generalizations. You said nothing to actually reply to.

 

[The Duke]

If you would like to reply unlike a 12 year old that would be great and I would be happy to reply.

I got your playbook, stupid.

LEFTIST PROG FUCKTARD RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect.

3. Ignore any facts presented.

3a. Play dumb and keep others wasting their time trying to enlighten you.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence, Age.

6. Employ misdirection.

6a. smear people.

6b. attack religion.

6c. attack your rationality.

7. Lie, make false assumptions.

8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card.

9. Play gay/lesbian card.

10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card.

11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing?

12. Deny constantly.

13. Reword and repeat.

14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about.

15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.

16. Russia.

17. Fox News/Alex Jones/Brietbart/infowars/Stormfront/Gateway/hannity/OAN.

18. You can’t read.

19. Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump.

20. What about...


Try again, canned response boi.

 

[Rumpole]

Cop out to what? Your inconsequential opinion?

Incompetent rebuttal, lacks substance.

Now then, I make claims, substantiate them, offer opinions with paths of reasoning, and your refusal to engage in a valid discourse is a cop out. There is no accurate other way to put it.
You further embolden that fact with a pseudo debate trick called posturing, which has many variants, this one is called 'trivializing an argument', in a feeble attempt to puff yourself up. How sophomoric.

Good luck with that you toffeynosed [sic] maloderous, [sic] pervert.

FFS, use the spell checker.

Anyway, Incompetent retort, ad hom/false characterization, lacks substantiation

Now, it does seem that you are a bigot, not positive, but you are blowing that particular skin flute, so it kinda fits you, nicely. Now, sure, I could be wrong, but since a guy like you doesn't give a damn about facts, well, hell, then I guess you're a hypocritical bigot. Right? Why not, it's becoming to you, you wear that suit well. But, unlike you, I will extend to you the courtesy of asking you to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting, even if it is more likely than not, as evidenced above, your reply will be another cop out.

If I were you, I'd drop your attempts to be a sesquipedalian, you remind me of a hobo trying to fit into a tux.

 

[Orangecat]

You are all over the place. Make up your mind what you are trying to argue.

I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just informing you that everyone here who considers themselves conservative recognizes you as a liberal. You can keep throwing tantrums, but I speak truth. That's why conservatives keep thanking my posts here.
Again, will you be voting for Trump in 2024, or the democrat?

 

[The Duke]

I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just informing you that everyone here who considers themselves conservative recognizes you as a liberal. You can keep throwing tantrums, but I speak truth. That's why conservatives keep thanking my posts here.

pknopp is no liberal.

Social Marxist shitbag. Yes.

 

[Orangecat]

pknopp is no liberal.

Social Marxist shitbag. Yes.

Not a classic liberal, true. The founding fathers were classic liberals.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just informing you that everyone here who considers themselves conservative recognizes you as a liberal.

Again, that wasn't your initial accusation.

I then ask you if I'm liberal when I note I am pro-life? When I note I support the 2nd? When I note I support a balanced budget?

See what happens with people like you, it is far easier for you to lump people into your boxes and condemn those boxes as opposed to actually having to address what people say.

My liberal positions are largely quite Biblical.

You can keep throwing tantrums, but I speak truth. That's why conservatives keep thanking my posts here.
Again, will you be voting for Trump in 2024, or the democrat?

Neither most likely.

 

[pknopp]

Not a classic liberal, true. The founding fathers were classic liberals.

Well except where it came to freedom and equal rights for everyone.

 

[Orangecat]

Again, that wasn't your initial accusation.

Again, will you be voting for Trump (or DeSantis) in 2024, or the democrat?

 

[pknopp]

Again, will you be voting for Trump in 2024, or the democrat?

Again, most likely neither.

 

[lennypartiv]

A number of persons on this forum do not understand how to frame an argument.

This isn't high school debate team.

The rules are different (if there are any) and there are many tools to succeed in a forum like this.