USMB Debator of the Year

[Baruch Menachem]

There really isn't that much debating going on.

You have the left presenting "facts" with links based on study and evidence.

You just disqualified yourself, you stupid, partisan ****. In fact, you'd be a front runner in the voting for 'Most predictably blockheaded, irrational, partisan ****' of the year.

he has won that award for both the 2nd and 3rd millennia.

 

[BluePhantom]

I really have to say....Ladyliberty is damned good. I don't agree with her much but she doesn't let you off the hook with bullshit arguments. Toro has been around for a while so I will say Toro as veteran but yeah I think Amelia is spot on with Ladyliberty as rookie of the year

 

[Synthaholic]

There really isn't that much debating going on.

You have the left presenting "facts" with links based on study and evidence.

You just disqualified yourself, you stupid, partisan ****. In fact, you'd be a front runner in the voting for 'Most predictably blockheaded, irrational, partisan ****' of the year.

Except everything he said is true.

 

[Paulie]

You just disqualified yourself, you stupid, partisan ****.

See what I mean?

Yes, I see that you are a stupid, partisan ****. Everyone else sees it too.

Go get yourself some *****. Buy it if you have to. You desperately need it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Ginscpy needs to be on this list, dude is a total genius and scholar, check out his various posts on the Military board if you don't believe me.

 

[Sallow]

Although Torough is very thorough, he is from Canada.

I'll go with Toro too.

The guy knows his shit.

And his posts are tight.

 

[Sallow]

Greenbeard is a close second..

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Trajan posts a lot of really useful stuff as well.

 

[Synthaholic]

Paperview, Sarah G, Carby, Jillian make logical arguments. Wingnuts hate that.

 

[High_Gravity]

Greenbeard is a close second..

Who is Greenbeard?

 

[Paulie]

Paperview, Sarah G, Carby, Jillian make logical arguments. Wingnuts hate that.

jillian makes logical arguments?

All I ever see from her is "wingnut" this, "moon bat" that, "nutters", etc.

You instantly lose credibility as a debater when you resort to insults and name calling.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for name calling, but at the very least you don't get consideration for debater awards.

 

[Liability]

There really isn't that much debating going on.

You have the left presenting "facts" with links based on study and evidence.

Then you have the right with:

Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day.

Obama has more regulations than Bush.

Obama has grown government.

Trickle down works.

and so on.

I won't even go in to science (my favorite being the Grand Canyon and "Noah's Flood").

So where is the debate? On one hand, facts, on the other, this kind of bizarre, weird right wing fantasy and lies simply repeated so often, the right believes them to be true.

Typical of the uber lib propagandist, rdunce cannot help but rely on lies and sweeping generalizations which are not founded in reality.

 

[Swagger]

Paperview, Sarah G, Carby, Jillian make logical arguments. Wingnuts hate that.

jillian makes logical arguments?

All I ever see from her is "wingnut" this, "moon bat" that, "nutters", etc.

You instantly lose credibility as a debater when you resort to insults and name calling.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for name calling, but at the very least you don't get consideration for debater awards.

I nearly choked on that, too.

 

[Amelia]

I could swear I saw jillian make a substantial, on-topic contribution once -- about three months ago. I'd hunt for a link but there's too much gratuitous ad hominem to sort through.

If I ever did a search through jillian's posts I think it would be to make a word cloud of her classics.

 

[Synthaholic]

Paperview, Sarah G, Carby, Jillian make logical arguments. Wingnuts hate that.

jillian makes logical arguments?

All I ever see from her is "wingnut" this, "moon bat" that, "nutters", etc.

You instantly lose credibility as a debater when you resort to insults and name calling.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for name calling, but at the very least you don't get consideration for debater awards.

But she (and I) just use a term like 'wingnut' because 'extreme fringe rightwinger' is too much to type.

It doesn't mean that it is not a perfectly accurate describer of a faction of the Republican Party.

 

[Synthaholic]

There really isn't that much debating going on.

You have the left presenting "facts" with links based on study and evidence.

Then you have the right with:

Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day.

Obama has more regulations than Bush.

Obama has grown government.

Trickle down works.

and so on.

I won't even go in to science (my favorite being the Grand Canyon and "Noah's Flood").

So where is the debate? On one hand, facts, on the other, this kind of bizarre, weird right wing fantasy and lies simply repeated so often, the right believes them to be true.

Typical of the uber lib propagandist, rdunce cannot help but rely on lies and sweeping generalizations which are not founded in reality.

And you haven't attempted to debate since, oh, 2007.

True story!

 

[Paulie]

Paperview, Sarah G, Carby, Jillian make logical arguments. Wingnuts hate that.

jillian makes logical arguments?

All I ever see from her is "wingnut" this, "moon bat" that, "nutters", etc.

You instantly lose credibility as a debater when you resort to insults and name calling.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for name calling, but at the very least you don't get consideration for debater awards.

But she (and I) just use a term like 'wingnut' because 'extreme fringe rightwinger' is too much to type.

It doesn't mean that it is not a perfectly accurate describer of a faction of the Republican Party.

It doesn't become you during a debate, is all I'm saying.

 

[rightwinger]

I'd have to go with California Girl

She gets the most rep

She is also an excellent debater. You start by saying "Nobody on this board is as intelligent as I am and you are an idiot/moron/low IQ"

You can't argue with logic like that

 

[ladyliberal]

I'd like to nominate BluePhantom. While I thought of it mostly as discussing rather than debating, I think his thread on the political views of the founders (http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/193925-political-views-of-the-founding-fathers.html) was the one I found most interesting and educational.

 

[Liability]

There really isn't that much debating going on.

You have the left presenting "facts" with links based on study and evidence.

Then you have the right with:

Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day.

Obama has more regulations than Bush.

Obama has grown government.

Trickle down works.

and so on.

I won't even go in to science (my favorite being the Grand Canyon and "Noah's Flood").

So where is the debate? On one hand, facts, on the other, this kind of bizarre, weird right wing fantasy and lies simply repeated so often, the right believes them to be true.

Typical of the uber lib propagandist, rdunce cannot help but rely on lies and sweeping generalizations which are not founded in reality.

And you haven't attempted to debate since, oh, 2007.

True story!

No. As usual from you, it's not a true story. It's just you being dishonest.

Unlike you, SimplyAssholic, I CAN debate, and I do. You don't.

I admit I often don't bother even trying to engage in a debate, especially with babbling simpletons poo-flingers like you. There's no point in it. You just come back with more poo to fling.

You tend to never even try to make a coherent point and you are hostile to facts and logic.

When people DO try to debate, you throw shit and engage in even pettier than usual ad hominem. We all know why, too.