Debate Now Who are the serious debaters on this forum?

[Dogmaphobe]

No, I'm placing you in the 'not to be taken seriously' group.

My goodness, I am just so non-plussed by that .

This is affecting me ALMOST as much when a poster with the same degree of natural charisma as you called "ryecatcher" hands out his "idiotgrams".

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's a fair query.

But is it a queer fairy?

 

[BackAgain]

But is is a queer fairy?

Have you ever met any hetero fairies?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm pretty sure no one came here, to this board, for structured debate

Back when CK was administrator he and I experimented with a structured debate forum in which the OP could make the rules by which the debate would proceed.

But alas, far too few understood that concept at all and the moderators understandably hated trying to moderate threads with different rules mandated so it didn't work.

I wish it had.

 

[Mac-7]

This isn't a debate on religion.

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[Leo123]

Have you ever met any hetero fairies?

Tinkerbell?

 

[cnm]

I merely picked a few notables for my original example, it wouldn't have been very impactful to list the whole lot of American authors.

The notables you picked are significant.

 

[cnm]

Nor an intellectual.

Never claimed to be. How about you?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You should pay more attention to what, in fact, I wrote, I sensed in advance some simpleton would make that accusation you just made, and I clearly put it in the OP that I am also guilty of such debate sins I am eschewing in the OP, that, indeed, I do not claim any status of being a paragon of debate forum virtue. What that means, OhPleaseJustQuit, is that if someone wants me to wallow in a cesspool, I'll indulge. But, in the mean time, if you really understood the OP, I'm asking for folks that would like NOT to wallowing in cesspools on a debate forum, and I will invite them to participate in the future. But, outside of that invite silo, ALL BETS ARE OFF.

.




Wow!

You can't even insult someone without being a windbag.

Nice try, however.




.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Which reminds me of another of his thoroughly tiresome behaviors...

He sets all the rules of engagement, presumes his sources are the absolute last word on anything, then when people quit putting up with his insufferable bullshit, he declares himself the winner.

.

100% leftist.

.

 

[jc456]

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.

dude, what they do is, if you ask a question that will confirm the color yellow, they will tell you how the color is made in a hope you give up reading the post and then never agree the color was indeed yellow. It's hilarious the montages' that are written so one doesn't read them.

 

[jc456]

I think US defence forces should be operated for profit.

I didn't see that one coming, and yet you want the government to fund the not working lazy people.

 

[jc456]

Tell me what it is you want run, and I'll answer your question.

anything. you know, free money programs

 

[Orangecat]

Never claimed to be.

Obvious, regardless.

 

[Rumpole]

anything. you know, free money programs

No, you have to be specific. But, a gov program should be run by the gov.

 

[Rumpole]

.




Wow!

You can't even insult someone without being a windbag.

Nice try, however.




.

Well, the salient fact is that you can't be taken seriously. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.

100% leftist.

.

Didn't you get the memo?

Only opinion pieces from Daily Koss constitute proof of one's intellectual superiority.

If you dare to reply to the non-Stalinist approved sources, your reply is invalid.

 

[Rumpole]

Then why did you bring it up?

Because there is circular logic implied in your sig, which destroys your credibility.

Your credibility, and NOT 'religion', per se, is the thing that was in play in my rebuttal.

 

[Mac-7]

Because there is circular logic implied in your sig, which destroys your credibility.

Your credibility, and NOT 'religion', per se, is the thing that was in play in my rebuttal.

It appears that someone has stolen my “sig” as you call it

Maybe some God-hating lib who is pissed that he’s going to Hell

I’m flattered that it made such an impression on you even after its no longer here

 

[Rumpole]

Didn't you get the memo?

Only opinion pieces from Daily Koss constitute proof of one's intellectual superiority.

If you dare to reply to the non-Stalinist approved sources, your reply is invalid.

That's rich given the fact that a number of repubs propensity to quote the worst far right biased questionable sources on the internet, such as TheGatewayPundit, the right shouldn't talk. Note that I wrote 'a number of..." that's how you make a claim and not engage in meaningless broad swipe generalizations against a non monolithic group.