Debate Now Who are the serious debaters on this forum?

[westwall]

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.

Certainly not you.

 

[Oddball]

Those you disagree with, regardless of political affiliation, are ... morons and idiots?

Well, he is a "serious debater", dontchaknow!

 

[jotathought]

Well, he is a "serious debater", dontchaknow!

he is a master debator!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Pithy is good...

I never knew you had a lisp, but thanks for the support.

 

[hjmick]

note to moderators: The 'clean debate zone' isn't clean on account of no imagination on what is required to keep it clean. But I understand that nobody really cares very much about keeping it clean, and providing a refuge for those few who desire clean debate. Can that be changed?

Would it be possible to even keep this thread clean for a start?

Why do I get the impression you were beat up a lot in school...

 

[Dante Reawakened]

MaryL

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Most people here just want to push their political party.

projection?

Let's face it, most people here just want to push buttons.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

You're certainly not serious....You post indigestible text bricks with numerous different points on them, then demand that your voluminous load of prose be parsed out on a point-by-point basis.

Then, like the haughty headmaster wannabe that you are, you demand that everyone adhere to your rules.

Well, take you tl;dr bullshit and stuff it where the sun don't shine...Your effete snobbery deserves all the ridicule heaped upon it that it gets.

Triggered!

 

[Dante Reawakened]

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.

Been here. Done that. Under the CK Administration we tried.

 

[Orangecat]

You're certainly not serious....You post indigestible text bricks with numerous different points on them, then demand that your voluminous load of prose be parsed out on a point-by-point basis.

Then, like the haughty headmaster wannabe that you are, you demand that everyone adhere to your rules.

Well, take you tl;dr bullshit and stuff it where the sun don't shine...Your effete snobbery deserves all the ridicule heaped upon it that it gets.

A true sign of intellect is the ability to make your point concisely, with as few words as possible. Too many people here think a wall of text is an effective strategy.

 

[pknopp]

projection?

Let's face it, most people here just want to push buttons.

OK.

What political party do I promote?

 

[Orangecat]

OK.

What political party do I promote?

A better question is which party do you impugn, which is a tacit promotion for the other viable party. We all know where you stand.

 

[pknopp]

A better question is which party do you impugn, which is a tacit promotion for the other viable party. We all know where you stand.

Do I condemn Biden's actions in Ukraine? Yes

Did I condemn every single Biden program as none of them were paid for? Yes

Did I give Republicans credit for making first move with the debt ceiling? Yes.

So again, back to my question. Which party do I promote?

 

[jc456]

Most people here just want to push their political party.

Most ignore questions because they can’t answer

 

[Rumpole]

A true sign of intellect is the ability to make your point concisely, with as few words as possible. Too many people here think a wall of text is an effective strategy.

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.

 

[Rumpole]

Who are the most seriously long-winded and pompous debaters on this forum who try to sell themselves as moderates, but are really blithering Marxists, instead?



You tell me.

Well, if you want me to swim in the cesspool that you swim in, I'll take, for your sake, a short dip--- if I'm a blistering Marxist, you are a blustering Fascist (noting the capital 'F'). Whether it's true doesn't matter to a guy like you, anyway, so, what the hell, you're a fascist. Suits you, eh? Oops, did I violate the spirit of the OP? Sorry 'bout that, guys like you bring it out of me.

But, thanks for taking the bait, I now know which group to put you in, i.e., the group I can't take seriously.

I've read many of your replies. Your mind doesn't go far beyond short sentences. You're tall on vacuous claims, wide weasel word infested banal generalities, but short on substance. You think you're smart, but your bulb is not too bright, you just don't know what real brightness looks like, it's outside of your eyeball's dynamic range, which is narrow (that's a optics/photographer's term, you'll have to google it, in case you are in the 'low educated' group,)


You tell me.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Sorry 'bout that, guys like you bring it out of me.

.




Now we get it. Knew it was there.

Ignore the veneer of civility you try to convince us is there. When you blame the other guy for your incivility, all bets are off.

"Debate"




.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well, if you want me to swim in the cesspool that you swim in, I'll take, for your sake, a short dip--- if I'm a blistering Marxist, you are a blustering Fascist (noting the capital 'F'). Whether it's true doesn't matter to a guy like you, anyway, so, what the hell, you're a fascist. Suits you, eh? Oops, did I violate the spirit of the OP? Sorry 'bout that, guys like you bring it out of me.

But, thanks for taking the bait, I now know which group to put you in, i.e., the group I can't take seriously.

I've read many of your replies. Your mind doesn't go far beyond short sentences. You're tall on vacuous claims, wide weasel word infested banal generalities, but short on substance. You think you're smart, but your bulb is not too bright, you just don't know what real brightness looks like, it's outside of your eyeball's dynamic range, which is narrow (that's a photographer's term, you'll have to google it, in case you are in the 'low educated' group,)


You tell me.

My post was not really intended as an invitation for you to display all your most irritatingly sophomoric characteristics, but thank you for putting them on full display, anyway.

Would it help if I gave you a participation award? The desperation with which you seek that feeling of superiority over all others reeks of desperation and low self-esteem.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.




Now we get it. Knew it was there.

Ignore the veneer of civility you try to convince us is there. When you blame the other guy for your incivility, all bets are off.

"Debate"




.

I do suspect that a lot of guys bring it out of him, and I imagine quite regularly, too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Trump colluded with Russia

Evolution is science

Manmade Climate Change

Excess government spending has nothing to do with inflation

ahhh, fuck it, not worth the time