Debate Now Who are the serious debaters on this forum?

[Anomalism]

That being said, OP, you're wasting your time. People don't come to a place like this to listen and learn, to grow. They come here to stand on a soapbox and bark at the moon.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You'll have a problem with the Federalist papers, the Constitution, Philosophy, Science, Law, Geology, Shakespeare, The Bible, the Tao Te Ching, Wealth Of Nations, scholarly articles, Supreme Court rulings, Kissinger's "White House years," history in general, Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", and most subjects in politics, science and life, because life is more nuanced than your short attention span addled brain can handle. Your requirement will keep you ignorant, that is certain.

You see, the art of brevity does not actually mean short sentences, less that fifty words, etc., it means not being verbose, not using more words than necessary. You can write a book with a 1000 pages and not be verbose. Many times a complete understanding of something requires learning about the nuance of the thing, the shades of gray, because life is not so often simplistic or black and white. Sometimes a message is more artful if expressed in a certain way, which just might include more words than necessary, insofar as the style might be part of the message, maybe it's done for more impact, which is the case in these two paragraphs.

You see, some folks don't get it in short sentences, for some people, you have to repeat yourself in different ways to get message across. No profession knows this more than advertising copywriters, which used to be my profession, long ago.

Now, I will shorten the above, and watch how the color of the thing changes:

Life's complexity often demands more than fifty words for clarity and nuance. Brevity isn't about word count but about avoiding verbosity. Understanding deep topics like law or philosophy requires detail. Your stance risks ignorance. Even in advertising, my former field, repetition and style are key for impact.

Sure, the message is basically the same, but the breadth and depth of the original is now stripped away. You'll miss out on much that is written in the world, you'll miss color depth, life's innumerable hues, if you insist everything you read fits your requirement.

Would you insist on all painters use only red, yellow, and blue, the primary colors, or use the colors inherent in real life? Most objects in life are a complex amalgam of many colors, and there are actually over some 16 million colors (used on the internet), and if you insist on simple solid colors, you won't see life as it really is. You will be rendered ignorant. Painting is a perfect analogy for written expression, in my view.

.









.

 

[jc456]

Ashley did not accuse her father of sex abuse.

it's in her diary, I disagree.

 

[jc456]

These apes have no etiquette.

cause we're rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrracist right? Your irony is well noted.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/---/ My opinion is: Rumphole is a master debater.

 

[Rawley]

Ashley did not accuse her father of sex abuse.

Show me the quotes that her father did these things to her.

Sorry, there is no evidence.




The jury spoke, based on a 'preponderance of the evidence.

Hell, Trump even bragged that because he is a 'star' he can sexually abuse women and get away with it. When asked what he had in common with Ivanka, he said 'sex' while his daughter was sitting beside him, she was stunned. The man is a perv, and you need to admit it.

You need to admit your raw hatred of the man prevents you from having any objective view of realty. Your masters have fed you lies and you eagerly regurgitate them

 

[WinterBorn]

At one time I considered myself a serious debater. Then came here. There are some great debates on this site. But far more descend into flaming and nonsense.

 

[Donald H]

Well, we could agree that all that matters is the argument. Links should supplement the argument, but shouldn't make the argument. There are some sources that are a deal breaker for me, such as Gatewaypundit.

It isn't, but it could be. one could make stronger argument that Vietnam was a war with China by proxy.

An argument doesn't have to be strong, it doesn't even have to be logical.
What it should be is to be written sans 'non arguments' Non arguments just waste time.

What is a non argument? Below is a boiler plated list.

View attachment 852472

So the point is any argument, bad, weak, medium or strong, moves the debate forward. Someone makes a bad argument, the debate moves forward because you just debate the person, point out the logical fallacies, incorrect data, etc. and the debate continues. But, if someone response with a snarky weasel words, you can't debate those. The really good
example of a non argument is a thought-terminating cliche, such as 'TDS'. That
is a non argument. It's a non argument because the person who wrote it has no
desire to debate you, they just want to kill the conversation. Posturing is very common, and it comes in many flavors, that is where someone tries to elevate themself, puff themself up either by claiming authority (which you really can't do on an anonymous forum) or talk another down, shame, belittle, insult. So, they are 'non arguments'. See, a non argument isn't really debatable. You can't substantiate weasel words, words that lack coherence or sincerity, they are unreality. You'd be surprised how few people understand this.

What I would suggest is join www.politicalforum.com they have much better moderation over there. They don't allow ad homs over there (the mods will mod like they should, when reported, they don't do it here very much). I'm "Patricio Da Silva" on that forum.

Join the other forum, and PM me over there.

I've been banned over there on account of my political views.

I don't see anything being gained in winning a political debate with Americans. America will serve only its own interests until world opinion turns nearly all other countries against itself.

What are you suggesting we should debate? The Vietnam war being a proxy war against China? If so then I'll claim the pro side.

 

[Donald H]

I've been banned over there on account of my political views.

I don't see anything being gained in winning a political debate with Americans. America will serve only its own interests until world opinion turns nearly all other countries against America.

What are you suggesting we should debate? The Vietnam war being a proxy war against China? If so then I'll claim the pro side.

 

[jc456]

At one time I considered myself a serious debater. Then came here. There are some great debates on this site. But far more descend into flaming and nonsense.

Debate is not an objective for most in here. I’m always happy to debate, but most demfks crawl into a defensive position and name call most every post. MAC is one. Oh, another thing is one must be objective and not insincere

 

[BackAgain]

It remains hysterical that DumpHole imagines himself to be a “serious debater.”

 

[Anomalism]

cause we're rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrracist right? Your irony is well noted.

Racism doesn't offend me. I don't really care if you're racist. Your stupidity is far more offensive than any racism or bigotry.

 

[dblack]

Racism doesn't offend me. I don't really care if you're racist. Your stupidity is far more offensive than any racism or bigotry.

Though they do tend to go hand in hand.

 

[jc456]

I've been banned over there on account of my political views.

you probably didn't follow the rules, not view point.

 

[jc456]

Racism doesn't offend me. I don't really care if you're racist.

it's what someone says to get away from the truth. Then call one a rrrrrracist

 

[jc456]

Racism doesn't offend me. I don't really care if you're racist. Your stupidity is far more offensive than any racism or bigotry.

Why not just be openly racist? It's easier and more honest.

my evidence!!!!

you all still haven't figured out the neat search ability in here. too fking funny!

 

[Lastamender]

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.

 

[jc456]

Though they do tend to go hand in hand.

I see you don't understand either that there is a search feature in here to prove posts and authentic posters.

 

[jc456]

Racism doesn't offend me. I don't really care if you're racist. Your stupidity is far more offensive than any racism or bigotry.

post 416 says otherwise you idiot. You should go back and delete your history before you make such statements.

 

[Rumpole]

it's in her diary, I disagree.

Show me the quote.