Debate Now Who are the serious debaters on this forum?

[JohnDB]

Serious and intelligent debate has never been a regular thing since I joined to keep in contact with a friend of mine a few years back.

Political discourse has never been civil since it was first created during the Roman Empire. Where you had to be a citizen to vote for a Senator. The "S" in SPQR. Some of the slander today is reminiscent of the very things said then. And they had no limits on vulgarity or lack of respect for others.

I have been paying attention to the disinformation and misinformation networking going on. You can always tell when someone is going to be more of a troll than have a serious discussion by the Avatar Name they give themselves usually.

A real bona-fide name and reputation associated with that name is something that they don't want. Most here swap names often....just to try to get a new reputation which is not different from their last reputation of dishonest discourse.

I got one name....it hasn't changed across the decades across the many forums I've been a member of. But then again I am unapologetic for the opinions I hold...and I'm more than willing to give the reasons why I hold them. YMMV.
I am not the sole arbiter of truth....but when someone blatantly starts out with false accusations and lies in the OP....it's mostly a waste of time to talk to them. And you have to wonder why you are bothering to engage. Who is the fool when engaging with a fraud and liar?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

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

.

Do I detect just a hint of double entendre there?

.

 

[Orangecat]

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?

Barring a few exceptions, you're pretty much a cheerleader for the democrats. You can deny it all you'd like, but no one who's read a number of your posts will believe you.

 

[Orangecat]

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.

"Colorful" works just fine.

 

[Oddball]

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.

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.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.

Do I detect just a hint of double entendre there?

.

Maybe just a hint.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

I'm starting to wonder if Donald and Mac1958 got together and had a baby, somehow.

 

[pknopp]

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

example? Name one Democrat I've supported.

Quit with the generalizations.

You can deny it all you'd like, but no one who's read a number of your posts will believe you.

No, you've been trained. I support things that Democrats at one time or another said they support. Generally they don't.

Example. I am against our wars. Democrats used to be against them. No more.

I am for helping the poor. The poor fell further and further behind under Obama. I've also consistently condemned him for that.

Because I don't bend over for every Republican issue you are trained to think the way you do.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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

Lotta tough girls in British Columbia.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Hear! Hear!

You nailed it

 

[Rumpole]

Certainly not you.

Thanks for taking the bait, I now know which group I can place you in, the group I can't take seriously.

Congratulations!

I predict: your reply will be a cop out.

Can't wait!

 

[westwall]

Thanks for taking the bait, I now know which group I can place you in, the group I can't take seriously.

Congratulations!

I predict: your reply will be a cop out.

Can't wait!

Cop out to what? Your inconsequential opinion?

Good luck with that you toffeynosed, maloderous, pervert.

 

[Rumpole]

Hear! Hear!

You nailed it

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).

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Thanks for taking the bait, I now know which group I can place you in, the group I can't take seriously.

Congratulations!

I predict: your reply will be a cop out.

Can't wait!

So, are you placing him in the sentient group, the well-adjusted group, the sensible group or the non pompous ass group?

 

[Mac-7]

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).

I’m not going to waste my time turning heathens into men of God

If your soul is lost thats your problem not mine

 

[jc456]

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.

It comes down to one choice, government run or privately run.what are you?

 

[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.

del

"That's nice, honey."


Wherever he is now, he gave me that!

 

[Orangecat]

example? Name one Democrat I've supported.

I feel no need to play fetch. Everyone knows you caucus with the libtards.

 

[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.

Reported for unclean start with no link.

Jerbroni sez wut?

 

[pknopp]

I feel no need to play fetch. Everyone knows you caucus with the libtards.

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?