Honest and Dishonest Debate

[JakeStarkey]

That's you in the mirror, Koshergrl, the biggest of all the trolls.

But even trolls, such as you who are trying to deflect, serve the purpose, as the Catholic ed system teaches, that good can come for examinging examples of bad, such as you. Thank you for being you.

 

[Discombobulated]

I saw this posted elsewhere. Virtually every thread where libs post is plagued with all of these. And not a few as well from some conservatives.

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics

Edited for copyright compliance.

Which items on this list do you find yourself transgressing most often?

 

[occupied]

Show me dishonesty?

Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up

Son, when you are using opinion as evidence or a conclusion as evidence, all I have to do is challenge it and ask for evidence. You hate that.

Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.

Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

The Rabbi posted this thing with the full expectation that he would sit on it and be accuser to all who found fault. I do not expect expertly argued rhetoric from those who post on this board, although it would be refreshing, so it is disingenuous to post such a topic condemning those who break the rules. This topic is nothing more than a troll and is therefore not an attempt at real debate and an affront to the art of rhetoric.

Yes, The Rabbi set it up as a troll thread, and give him credit, it is succeeding.

It certainly attracted the trolls, as your presence indicates.

Replying to a post does not constitute trolling. Sometimes things just have to be said.

 

[koshergrl]

Show me dishonesty?

Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up

Son, when you are using opinion as evidence or a conclusion as evidence, all I have to do is challenge it and ask for evidence. You hate that.

Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

The Rabbi posted this thing with the full expectation that he would sit on it and be accuser to all who found fault. I do not expect expertly argued rhetoric from those who post on this board, although it would be refreshing, so it is disingenuous to post such a topic condemning those who break the rules. This topic is nothing more than a troll and is therefore not an attempt at real debate and an affront to the art of rhetoric.

Yes, The Rabbi set it up as a troll thread, and give him credit, it is succeeding.

It certainly attracted the trolls, as your presence indicates.

Replying to a post does not constitute trolling. Sometimes things just have to be said.

There is nothing that you and fake have ever said that has ever been relevant, true, or that needed to be said.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

on

Show me dishonesty?

Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up

Son, when you are using opinion as evidence or a conclusion as evidence, all I have to do is challenge it and ask for evidence. You hate that.

One single assertion over your 50,000 posts where you backed up an assertion with anything, even a Huff post article.

When you make an assertion it is your responsibility to back it up with anything, the flying spaghetti monster gospel, anything. It is not our responsibly to to respond with our assertion that your assertion is bogus.

 

[kiwiman127]

The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints.

Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?

How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?

Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.

Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

It's more fun to laugh at Rabbi than attack him.
I remember one time he claimed to be the best conservative poster. I laughed and laughed. Now if I were you, I'd be insulted!

 

[koshergrl]

on

Show me dishonesty?

Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up

Son, when you are using opinion as evidence or a conclusion as evidence, all I have to do is challenge it and ask for evidence. You hate that.

One single assertion over your 50,000 posts where you backed up an assertion with anything, even a Huff post article.

When you make an assertion it is your responsibility to back it up with anything, the flying spaghetti monster gospel, anything. It is not our responsibly to to respond with our assertion that your assertion is bogus.

^^^^ Yup.

 

[occupied]

Show me dishonesty?

Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up

Son, when you are using opinion as evidence or a conclusion as evidence, all I have to do is challenge it and ask for evidence. You hate that.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

The Rabbi posted this thing with the full expectation that he would sit on it and be accuser to all who found fault. I do not expect expertly argued rhetoric from those who post on this board, although it would be refreshing, so it is disingenuous to post such a topic condemning those who break the rules. This topic is nothing more than a troll and is therefore not an attempt at real debate and an affront to the art of rhetoric.

Yes, The Rabbi set it up as a troll thread, and give him credit, it is succeeding.

It certainly attracted the trolls, as your presence indicates.

Replying to a post does not constitute trolling. Sometimes things just have to be said.

There is nothing that you and fake have ever said that has ever been relevant, true, or that needed to be said.

Right back atcha anger-girl.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?

How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?

Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.

Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

It's more fun to laugh at Rabbi than attack him.
I remember one time he claimed to be the best conservative poster. I laughed and laughed. Now if I were you, I'd be insulted!

I don't know that he was wrong. So far as I know, no evaluation has ever been made as to who the best conservative poster is. So I generally look at those things pragmatically--it is always okay to claim your product is best when it isn't. But it isn't okay to claim that it cures cancer if it won't. And it isn't okay to claim that your competition's product is flawed in a way that it isn't.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not angry at all. You loons have no other hand to play except the eternal "If you don't agree then you're a racist hater!" hand. Meh, it grows old.

 

[occupied]

I'm not angry at all. You loons have no other hand to play except the eternal "If you don't agree then you're a racist hater!" hand. Meh, it grows old.

I have not actually replied to much you have had to say, don't know where you got the idea that I fit into your stereotype.

 

[kiwiman127]

How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?

Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.

Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

It's more fun to laugh at Rabbi than attack him.
I remember one time he claimed to be the best conservative poster. I laughed and laughed. Now if I were you, I'd be insulted!

I don't know that he was wrong. So far as I know, no evaluation has ever been made as to who the best conservative poster is. So I generally look at those things pragmatically--it is always okay to claim your product is best when it isn't. But it isn't okay to claim that it cures cancer if it won't. And it isn't okay to claim that your competition's product is flawed in a way that it isn't.

As an impartial judge, there are 10's of 100's conservative posters who rank ahead of Rabbi, including yourself. If you don't trust my impartial-unbiased opinion, well then ask the hand.

 

[koshergrl]

There is nothing that you and fake have ever said that has ever been relevant, true, or that needed to be said.

Right back atcha anger-girl.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Fits the stereotype.

I'm not angry at all. You loons have no other hand to play except the eternal "If you don't agree then you're a racist hater!" hand. Meh, it grows old.

I have not actually replied to much you have had to say, don't know where you got the idea that I fit into your stereotype.

"Right back atcha anger-girl". Fits the stereotype.

 

[JakeStarkey]

on

Show me dishonesty?

Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up

Son, when you are using opinion as evidence or a conclusion as evidence, all I have to do is challenge it and ask for evidence. You hate that.

One single assertion over your 50,000 posts where you backed up an assertion with anything, even a Huff post article.

When you make an assertion it is your responsibility to back it up with anything, the flying spaghetti monster gospel, anything. It is not our responsibly to to respond with our assertion that your assertion is bogus.

See you are doing it again. You make an assertion, then you want me to rebut it with evidence.

That is not adult discussion. So evidence you assertion or admit you failed.

 

[occupied]

Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.

Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

It's more fun to laugh at Rabbi than attack him.
I remember one time he claimed to be the best conservative poster. I laughed and laughed. Now if I were you, I'd be insulted!

I don't know that he was wrong. So far as I know, no evaluation has ever been made as to who the best conservative poster is. So I generally look at those things pragmatically--it is always okay to claim your product is best when it isn't. But it isn't okay to claim that it cures cancer if it won't. And it isn't okay to claim that your competition's product is flawed in a way that it isn't.

As an impartial judge, there are 10's of 100's conservative posters who rank ahead of Rabbi, including yourself. If you don't trust my impartial-unbiased opinion, well then ask the hand.

He's a constant troll disinterested in actual debate, too many times I have wasted pixels on a well thought out reply just for him to post a generic insult before he abandons the thread he started.

 

[JakeStarkey]

on

Show me dishonesty?

Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up

Son, when you are using opinion as evidence or a conclusion as evidence, all I have to do is challenge it and ask for evidence. You hate that.

One single assertion over your 50,000 posts where you backed up an assertion with anything, even a Huff post article.

When you make an assertion it is your responsibility to back it up with anything, the flying spaghetti monster gospel, anything. It is not our responsibly to to respond with our assertion that your assertion is bogus.

^^^^ Yup.

Yup, you and BM make assertions like the above, then you want others to disprove it with evidence. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.

Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

It's more fun to laugh at Rabbi than attack him.
I remember one time he claimed to be the best conservative poster. I laughed and laughed. Now if I were you, I'd be insulted!

I don't know that he was wrong. So far as I know, no evaluation has ever been made as to who the best conservative poster is. So I generally look at those things pragmatically--it is always okay to claim your product is best when it isn't. But it isn't okay to claim that it cures cancer if it won't. And it isn't okay to claim that your competition's product is flawed in a way that it isn't.

As an impartial judge, there are 10's of 100's conservative posters who rank ahead of Rabbi, including yourself. If you don't trust my impartial-unbiased opinion, well then ask the hand.

LOL. Well I haven't ranked anybody but thanks for the compliment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

It's more fun to laugh at Rabbi than attack him.
I remember one time he claimed to be the best conservative poster. I laughed and laughed. Now if I were you, I'd be insulted!

I don't know that he was wrong. So far as I know, no evaluation has ever been made as to who the best conservative poster is. So I generally look at those things pragmatically--it is always okay to claim your product is best when it isn't. But it isn't okay to claim that it cures cancer if it won't. And it isn't okay to claim that your competition's product is flawed in a way that it isn't.

As an impartial judge, there are 10's of 100's conservative posters who rank ahead of Rabbi, including yourself. If you don't trust my impartial-unbiased opinion, well then ask the hand.

He's a constant troll disinterested in actual debate, too many times I have wasted pixels on a well thought out reply just for him to post a generic insult before he abandons the thread he started.

Umm, okay, but wouldn't you think you would have been a faster learner? I'm just teasing. I haven't had any problems with you or Kiwi or Rabbi. And I'm still trying to figure out whatever I must have done to Baruch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have done nothing bad to BM, Foxfyre.

 

[occupied]

A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.

If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.

It's more fun to laugh at Rabbi than attack him.
I remember one time he claimed to be the best conservative poster. I laughed and laughed. Now if I were you, I'd be insulted!

I don't know that he was wrong. So far as I know, no evaluation has ever been made as to who the best conservative poster is. So I generally look at those things pragmatically--it is always okay to claim your product is best when it isn't. But it isn't okay to claim that it cures cancer if it won't. And it isn't okay to claim that your competition's product is flawed in a way that it isn't.

As an impartial judge, there are 10's of 100's conservative posters who rank ahead of Rabbi, including yourself. If you don't trust my impartial-unbiased opinion, well then ask the hand.

He's a constant troll disinterested in actual debate, too many times I have wasted pixels on a well thought out reply just for him to post a generic insult before he abandons the thread he started.

Umm, okay, but wouldn't you think you would have been a faster learner? I'm just teasing. I haven't had any problems with you or Kiwi or Rabbi. And I'm still trying to figure out whatever I must have done to Baruch.

Sometimes I wonder why I still come here, It's not like I ever changed anyone's mind. I used to live for the thrill of battle but it's become kind of boring. The same old conservatives saying the same old things, just empty sadists looking for someone to abuse. Once in a while I actually have a decent conversation with someone who keeps it civil and it keeps me coming back.