Honest and Dishonest Debate

[koshergrl]

You need to get over the misapprehension that you have to do anything to inspire the fear, loathing and hatred of progressive pukes, Foxfyre. They're not nice, nor sane.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

She's just projecting.

 

[Foxfyre]

You need to get over the misapprehension that you have to do anything to inspire the fear, loathing and hatred of progressive pukes, Foxfyre. They're not nice, nor sane.

I agree about some, but not all KG. The only one who seems to have a problem with me on this thread is Baruch and I never thought of him as a 'progressive puke' I have too many good friends here at USMB and elsewhere as well as among my friends, family, and associates in real life who are left of center who I think a great deal of and who have no serious problems with me to believe that progressivism automatically makes people icky. Admittedly I don't try to discuss politics or controversial socioeconomic issues with them very much.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I've wondered the same thing when thread after thread after thread dissolves into a childish food fight after a few pages though for me-- (forgive me for this)--it is mostly the same old liberals saying the same old hateful things. I will acknowledge that some conservatives do it too though. But its easier to just take a live and let live attitude about it and understand that it is entertainment for some folks. So I just find something else to do. You can only put so many folks on ignore before you hit the point of diminishing returns.

 

[Syriusly]

I am fairly certain that a list of guidelines for an honest debate shouldn't start by attacking one particular point of view, and certainly doesn't need to 61 or more points.

How about starting off with the most basic- those who make a claim should back it up if that claim is challenged?

With something better than a quote from Stormfront or Free Canada Press or the American Communist Party.

 

[Syriusly]

You need to get over the misapprehension that you have to do anything to inspire the fear, loathing and hatred of progressive pukes, Foxfyre. They're not nice, nor sane.

I agree about some, but not all KG. The only one who seems to have a problem with me on this thread is Baruch and I never thought of him as a 'progressive puke' I have too many good friends here at USMB and elsewhere as well as among my friends, family, and associates in real life who are left of center who I think a great deal of and who have no serious problems with me to believe that progressivism automatically makes people icky. Admittedly I don't try to discuss politics or controversial socioeconomic issues with them very much.

You and I managed to have a civil misunderstanding just fine.

 

[Billo_Really]

I will acknowledge that some conservatives do it too though.

Some?

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

With me, it's not what people say that bugs me, it's how they say it.
Take Crusader Frank, he's one bat crazy hyper-far right poster. BUT, I very rarely see him go to the gutter and he's pretty funny in his own way. So even though I disagree with him 90% of the time, I think he's likable. I find that with quite a few posters on USMB.

 

[Billo_Really]

With me, it's not what people say that bugs me, it's how they say it.
Take Crusader Frank, he's one bat crazy hyper-far right poster. BUT, I very rarely see him go to the gutter and he's pretty funny in his own way. So even though I disagree with him 90% of the time, I think he's likable. I find that with quite a few posters on USMB.

He's got a good taste in music.

 

[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

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent.
   
   
2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent
   
   
3. Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2...

Edited for copyright compliance.

Much, much more at link.

.....or maybe I should put the question a little differently.

Which items on this list do you think you need to work on most?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[, he's one bat crazy hyper-far right poster. .

so then say what is crazy about far right or admit you lack the IQ as a typical liberal to defend anything you say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edward never defends anything and babbles along like Crazy Brook.