Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Whoās talking about isolation? Iām talking about taking care of our money! BTW, you didnāt answer how giving our money to Ukraine helps Americans. Like always, deflectingWell, how would isolationism work?
Exactly, if you donāt follow his narrative, you shouldnāt be heard. Heās a psychoticYou aren't trying to have a discussion. You're trying to silence me by insulting me
Correct. Hate Americans valueYet here you and your fellow travelers all state publicly that you don't support an America First agenda. So, that AUTOMATICALLY makes you a traitor. Go to whichever country you prefer and leave THIS country alone.
You are not wanted.
Not you DumpHoleA 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.
The above is from our chief master debator.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.
Logic and thought are boring to maga fuckups.The above is from our chief master debator.
The above is from our chief master baiter.
And you bitThe above is from our chief master baiter.
Nope, that wasnāt what they saidAnd you support a guy who a jury determined he is a sex abuser? Some intellectual you are.
25 women accused him of sex abuse, accusations which are consistent with his bragging that he can commit sexual abuse and get away with it because he is a celebrity, his having to pay $5 million after being sued for sex abuse and defamation, his bragging about owning a pageant and barging in on nubile teens in various stages of undress to inspect the room because 'he own's the pageant' his response, when asked what he has in common with his daughter Ivanka, while Ivanka is sitting next to him, and he says 'Sex' and you are going to tell me he is not a sex abuser?Nope, that wasnāt what they said
Again, your truths arenāt facts25 women accused him of sex abuse, accusations which are consistent with his bragging that he can commit sexual abuse and get away with it because he is a celebrity, his having to pay $5 million after being sued for sex abuse and defamation, his bragging about owning a pageant and barging in on nubile teens in various stages of undress to inspect the room because 'he own's the pageant' his response, when asked what he has in common with his daughter Ivanka, while Ivanka is sitting next to him, and he says 'Sex' and you are going to tell me he is not a sex abuser?
And you support a guy who a jury determined he is a sex abuser? Some intellectual you are.
With proof like that, you're no prize for the prosecution.
