Debate Now Who are the serious debaters on this forum?

[Orangecat]

Again, most likely neither.

You're not fooling anyone here.

 

[Rumpole]

I got your playbook, stupid.

LEFTIST PROG FUCKTARD RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect.

3. Ignore any facts presented.

3a. Play dumb and keep others wasting their time trying to enlighten you.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence, Age.

6. Employ misdirection.

6a. smear people.

6b. attack religion.

6c. attack your rationality.

7. Lie, make false assumptions.

8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card.

9. Play gay/lesbian card.

10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card.

11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing?

12. Deny constantly.

13. Reword and repeat.

14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about.

15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.

16. Russia.

17. Fox News/Alex Jones/Brietbart/infowars/Stormfront/Gateway/hannity/OAN.

18. You can’t read.

19. Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump.

20. What about...


Try again, canned response boi.

Epic projection. Offers everything but evidence and an argument.

 

[Rumpole]

This isn't high school debate team.

The rules are different (if there are any) and there are many tools to succeed in a forum like this.

I wasn't trying to establish rules for this forum. I was looking for other folks on the same page, wanting serious debate.

In my view, there is no such thing as success or failure on debate forums. Perhaps, in a sense, but it's a personal thing, you have to judge if you are getting anything of value out of it, it's between you and yourself. Some do it for 'likes' and such, and that's a fools errand, in my view, if anyone is going to call that kind of thing 'success'. Such things have to do with personal objectives, only. Most, I suppose, do it for some kind of kicks they get out of it, given the lack of seriousness I see pervasive on this forum. Not saying everyone, but there are a number of such folks on this forum that are clearly not serious about debating. Now, some just want to discuss, chit chat, some just want to sling insults. And there are forums for it, some want to debate. It's a good idea, of course, to state your intention when posting something as an OP.

 

[Rumpole]

You're not fooling anyone here.

Impressive.

 

[lennypartiv]

"You're no Jack Kennedy."

Not something a debate teacher would approve of in a planned debate speech, but very effective.

 

[Orangecat]

Impressive.

Facts often are.

 

[Rumpole]

Authoritarian leftists love to use the clean debate forum so they can indulge in pre-emptive dismissal of posters who are not haughty idealogues like they are.

It's their way of dishing it out, but not having to take it.

No, yours is a cop out because you are afraid of revealing your ignorance, so you lash out at them in the only way an ignorant person does, retort in vague, banal, weasel words and generalities.

 

[pknopp]

"You're no Jack Kennedy."

Not something a debate teacher would approve of in a planned debate speech, but very effective.

Yes but that couldn't have been all he said.

 

[Oddball]

In my view, there is no such thing as success or failure on debate forums.

Were that in fact your view, you wouldn't feel the need to declare yourself the victor in every one of your asinine "debate" threads.

Dogmaphobe is right...You're a narcissist with low self-esteem, who thinks he's proving something to himself.

 

[cnm]

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

I think US defence forces should be operated for profit.

 

[lennypartiv]

Rumpole still doesn't get it. He's using the logic of Charles Emerson Winchester. When viewers were watching MASH, who did they side with? Pierce and Hunnicutt.

 

[Rumpole]

"You're no Jack Kennedy."

Not something a debate teacher would approve of in a planned debate speech, but very effective.

A well received insult, I witnessed it when Sen, Lloyd Bentsen debated Sen. Dan Quayle.

But, in truth, it was a cheap shot. Not that I wouldn't have missed that opportunity to be ragging on my opponent in an open, public, debate, but it's still was a cheap shot, nevertheless. I see it as an old pseudo debate trick, called 'posturing' ,that broad umbrella of tricks to gain some kind of elevated advantage in a debate over an adversary, and here, the sub category is 'trivializing your opponent'. That works as zingers with an audience whom you are trying to win over, but not on an internet forum, it's just tête-à-tête, not many are paying attention.

 

[Oddball]

A well received insult, I witnessed it when Sen, Lloyd Bentsen debated Sen. Dan Quayle.

But, in truth, it was a cheap shot. Not that I wouldn't have missed that opportunity to be ragging on my opponent in an open, public, debate, but it's still was a cheap shot, nevertheless. I see it as an old pseudo debate trick, called 'posturing' ,that broad umbrella of tricks to gain some kind of elevated advantage in a debate over an adversary, and here, the sub category is 'trivializing your opponent'. That works as zingers with an audience whom you are trying to win over, but not on an internet forum, it's just tête-à-tête, not many are paying attention.

You blow hard enough to get a square rigger out of port.

 

[pknopp]

Rumpole still doesn't get it. He's using the logic of Charles Emerson Winchester. When viewers were watching MASH, who did they side with? Pierce and Hunnicutt.

Pierce would be slammed here as a "liberal".

 

[lennypartiv]

A well received insult, I witnessed it when Sen, Lloyd Bentsen debated Sen. Dan Quayle.

But, in truth, it was a cheap shot. Not that I wouldn't have missed that opportunity to be ragging on my opponent in an open, public, debate, but it's still was a cheap shot, nevertheless. I see it as an old pseudo debate trick, called 'posturing' ,that broad umbrella of tricks to gain some kind of elevated advantage in a debate over an adversary, and here, the sub category is 'trivializing your opponent'. That works as zingers with an audience whom you are trying to win over, but not on an internet forum, it's just tête-à-tête, not many are paying attention.

I've never heard (seen written) a moderator say "that was a cheap shot" on this forum. Or for that matter, any forum like this.

You are looking for something that may not exist.

 

[pknopp]

A well received insult, I witnessed it when Sen, Lloyd Bentsen debated Sen. Dan Quayle.

But, in truth, it was a cheap shot. Not that I wouldn't have missed that opportunity to be ragging on my opponent in an open, public, debate, but it's still was a cheap shot, nevertheless. I see it as an old pseudo debate trick, called 'posturing' ,that broad umbrella of tricks to gain some kind of elevated advantage in a debate over an adversary, and here, the sub category is 'trivializing your opponent'. That works as zingers with an audience whom you are trying to win over, but not on an internet forum, it's just tête-à-tête, not many are paying attention.

It was a good line but one has to note, he lost the election.

 

[Rumpole]

Rumpole still doesn't get it. He's using the logic of Charles Emerson Winchester. When viewers were watching MASH, who did they side with? Pierce and Hunnicutt.

Interesting, in another reply, i wrote 'you can't feed Updike and Salinger to those weaned on tabloids. That's basically the same point, so, yes, I do get it.

 

[Rumpole]

I've heard (seen written) a moderator say "that was a cheap shot" on this forum. Or for that matter, any forum like this.

You are looking for something that may not exist.

Maybe, but no harm in the query.

 

[cnm]

Not a classic liberal, true. The founding fathers were classic liberals.

I guess expediently accepting and enabling chattel slavery is a classic liberal position.

 

[lennypartiv]

Pierce would be slammed here as a "liberal".

That's not the point. TV viewers would not tolerate Pierce (Alda) using HS debate rules to settle an issue. People on this forum are not going to adopt similar rules to please Rumpole or any other poster.