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.
You claim that 'a number of persons" here at the Forum "do not understand how to frame an argument." Then you say you are one of them. Then say we are here to debate. Then you say: 'Some of you(r) I simply cannot take seriously.' You want 'serious debators' to PM you? WTF!!! Why are you even here Rumpy? Go somewhere else.....please. Maybe go powder your wig or something.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.
Well written. Good points, However, on this point: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?
but when someone blatantly starts out with false accusations and lies in the OP.
The pretentious DumpHole likes to abuse the word “robust” and variants of that word, such as “robustness.”Well written. Good points, However, on this point:
Whether or not such merits a rebuttal depends on the robustness of the presentation. A well written, thoughtful, but articulate but factually inaccurate, even if egregiously so, would still merit debate, since that is the purpose, to debate, and part of debating is revealing the error of someone else's position. But, if written in a fashion indicative of a simpleton, or a bigot, or an idiot, and there are many on most forums, your point is very much valid.
redundancy is required when addressing idiots.
Ok. Ok.redundancy is required when addressing idiots.
You finally said something that I agree with Rumphole
He lies. He chose Rumpole because he liked the British series “Rumpole of the Bailey.” It didn’t dawn on him that anyone would dare to denigrate the username of his choice.Congratulations, I purposely chose 'Rumpole' as an avatar, because I knew that the morons
in the forum would not be able to resist vulgarizing the name. So, thanks for taking the bait,
I now know which file to file your comments in.
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.
You. You declare yourself the winner. He did name you.Name one.
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.
Very good point and a concise and accurate analysis.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.
Mostly democrat's.Exhibit A for the argument of the OP.
When I argue the pro-life position am I arguing the Democrat position?
Quite a number of Dems are from families with a strong hunting heritage, so it's not that simple to answer.When I argue for the 2nd am I arguing the Democrat position?
That's tough one, the only time the budget was ever balanced was under Clinton, a democrat. But I wouldn't call Clinton a liberal ( a neolib, perhaps, but not a lib ).When I argue for a balance budget am I arguing for the Democrat position?
That's tough one, the only time the budget was ever balanced was under Clinton, a democrat. But I wouldn't call Clinton a liberal ( a neolib, perhaps, but not a lib ).
Yet another total lie.That's tough one, the only time the budget was ever balanced was under Clinton, a democrat. But I wouldn't call Clinton a liberal ( a neolib, perhaps, but not a lib ).
My goodness, your attempts at smack are even worse than your pedantic drivel.Sorry, your reply is incompetent. Nothing in it refutes my rebuttal.
And please stop projecting, it diminishes you.
Well said. And concise. This will flummox DumpHole even more.My goodness, your attempts at smack are even worse than your pedantic drivel.
