What is the purpose of debate?

Yeah, I understand what it means now, and am willing to admit I took that a little bit personally. Please forgive me for that Timber.

Thank you for bearing with me on this.

So my answer is this: there really is no way for me to demonstrate I do not hold any position or proposition exempt from scrutiny, analysis, and criticism. Sure, I could say I don't, and even try to prove it. But to do so would be foolish because I am human. I am not exempt from holding any position on anything. I sure try not to hold this type of position though and I will generally be the first to admit it when I'm wrong.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Sometimes the belittles are deserved when the poster is challenged, then responds with "I have a right to my feelings/belief" without addressing the challenge. Then turns around and posts sweet nothings as if that is sufficient to ignore the issue being addressed.

It will not work as a pacifier with most posters on a2k - as it shouldn't.

CI while I understand your point here I have to disagree. I can understand how frustrating it is when people do this. To make such a statement is a cop out because they are not willing to face the challenge that has been presented. LOL the funny thing is... I think I may have made a statement like that before... oh boy... so yeah, I've copped out of a few things too. However, as for me though, I choose not to belittle someone just because they disagree with me or have as I see it, copped out. To do so would be implying that I am incapable of doing the same. Which I am not.

0 Replies

I'm talking about hypocrites that present themselves as an "angel," but have no clue why people challenge them and their proselytizing and their legal right to vote for legislation that discriminates against gays and lesbians.

It's okay for you to disagree; but I would expect some rational response as to why they deserve any respect or kid gloves. I've called a spade a spade most of my adult life, and "sweet talk" is foreign to me.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm talking about hypocrites that present themselves as an "angel," but have no clue why people challenge them and their proselytizing and their legal right to vote for legislation that discriminates against gays and lesbians.

It's okay for you to disagree; but I would expect some rational response as to why they deserve any respect or kid gloves. I've called a spade a spade most of my adult life, and "sweet talk" is foreign to me.

Because two wrongs don't make a right CI. The more flamboyant and loud you get with them the more you will get back in return. And then the point of the whole debate gets lost in a flurry of harsh words and critisism. Then neither party is really listening to the other persons perspective and both people lose. So what, they don't want to be challenged. Don't challenge them then. Just turn and walk away and leave them in their little bubble of self righteous-bliss. The truth is that if they aren't willing to debate their position they aren't willing to hear anything outside of what they believe anyway. So what's the point of talking to them then?

0 Replies

This thread should be called -"What's the purpose of bullshit?"

I'll advance a proposition that is exempt from scrutiny,analysis and criticism.That women are inscrutable,beyond our comprehension and impossible to deal with without some degree,depending on how troublesome they are,of discipline and careful and considerate management.
And that the only chaps qualified to attempt such a harrowing responsibility need to be able to resist their wiles.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Because two wrongs don't make a right CI. The more flamboyant and loud you get with them the more you will get back in return. And then the point of the whole debate gets lost in a flurry of harsh words and critisism. Then neither party is really listening to the other persons perspective and both people lose. So what, they don't want to be challenged. Don't challenge them then. Just turn and walk away and leave them in their little bubble of self righteous-bliss. The truth is that if they aren't willing to debate their position they aren't willing to hear anything outside of what they believe anyway. So what's the point of talking to them then?

far b it from me 2 disagree with CI, but these are my thoughts pretty much. though i'm nonchristian, it's succinctly expressed as turn the other cheek. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

it's succinctly expressed as turn the other cheek

True true... However to use such a cliche is often times foolish. It is better just to say what you mean, then everyone understands and no one is offended by the pretense of what you are saying.

0 Replies

heph, Good points; it only increases the frustrations that turns out to be a worthless persuit.

yitwail, I don't mind disagreements if I am in the wrong, so don't hold back when you thnk I'm overstepping the line. I can listen to some people, and agree that I also make my share of mistakes.

0 Replies

Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:

I'm talking about hypocrites that present themselves as an "angel," but have no clue why people challenge them and their proselytizing and their legal right to vote for legislation that discriminates against gays and lesbians.

It's okay for you to disagree; but I would expect some rational response as to why they deserve any respect or kid gloves. I've called a spade a spade most of my adult life, and "sweet talk" is foreign to me.

Well, you could have just said Momma Angel. I'm pretty sure we all knew who you meant. Tell you what Cicerone Imposter, you are so big on these challenges that get thrown around. I have one for you. Let's see if you can take it to task.

Show me where it says in the Constitution of the United States that I am prohibited from considering my religious views in deciding for and casting my ballot. Show me where it says I have no LEGAL right to lobby for a law I believe would be beneficial. Show me where it says I CANNOT DO THIS. You do that, and I will stop posting on A2K's Spirituality and Religion Forum. I submit you cannot do it. I submit there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees my rights, as well as yours, that says I MUST base my decision of what and who to vote for on something and what I MUST NOT base those decisions and votes on.

I submit that as long as the Constitution of the United States guarantees my legal right to do so, I will.

Now, put your money where your mouth is.

0 Replies

Who in hell is talking about "legal rights" and "money?"

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Who in hell is talking about "legal rights" and "money?"

Uh, check out your post, third from the top of the previous page.

Nice try at a doge though. You brought up legal rights.

Uh, the money thing, it's an expression. You know, like put up or shut up?

0 Replies

Waiting........

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

yitwail, I don't mind disagreements if I am in the wrong, so don't hold back when you thnk I'm overstepping the line. I can listen to some people, and agree that I also make my share of mistakes.

well, i certainly hope you'll do the same for me, but my line might be different from yours or anyone else's, which is why i hesitate to take on line judge duties. Smile

0 Replies

Still waiting............

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm talking about hypocrites that present themselves as an "angel," but have no clue why people challenge them and their proselytizing and their legal right to vote for legislation that discriminates against gays and lesbians. .

what's your point? voting is a choice to exercise your opinion to discriminate, everyone that votes does it no matter which way you vote it's discrimination unless you want to remove my right to vote - your comment really ticks me off.

0 Replies

you might say I cannot vote for Bush because it causes some discrimination "that's crap bull"

0 Replies

husker wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm talking about hypocrites that present themselves as an "angel," but have no clue why people challenge them and their proselytizing and their legal right to vote for legislation that discriminates against gays and lesbians. .

what's your point? voting is a choice to exercise your opinion to discriminate, everyone that votes does it no matter which way you vote it's discrimination unless you want to remove my right to vote - your comment really ticks me off.

It did me too, Husker. I am tired of being accused of being a homophobic bigot because I disagree with same sex marriage and a hypocrite in general.

I would never presume to challenge anyone's legal right to vote for whatever they wanted to vote for or what that vote is based on.

This is just too much. But, it is forgiveable. I would accept an apology.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm talking about hypocrites that present themselves as an "angel," but have no clue why people challenge them and their proselytizing and their legal right to vote for legislation that discriminates against gays and lesbians.

It's okay for you to disagree; but I would expect some rational response as to why they deserve any respect or kid gloves. I've called a spade a spade most of my adult life, and "sweet talk" is foreign to me.

You mention hypocrites in the plural, but seem to be alluding to a singular with "an angel". Whether you mean one or several, your message is still the same.

Not being an America, I don't have any first hand experience with voting for legislation that discriminates against anybody. Much less gays and lesbians. Not that I would vote that way even if given the opportunity.

It does however, seem to me that you yourself are guilty of discrimination when you post as you do against Christians. What is the difference between a Christian in the United States voting for particular legislation as opposed to an atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Hindu etc. etc. voting the same way? It seems that you single out Christians on this. Is it only Christians in the United States that do this? Does every Christian feel and think the same way?

I am just trying to understand your agenda in all of this.

0 Replies

Quote:

dis·crim·i·nate Audio pronunciation of "discriminate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nt)
v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates
v. intr.

1.
a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
b. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

v. tr.

1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: discriminate right from wrong.
2. To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate: unable to discriminate colors.
3. To make or constitute a distinction in or between: methods that discriminate science from pseudoscience.
discriminate

Husker, to vote is to discriminate by definition. One makes a discernment between options and makes a choice, as in the first definition above. There is also the second definition which brings in the concept of prejudice.

Every one has the right to vote, and they have the right to use prejudice in their voting practices. That doesn't make the choice honorable, moral or ethical, but it certainly is legal. To me, the question of gay rights in today's elections are equivalent to the civil rights movement of the sixties. People could certainly vote for racial bigots whose platforms were to keep the races segregrated and to keep Jim Crow in place. They were within their legal rights to cast such votes, but if those positions weren't challenged by people who felt otherwise, do you think significant changes would have been made in race relations?

0 Replies

Wow! A lot has been deleted from this thread. You folks are debating too hard. :-)

0 Replies

What is the purpose of debate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know