The Good News Of The Day

Cycloptichorn wrote:

People avoid responding to you, because you have proven yourself unworthy of response, Brandon. Seriously. You're all semantics games and logic, and no substance at all.

Cycloptichorn

You're flattering yourself. The kind of semantic games you're referring to are asking for evidence, the use of deduction, and so on. If you allege that I am wrong, merely point to any post in which I tried to play a semantic game rather than argue the point.

Most of the liberals here simply choose not to have a dignified, on-topic, non-personal discussion, because they have neither the ability nor the inclination. Their pattern is to make claims that they cannot provide evidence for, and then use ad hominems to deflect requests for evidence. I have shown in my several years of posts here that I virtually always prefer to debate on the level of evidence and on topic debate. I am the one with the substance. In the limited number of times that someone has given me a dignified, on-topic response, I have tried to respond in kind. The people without substance are the liberals who function on the level of snide remakrs in lieu of defense of ideas.

In the limited number of times that someone has given me a dignified, on-topic response

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

People avoid responding to you, because you have proven yourself unworthy of response, Brandon. Seriously. You're all semantics games and logic, and no substance at all.

Cycloptichorn

You're flattering yourself. The kind of semantic games you're referring to are asking for evidence, the use of deduction, and so on. If you allege that I am wrong, merely point to any post in which I tried to play a semantic game rather than argue the point.

Most of the liberals here simply choose not to have a dignified, on-topic, non-personal discussion, because they have neither the ability nor the inclination. Their pattern is to make claims that they cannot provide evidence for, and then use ad hominems to deflect requests for evidence. I have shown in my several years of posts here that I virtually always prefer to debate on the level of evidence and on topic debate. I am the one with the substance. In the limited number of times that someone has given me a dignified, on-topic response, I have tried to respond in kind. The people without substance are the liberals who function on the level of snide remakrs in lieu of defense of ideas.

you can't see the humour in having to write that, Brandon? Who are you trying to convince, here?

Quote:

In the limited number of times that someone has given me a dignified, on-topic response

... unless it's in the thread I started talking about Bush lies; in which case, I claim that I don't have to respond to anyone, and won't, even when their responses were dignified and did have substance.

Do you really believe that you are somehow a better Debater than others here? I challenge you to a debate, in the Debate Room, on the general topic of your choosing, the specifics upon which we will agree prior to the debate. I propose Thomas as the judge.

Let's see if you can back up your BS. I really doubt it.

Cycloptichorn

I accept your challenge. The topic of my choosing is to be the correctness or lack thereof of the war in Iraq.

I will do this only in the manner of continuing the argument with a few posts a day over a matter of days. I am unfamiliar with the Debate room or how it works, but my question is how can we keep other people from posting in the thread? The liberal MO is to get six or seven people to distract a conservative with snide remarks and stupid questions, and refuse to consider it to prove anything with your cheering section participating. The debate is to be purely on the level of our ideas, and if you cannot restrain yourself from ad hominems, I will withdraw. So, in summary, if you agree to conduct it in the fair and reasonable manner I have suggested, I will certainly debate you. Please clarify the rules, etc.

Yeah, that's right, Brandon. You're a genius among men.

Retarded men. But among them, you're a genius!

My apologies to the retarded...

Am I the only one who finds Brandon's fascination with BVT's wet dreams deeply disturbing?

Quote:

I accept your challenge. The topic of my choosing is to be the correctness or lack thereof of the war in Iraq.

I will do this only in the manner of continuing the argument with a few posts a day over a matter of days. I am unfamiliar with the Debate room or how it works, but my question is how can we keep other people from posting in the thread? The liberal MO is to get six or seven people to distract a conservative with snide remarks and stupid questions, and refuse to consider it to prove anything with your cheering section participating. The debate is to be purely on the level of our ideas, and if you cannot restrain yourself from ad hominems, I will withdraw. So, in summary, if you agree to conduct it in the fair and reasonable manner I have suggested, I will certainly debate you. Please clarify the rules, etc.

Excellent, it's nice to see that you are willing to throw the gauntlet down as well.

I agree that the debate should be focused between the two of us. I propose also that if we cannot find some way to limit the forum postings to the two of us, that every effort be made to ignore those who also post in the thread. I pledge to hound every liberal/dem who posts in the thread in order to distract the debate if you will pledge to do the same for your side. I also pledge to refrain from Ad Hominem, as I believe I can defeat you handily without it.

I suggested Thomas as a judge, because I have always found him to have a fair opinion relating to politics; but there is always the fact that he may not wish to have any part of this debate, in which case another judge must be found who we can agree is neutral. I'm willing to hear suggestions from you on this subject.

I suggest that we use a semi-standard Lincoln Douglas debate format. We will be judged on the persuasiveness of our arguments at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest that both of us respect whatever decision the judge makes, and I hereby pledge to do so.

To clarify, a good format would be: Aff position statement, Neg cross-examination, Neg position statement, Aff CX, Aff rebutal, neg rebutal, aff closing, neg closing. I believe we should probably limit the number of topics we discuss to a reasonable number, ie, no spreading in order to drown the opponent in topics to cover; I'm open to suggestions on how to do this.

I propose that we start on Monday, so that both of us have the weekend to put together some opening arguments, if that's okay with you. Thereafter, I propose a 2-day limit on forming responses in the interests of timeliness.

Since I assume that you will be taking the Aff position, will you please formulate an acceptable proposition for our topic in the proper style, and let me know? I will PM Thomas today to ask if he will participate, you may want to start thinking of some backups in case he doesn't.

I salute you sir and look forward to a substantive debate.

Cycloptichorn

...Secondly, the story provides yet another piece of evidence of how shoddy the Bush administrations official case for invasion was. I am sorry to report that I found neither of this surprising.

? No judge? Allright, though this leads me to doubt that there will be a satisfactory conclusion to the debate. That's okay with me if it is with you, though these kinds of things tend to devolve into 'well, I have a different viewpoint than you' and there is no acceptance that one argument is more persuasive than the other, which is the point of the debate. Naturally all the libs are going to agree with me and all the Cons with you. What's the point of that?

I will research the way the Debate Room works, and post back about it this weekend. As the Aff position, I request that you open with your argument.

Let the official topic be: Starting the Iraq war was the correct course of action for the US to take.

I won't declare a timeout unless you have less than 20 posts, and let's say a week has gone by without a new post. But, since there is no judge, it wouldn't matter if I did, anyways.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

Shrug. We're gonna try, I guess.

I started a new thread in the Debate Room, but I don't know how to lock others out of it per se; so I've merely requested them to stay out. You may begin at your conveinence, sir.

Cycloptichorn

Shrug. We're gonna try, I guess.

I started a new thread in the Debate Room, but I don't know how to lock others out of it per se; so I've merely requested them to stay out. You may begin at your conveinence, sir.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Shrug. We're gonna try, I guess.

I started a new thread in the Debate Room, but I don't know how to lock others out of it per se; so I've merely requested them to stay out. You may begin at your conveinence, sir.

Cycloptichorn

You guys need to set a time limit after which the community will be welcomed to post their comments. Brandy needs to be held accountable for once.

Just a small comment here, if I may...

If Brandon is proposing to confine the debate only to what was known before the invasion, isn't there a slight problem with a descrepancy between what bush claims he knew, and what his detractors claim he knew? For instance, it has been reported that Bush had ample evidence that the stories about yellowcake were false, and that the aluminum tubes were not of the right quality for use as weapons-grade material, but that he said the opposite publicly, to make his case for war. How will those things be reconciled for your debate?