Cycloptichorn wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:You've been bypassed in favor of more stimulating conversation Brandon, sorry.
Cycloptichorn
Since you started a debate with me and then withdrew, you lose. Your rationalization that I'm boring you has no value in debate. In fact, you often engage me in debate and then withdraw because you're being contacted by aliens or something. You forfeit.
Please. You continually drop my salient points or claim that they don't apply. Every conversation with you turns into a meta-conversation about the conversation within just a few posts, as you claim that you aren't 'required' to do something, and then you claim victory.
Besides, you should drop all pretense of a 'debate'; we've already determined that you are too f*cking chicken to engage in an actual debate with an objective judge, coward, so you should really stop talking about 'debating' alltogether. This here is discussion; there are no winners and losers, only people who make arguments worth discussing and those who don't.
It's sad when Foxfyre is making more sense and better points, and better discussion, than you, Brandon.
Cycloptichorn
Let me start with your reference to our past formal debate. You stated that you could beat me in any subject of my choosing, so I chose one. Rules were agreed to beforehand by both parties. I obeyed the rules. Then, when you saw that my arguments were not what you had anticipated, you asked to change the rules in mid-debate. When I insisted that we keep the rules we had both agreed to, you withdrew from the debate. That is losing by any standard.
If my debates on this board often turn into discussions about the discussion, it's because the people I am usually talking to often refuse to abide by the most elementary standards of debate or even argument. Typically, they make an assertion, I ask for an example or evidence, and they begin making comments about my character, as you now demonstrate. It is absolutely known by everyone that a person making an assertion is required to provide support for it.
In this present case, I made a single simple assertion. You then tried to divide the discussion into subjects not relevant to my point, which I would not permit. I simply insisted that if you were attacking my statement, you address it. This is not being "chicken," it's refusing to allow someone to prevail by changing the subject. Far from being "chicken," I provided it a link to a prior post of mine in which I provided a discussion of exactly the topic you seemed to want to discuss - the reasons for not legalizing gay marriage. You were pefectly free to read it and respond. I would then have responded to your response. For some reason, however, when I agreed to have the discsussion you sought, you declined to participate in it, so if anyone is "chicken" it's you.
As for my posts not being as good as Foxy's, since you seem to wish to prevail by means of childish ad hominems, and I think I won't sink to that level.
