Who dismissed Rumsfield?

Do you really wish to play? Then let's proceed as follows:

1) we'll choose 5-10 a2k members as jury who have actually studied some basic Logic.

2) I will make the argument, you can make yours, then each get an opportunity for rebuttal

3) the jury will vote on whose argument is the more compelling in its presentation of data and in its adherence to logical rules and its absence of logical fallacies

4) the one of us who that jury votes less compelling or credible in logic and in information will leave this site for one year.

blatham wrote:

Do you really wish to play? Then let's proceed as follows:

1) we'll choose 5-10 a2k members as jury who have actually studied some basic Logic.

2) I will make the argument, you can make yours, then each get an opportunity for rebuttal

3) the jury will vote on whose argument is the more compelling in its presentation of data and in its adherence to logical rules and its absence of logical fallacies

4) the one of us who that jury votes less compelling or credible in logic and in information will leave this site for one year.

Yet another irrelevant distraction. In this thread you have claimed the ability to make this sort of interpretation of Rumsfeld's resignation. I say, go ahead, but give a specific, single theory together with some evidence to show that your theory is more than just a self-indulgent conspiracy theory. My only argument herein has been that you lack such facts, and are just making things up that you cannot support with evidence.

Once again, I challenge you to present any theory of his resignation other than simple resignation, and then support it, that is lend it some degree of plausibility, with facts. At your next evasion, I will simply conclude that you cannot do what you purport to do, and move on to matters of greater moment.

blatham wrote:

Do you really wish to play? Then let's proceed as follows:

1) we'll choose 5-10 a2k members as jury who have actually studied some basic Logic.

2) I will make the argument, you can make yours, then each get an opportunity for rebuttal

3) the jury will vote on whose argument is the more compelling in its presentation of data and in its adherence to logical rules and its absence of logical fallacies

4) the one of us who that jury votes less compelling or credible in logic and in information will leave this site for one year.

Can I be on the jury?

And do we penalize for bloviation?

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

Do you really wish to play? Then let's proceed as follows:

1) we'll choose 5-10 a2k members as jury who have actually studied some basic Logic.

2) I will make the argument, you can make yours, then each get an opportunity for rebuttal

3) the jury will vote on whose argument is the more compelling in its presentation of data and in its adherence to logical rules and its absence of logical fallacies

4) the one of us who that jury votes less compelling or credible in logic and in information will leave this site for one year.

Can I be on the jury?

And do we penalize for bloviation?

Had you taken a basic course in logic, which you've previously told me you haven't, I wouldn't have argued your membership.

All lawyers have to pass that?

Hmmm... perhaps all that training and education isn't wasted after all...

Brandon9000 wrote:

blatham wrote:

Do you really wish to play? Then let's proceed as follows:

1) we'll choose 5-10 a2k members as jury who have actually studied some basic Logic.

2) I will make the argument, you can make yours, then each get an opportunity for rebuttal

3) the jury will vote on whose argument is the more compelling in its presentation of data and in its adherence to logical rules and its absence of logical fallacies

4) the one of us who that jury votes less compelling or credible in logic and in information will leave this site for one year.

Yet another irrelevant distraction. In this thread you have claimed the ability to make this sort of interpretation of Rumsfeld's resignation. I say, go ahead, but give a specific, single theory together with some evidence to show that your theory is more than just a self-indulgent conspiracy theory. My only argument herein has been that you lack such facts, and are just making things up that you cannot support with evidence.

Once again, I challenge you to present any theory of his resignation other than simple resignation, and then support it, that is lend it some degree of plausibility, with facts. At your next evasion, I will simply conclude that you cannot do what you purport to do, and move on to matters of greater moment.

No surprise that your bluster is attended by cowardice.

Brandon flatly refuses to be part of any endeavor in which he is not allowed to unilaterally declare himself the winner at any time.

While I cannot say for 100% sure whether or not this is caused by extreme cowardice, it would be the primary suspect.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon flatly refuses to be part of any endeavor in which he is not allowed to unilaterally declare himself the winner at any time.

While I cannot say for 100% sure whether or not this is caused by extreme cowardice, it would be the primary suspect.

Cycloptichorn

Of course, it wasn't cowardice, but rather your good sense, which caused you to withdraw from our debate in progress, when I was perfectly willing to continue under the conditions we had agreed to.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon flatly refuses to be part of any endeavor in which he is not allowed to unilaterally declare himself the winner at any time.

While I cannot say for 100% sure whether or not this is caused by extreme cowardice, it would be the primary suspect.

Cycloptichorn

Of course, it wasn't cowardice, but rather your good sense, which caused you to withdraw from our debate in progress, when I was perfectly willing to continue under the conditions we had agreed to.

It surely wasn't I who admitted that they were afraid that the 'winner would b e judged the loser,' coward.

Cycloptichorn

So what would be considered a passing grade on that sample test?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon flatly refuses to be part of any endeavor in which he is not allowed to unilaterally declare himself the winner at any time.

While I cannot say for 100% sure whether or not this is caused by extreme cowardice, it would be the primary suspect.

Cycloptichorn

Of course, it wasn't cowardice, but rather your good sense, which caused you to withdraw from our debate in progress, when I was perfectly willing to continue under the conditions we had agreed to.

It surely wasn't I who admitted that they were afraid that the 'winner would b e judged the loser,' coward.

Cycloptichorn

It's just this simple. You challenged me to a debate. We agreed to the terms of a debate. We started the debate. You pulled out. I was perfectly willing to continue. The interpretation of this is crystal clear. The person who withdraws from a debate in progress is a coward, not the person who wishes to continue.

No strategy here Brandon. Merely presenting you with a challenge which puts your, and my, argumentation to an orderly and objective test. With a penalty.

Your habitual tendency to contest any claim or surmise, no matter how tentatively made and regardless of evidences proferred, has become tiresome. Particularly, as your second post here demonstrates, you'll happily make a claim from authority and then attempt to escape any honest appraisal of what you've just done.

So, let's drop the challenge down to a level your courage quotient might find less risky. Loser takes a hike for three months. You can even have tico on the jury.

blatham wrote:

No strategy here Brandon. Merely presenting you with a challenge which puts your, and my, argumentation to an orderly and objective test. With a penalty.

Your habitual tendency to contest any claim or surmise, no matter how tentatively made and regardless of evidences proferred, has become tiresome. Particularly, as your second post here demonstrates, you'll happily make a claim from authority and then attempt to escape any honest appraisal of what you've just done.

So, let's drop the challenge down to a level your courage quotient might find less risky. Loser takes a hike for three months. You can even have tico on the jury.

What do you hope to prove by your little escapade here, blatham? That you're the toughest, baddest, mo' fo' in these here cyber parts?

If we'd had that penalty for being wrong, or demonstrating faulty logical reasoning, you'd'a been outta here a long time ago.