Who dismissed Rumsfield?

snood wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
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.

Dang, what's the matter with challenging Brandon to a debate, with some impartial judges (and you)?

Just seems like a "my dick is bigger than yours" type of contest, to me, as its been presented. I was under the impression that you leftist types didn't care for such bravado.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

I have little interest in "proving" anything, in the manner you use that term. If, instead, your word in that sentence had been "gain", that's answerable. I'd hope to gain discourse that has greater value to all of us, with a not insignificant side benefit of far less annoyance from dumbitude and shallow partisans. Sierra Song/Just Wonders and fishin have far less in common than what they share. And that's the same with William Buckley and Ann Coulter. We can all learn from fishin or Buckley because they care foremost about facts and accuracy and good argumentation. There is almost nothing we can expect to learn from Coulter or JW because they care foremost about partisan advocacy and the more valuable elements fall far behind. In the a2k community and in the larger community, we are all impoverished by such discourse.

So, brandon has his challenge to play this game he's playing in front of an objective panel and with a consequence, obviously for either of us, if what he'd doing, or what I'm doing, is found wanting.

If he's really confident such a disciplined format will prove his discourse relatively free of those failings he attributes to me, then he has not a worry in the world. If I fail, then clearly, I have something important to learn and will spend some time doing other things than writing here.

0 Replies

I think that we ought to quit palavering, choose the judges, and start the debate thread.

Okay, Ticomaya is one judge. How many more judges, and who should they be?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

I have already admitted that I was in error when I allowed the discussion to go on without a judge or moderator; for, you see, it isn't a debate without a judge or a moderator. This is more indicative of common sense then it is cowardice.

You, on the other hand, have admitted that you fear being judged, because you don't want to be declared the loser. That is a sure sign of cowardice.

Pick up the gauntlet: choose a judge or moderator for the debate, and I'll beat the crap out of you. The only debate you could hope to win is one that you can declare yourself the winner, coward.

Cycloptichorn

You withdrew from a debate in progress, which was being conducted under rules you had agreed to, and that constitutes a forfeit. What you claim your reasoning was is irrelevant. Claiming that you made a mistake to sign on to certain terms is irrelevant. Terms had been agreed to. I was wanted to continue then, and I am willing to continue now. I agree to resume the debate you ran away from exactly where we left off, under the rules we had agreed to.

0 Replies

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.

Even if you could prove that I was a coward, a bank robber, and a pyromaniac, it wouldn't in any way support your argument, nor detract from my claim that you lack the facts to make the kind of judgement you had claimed to make. An argument is neither disproven by impeaching the character of the person who advances it, nor proven by listing the person's merits. Only a liar tries to win an argument by referring to the personalities of the people who represent the two opposing ideas. Only a liar goes to so much trouble to avoid carrying on a simple, linear debate or to provide support for his statements.

Now, you made a claim in this thread - specifically that you are able to support a theory of Rumsfeld's resignation. My claim is only that you probably lack the facts. I asked you to do what any honest person who advances a theory should be happy to do - provide support for what you said. Please provide logic or evidence to demonstrate what you claimed, or admit that you cannot. Don't change the subject, talk about me, talk about my ancestors, start other topics of discussion, make jokes, play mind games, or drag us through any other debating acrobatics. Do what any honest poster would do and support what you claimed was true.

0 Replies

All this noise, just because Brandon refuses to debate with judges and consequences included.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

snood wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
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.

Dang, what's the matter with challenging Brandon to a debate, with some impartial judges (and you)?

Just seems like a "my dick is bigger than yours" type of contest, to me, as its been presented. I was under the impression that you leftist types didn't care for such bravado.

But you're wrong most of the time. I love a fair fight. I'm still under the impression that you rightwingnuts are too cowardly to fight in any circumstances unless you have a clear advantage.

0 Replies

There was no debate between us, Brandon, just a discussion; because you were too yellow to face the possibility of losing to someone online.

Your ego must be a delicate thing indeed, Nancy. Don't want to upset your sensibilities.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There was no debate between us, Brandon, just a discussion; because you were too yellow to face the possibility of losing to someone online.

Your ego must be a delicate thing indeed, Nancy. Don't want to upset your sensibilities.

Cycloptichorn

You withdrew from a debate in progress, conducted under terms you agreed to. You forfeit. However, if you decide to stick to your agreement, I would be only to happy to pick it up at the point where you ran away.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
There was no debate between us, Brandon, just a discussion; because you were too yellow to face the possibility of losing to someone online.

Your ego must be a delicate thing indeed, Nancy. Don't want to upset your sensibilities.

Cycloptichorn

You withdrew from a debate in progress, conducted under terms you agreed to. You forfeit. However, if you decide to stick to your agreement, I would be only to happy to pick it up at the point where you ran away.

There really isn't any need to repeat your cowardly position again.

Irregardless of the first debate - the one in which you admitted you were too afraid of being judged - you are too spineless to engage in any sort of seperate, new debate, with myself or in fact any opponent, when the possibility of your losing is a factor. Right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
There was no debate between us, Brandon, just a discussion; because you were too yellow to face the possibility of losing to someone online.

Your ego must be a delicate thing indeed, Nancy. Don't want to upset your sensibilities.

Cycloptichorn

You withdrew from a debate in progress, conducted under terms you agreed to. You forfeit. However, if you decide to stick to your agreement, I would be only to happy to pick it up at the point where you ran away.

There really isn't any need to repeat your cowardly position again.

Irregardless of the first debate - the one in which you admitted you were too afraid of being judged - you are too spineless to engage in any sort of seperate, new debate, with myself or in fact any opponent, when the possibility of your losing is a factor. Right?

Cycloptichorn

First of all, you are in no position to call anyone a coward, since you withdrew from our prevous debate after just a couple of posts. We had between us set a minimum number of exchanges required before one could withdraw without losing, and you withdrew after only - what 2 or 3? You lose by the rules you yourself agreed to. The point is that a person is obligated to keep agreements he makes, and not simply pretend that they're not there when it suits him. Who gives a damn if you changed your mind? That's why people make agreements. I might be willing to discuss giving you a rematch, but not under circumstances in which you lost a previous debate and don't have the guts to admit it.

0 Replies

Hey, can someone post a link to the exchange that you two are talking about, so that others can see what the hell really happened?

0 Replies

'Giving' me a rematch?

You really are a pompous git, Brandon.

The thing is, I don't have anything to prove, to anyone. The fact that you refuse to engage in a debate which is actually judged - a point which you have never contested, by the way - due to fear that you will lose - another point which you have never contested - marks you as a coward. You can protest that you won the debate or whatever all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you have displayed a weakness and fear of judgement. It is apparent for all to see, and if you bothered to read other posts in this and other threads, you will find it is the widely held opinion of you.

Now, irregardless of your opinions about my refusal to yell past you for days with no satisfactory conclusion, you have the opportunity to put all this to rest by agreeing to a judged debate; yet you refuse, which confirms your character to all.

Just another typical Bush supporter - all talk, no action, no brains, no balls.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Hey, can someone post a link to the exchange that you two are talking about, so that others can see what the hell really happened?

I'd like very much to post such a link, but it seems to me that it was in a "debating" forum near the top of the list that I can't seem to find now. If anyone remembers where this was, please post the link.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

'Giving' me a rematch?

You really are a pompous git, Brandon.

The thing is, I don't have anything to prove, to anyone. The fact that you refuse to engage in a debate which is actually judged - a point which you have never contested, by the way - due to fear that you will lose - another point which you have never contested - marks you as a coward. You can protest that you won the debate or whatever all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you have displayed a weakness and fear of judgement. It is apparent for all to see, and if you bothered to read other posts in this and other threads, you will find it is the widely held opinion of you.

Now, irregardless of your opinions about my refusal to yell past you for days with no satisfactory conclusion, you have the opportunity to put all this to rest by agreeing to a judged debate; yet you refuse, which confirms your character to all.

Just another typical Bush supporter - all talk, no action, no brains, no balls.

Cycloptichorn

I won't bother to correct your various distortions of my statements. You are in the position of having lost a prior debate to me, according to rules you and I both agreed to in writing beforehand, and now acting like it didn't happen. I might agree to give you a rematch, but not as long as you refuse to acknowledge that we had such a match before and that you lost according to the rules which you absolutely had agreed to. I would be idiotic to grant a rematch to a person who demonstrates that he is a liar and entered into our previous match in bad faith. You pulled out of our prior match, not me, and we certainly had set a minimum number of posts for such a withdrawal not to constitute a loss.

0 Replies

I note that you still do not deny being to cowardly to be actually judged. I'd like to see you state that you are not too cowardly to participate in a debate which is judged.

You are currently engaging in the lamest sort of defenses of your moral failings, which is truly funny Laughing

If you like, I can find exact quotes proving your cowardice and reproduce them here for more to see... how did it go?? Oh yes, you don't like judges because of the chance that 'the winner will be declared the loser.' Of course, in your mind, you are already the winner....

I haven't misrepresented anything your mental midgetry has vomited on to A2K at all. Just highlighted it for others to see.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I note that you still do not deny being to cowardly to be actually judged. I'd like to see you state that you are not too cowardly to participate in a debate which is judged.

You are currently engaging in the lamest sort of defenses of your moral failings, which is truly funny

If you like, I can find exact quotes proving your cowardice and reproduce them here for more to see... how did it go?? Oh yes, you don't like judges because of the chance that 'the winner will be declared the loser.' Of course, in your mind, you are already the winner....

I haven't misrepresented anything your mental midgetry has vomited on to A2K at all. Just highlighted it for others to see.

Cycloptichorn

Who's the coward, the person who pulled out of a debate in progress, and then claims he didn't lose, or the person who had wanted to continue? As I have stated, I am not averse to discussing a rematch, but not with someone who broke the agreement for the last debate and is now lying about it.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I note that you still do not deny being to cowardly to be actually judged. I'd like to see you state that you are not too cowardly to participate in a debate which is judged.

You are currently engaging in the lamest sort of defenses of your moral failings, which is truly funny

If you like, I can find exact quotes proving your cowardice and reproduce them here for more to see... how did it go?? Oh yes, you don't like judges because of the chance that 'the winner will be declared the loser.' Of course, in your mind, you are already the winner....

I haven't misrepresented anything your mental midgetry has vomited on to A2K at all. Just highlighted it for others to see.

Cycloptichorn

Who's the coward, the person who pulled out of a debate in progress, and then claims he didn't lose, or the person who had wanted to continue? As I have stated, I am not averse to discussing a rematch, but not with someone who broke the agreement for the last debate and is now lying about it.

There was no debate in progress.

No judge - no moderator - no debate. You may be the only person alive who says that a formal debate is whatever the hell you want it to be.

And I don't want to see you rematch me - it's long ago been proven to most here that this would be a waste of my time and frankly superior mental energies - but Blatham.

In the face of being forced to defend your record or cowardice, you are turning to attack me instead. A sure sign of someone with a strong argument, that.

I ask you again - are you, or are you not, too cowardly to engage in a debate which is actually judged? Is it or is it not true that you said you were too afraid the 'winner would be judged the loser?'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You challenged me to a debate, claiming that you could defeat me on any subject of my choosing. I agreed immediately.

We agreed to a set of rules in public and in writing. We started to debate.

Then, when you saw that my responses didn't correspond to what you had hoped they would be you pulled out of the debate, saying that you found the topic uninteresting.

We had absolutely agreed to a minimum number of posts for withdrawal not to constitute loss, and you were nowhere near that number. You withdrew, you lost, and now you claim that I somehow lost.

I don't debate with liars, with people who make agreements and then break them, or with people who agree to debate, then violate the rules agreed to, then lie about it. If you want a rematch, you will have to admit that you were, at least formally, the loser of the first debate.

0 Replies

A point of correction -

Quote:

You withdrew, you lost, and now you claim that I somehow lost.

Please link to the comment in which I said you lost the debate.

Quote:

you pulled out of the debate, saying that you found the topic uninteresting.

Please link to the comment in which I stated that I found the topic 'uninteresting.'

You will be unable to do either, because neither ever happened. My contention was and has always been that without some sort of objective judge, there is no point in debating you or anyone on this or any topic. You don't feel that way because you have a deep-seated fear of failure (apparently) and have no desire to be declared a loser, because in your heart you can't believe it would be true; it seems it would be quite damaging to your psyche.

You in fact are an interesting case because you embody many of the same qualities that are so lacking amongst the current administration; it is no surprise that you are a supporter of theirs.

I also question your reading ability, along with your intelligence and guts, as I believe I said in the last post that I would be interested in seeing you debate Blatham, and not me. As I said, it has been sufficiently proven that a debate between you and I simply wouldn't be fair to you, becuase I would insist on a judge whereas you cannot tolerate being judged.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Who dismissed Rumsfield?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know