Who dismissed Rumsfield?

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?

It might be .... THIS THREAD?

Brandon or Cyclops can verify.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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?

It might be .... THIS THREAD?

Brandon or Cyclops can verify.

Yes, that's it. They seem to have moved it from its original location in a special debating forum. I see that Cyclops didn't actually use the word "uninteresting." His actual statement was:

Quote:

...I don't wish to limit my argument to your opinions about WMD being more dangerous than Al Qaeda...

However, he had challenged me to a debate on any topic of my chosing, and was, therefore, obligated to debate the topic I had chosen.

0 Replies

Are you willing to admit that you were lying about my comments, coward?

Because if you aren't, then there isn't any reason why anyone else would ever consider debating you - according to you, that is.

I have admitted that I never should have agreed to a debate that wasn't a debate; but that doesn't change the fact that you are too afraid to engage in a debate with myself, or anyone else, in which you will be actually judged.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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?

It might be .... THIS THREAD?

Brandon or Cyclops can verify.

Thanks Ticomaya. Much appreciated.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Are you willing to admit that you were lying about my comments, coward?

Because if you aren't, then there isn't any reason why anyone else would ever consider debating you - according to you, that is.

I have admitted that I never should have agreed to a debate that wasn't a debate; but that doesn't change the fact that you are too afraid to engage in a debate with myself, or anyone else, in which you will be actually judged.

Cycloptichorn

Your childish posts become very tiresome. You rely on name calling to make your points, and you make very obvious distortions in what has happened and things I've said. I was incorrect when I said that you used the word "uninteresting," but that is certainly the essence of what you said, and there is no basis for concluding that my imperfect memory constitutes "lying." You withdrew from a debate in progress, conducted under rules you had agreed to in writing, and now behave as though I, not you, forfeited. I find this all very tiresome. I actually have a life apart from this board.

I agree to resume the debate which you lost to me on the topic we had debated (The Correctness of the War in Iraq), but I will no longer do so with you. You're untrustworthy, display bad faith, and your posts have the quality of a small, naughty child. I agree to have other persons render opinions in writing as to who wins a debate. I do not, however, agree to have a formal winner or loser declared, for the simple reason that I will not do all the work of prosecuting and winning a knock-down-dragout debate, and then be declared the loser simply because some judge is in error. This is why presidential debates have opinions stated as to who won, but do not have a formal winner declared. Either accept my terms for debating or reject them. I have no further interest in this incredibly stupid exchange.

0 Replies

You have always been free to stop responding at any time you wish, Brandon.

You state: that I claimed that I won the debate and you lost. Yet I have never done so. Do you admit that this is a lie? Or, to avoid hurting your sensibilities, Nancy, can we call it an 'error' on your part?

Here is the only sentence that matters from your last post, really:

Quote:

I do not, however, agree to have a formal winner or loser declared, for the simple reason that I will not do all the work of prosecuting and winning a knock-down-dragout debate, and then be declared the loser simply because some judge is in error.

You have confirmed each and every thing that I have written about you, coward. In your mind you have already won each and every possible contest. There isn't even a possibility of actually losing the debate, and to ensure this, you refuse to participate in anything which even brings up the possibility of your being declared the loser.

And that is the mark of a coward.

Feel free to stop responding whenever you like; you have made my points completely, and for that I thank you. I doubt that there is any doubt amongst anyone who has read the last few pages as to the nature of your fear of failure.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have always been free to stop responding at any time you wish, Brandon.

You state: that I claimed that I won the debate and you lost. Yet I have never done so. Do you admit that this is a lie? Or, to avoid hurting your sensibilities, Nancy, can we call it an 'error' on your part?

Here is the only sentence that matters from your last post, really:

Quote:
I do not, however, agree to have a formal winner or loser declared, for the simple reason that I will not do all the work of prosecuting and winning a knock-down-dragout debate, and then be declared the loser simply because some judge is in error.

You have confirmed each and every thing that I have written about you, coward. In your mind you have already won each and every possible contest. There isn't even a possibility of actually losing the debate, and to ensure this, you refuse to participate in anything which even brings up the possibility of your being declared the loser.

And that is the mark of a coward.

Feel free to stop responding whenever you like; you have made my points completely, and for that I thank you. I doubt that there is any doubt amongst anyone who has read the last few pages as to the nature of your fear of failure.

Cycloptichorn

Then it's kind of odd that you're the one who fled from the debate you had agreed to and had commenced. I remain willing to debate that topic under my terms. I would agree to two judges of my choosing and two judges of my opponent's choosing.

0 Replies

It's interesting to note that Cycloptichorn lacks the ability to post without including some sort of puerile insult and that Brandon has shown extraordinary patience despite Cyclotichorns adolescent taunts.

I applaud your maturity Brandon.

I also believe that anyone who read the debate thread Ticomaya linked above, they would know the truth behind this whole tirade Cycloptichorn has been on.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You have always been free to stop responding at any time you wish, Brandon.

You state: that I claimed that I won the debate and you lost. Yet I have never done so. Do you admit that this is a lie? Or, to avoid hurting your sensibilities, Nancy, can we call it an 'error' on your part?

Here is the only sentence that matters from your last post, really:

Quote:
I do not, however, agree to have a formal winner or loser declared, for the simple reason that I will not do all the work of prosecuting and winning a knock-down-dragout debate, and then be declared the loser simply because some judge is in error.

You have confirmed each and every thing that I have written about you, coward. In your mind you have already won each and every possible contest. There isn't even a possibility of actually losing the debate, and to ensure this, you refuse to participate in anything which even brings up the possibility of your being declared the loser.

And that is the mark of a coward.

Feel free to stop responding whenever you like; you have made my points completely, and for that I thank you. I doubt that there is any doubt amongst anyone who has read the last few pages as to the nature of your fear of failure.

Cycloptichorn

Then it's kind of odd that you're the one who fled from the debate you had agreed to and had commenced. I remain willing to debate that topic under my terms. I would agree to two judges of my choosing and two judges of my opponent's choosing.

Brandon, did you or did you not say that I had claimed myself the winner and you the loser of the discussion, at any time? I feel it is neccessary to be clear on this point, as you throw around accusations of lying quite a bit yet refuse to respond to clear evidence of your own lying about people's positions.

You only agree to judges once you have been browbeaten into it, and only under the condition that they cannot actually declare a winner at the end. Further evidence of cowardice.

McG,

Quote:

It's interesting to note that Cycloptichorn lacks the ability to post without including some sort of puerile insult

Oh, I don't lack the ability, I merely choose to write reality as I see it. Brandon has exhibited signs of cowardice, therefore, I judge him to be a coward, and there's no reason not to say so.

I predict he will continue to respond to infinity, because failure to respond for some reason equals loss of an argument in the minds of many; Fox displays the same attitude frequently. I wonder if it is a symptom of the right, a pervasive need to have the last word in arguments, regardless of the merit of ones' argument.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

I predict he will continue to respond to infinity, because failure to respond for some reason equals loss of an argument in the minds of many;

Kind of like what you are doing now, right? Gotta get the last word in?

Let me ask you a couple of questions...

Were the rules for the debate laid out before you decided to make your first post in the thread?

Did you enter into the debate with Brandon knowing what the rules were going to be?

Did you then decide that you didn't like the format, despite having agreed to the rules beforehand, and back out of the debate?

0 Replies

Quote:

Did you then decide that you didn't like the format, despite having agreed to the rules beforehand, and back out of the debate?

Yes, this has never been a matter under question, actually, I have in fact stated that I was in error agreeing to enter into the debate under the proposed rules.

If you or Brandon wishes to judge me a coward for backing out, that's perfectly fine with me. But it doesn't change the fact that Brandon's deep-seated cowardice precludes the ability of having a debate with him, because he cannot abide the possibility of being declared the loser.

In fact, any such instance would be the judge 'screwing up' according to him. This really should tell you something.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you or Brandon wishes to judge me a coward for backing out, that's perfectly fine with me. But it doesn't change the fact that Brandon's deep-seated cowardice precludes the ability of having a debate with him, because he cannot abide the possibility of being declared the loser.

That's an interesting accusation, given that you were the one who cancelled the debate in question.

0 Replies

So, you and he agrred to debate, using pre-agreed upon rules, and you decided to quit.

I don't believe I have seen Brandon say anything other then that. Maybe not in those exact words, but it sums up his argument.

Now, you keep calling him a coward for not wishing to redebate you under different rules? Seems to me he is doing what you should have done to begin with, politely declining your invitation despite your taunts.

He has stated his reason's for the style of debate he would participate in, yet you are the one that seems unable to step up.

0 Replies

While it certainly doesn't come as a surprise to see you closing ranks, it shouldn't preclude your ability to realize that there are two seperate facts here.

First, if you wish to call me a coward/suggest that I was cowardly in removing myself from the discussion with Brandon, you are perfectly free to do so. I make no claims about my behavior other than that I withdrew once I realized that there was no point in continuing without an objective judge, because - and to me this is key - we were never going to address the same points at all. Without an objective judge, what seperates that from an everyday conversation here on A2K? I am well aware of Brandon's position and he is well aware of mine. There would be no utility in merely repeating them again with little interaction between the two.

Second, however, is Brandon's statement that he was afraid the 'winner would be judged the loser.' Now, if he hadn't have written that, I never would have said much about the whole thing. But, what an arrogant and yet at the same time cowardly thing to write! He is so busy assuming that he will win the debate, that he won't allow there to be a judge to say whether he won or not, becuase the judge might screw up and say that he lost. Now, is that or is that not a cowardly position - to be sure that you are right, in fact so sure that you are already presuming victory, yet to be afraid that someone on an internet forum will judge them the loser?

I am not afraid of being judged the loser. My arguments stand or fail upon their own merits and it won't hurt my feelings either way. I am neither the most intelligent nor the best debater here. None of that matters to me. But it matters to Brandon a great deal; and that is the truly sad part, that someone who displays such intense cowardice is continually such a proponent of aggresive war. I think there is a real pattern there; a deep-seated need not only to prove oneself right, but to prove one's manliness by taking an agressive stance. It's pathetic.

Either or you is of course, as you well know, free to agree/disagree/call me whatever names you like. It won't change the fact that at the end of the day there is one person who refuses to be judged for the chance of losing, and one who does not, and to me that's cowardice. And I am going to continue to say so.

I also don't appreciate being accused of lying when I never made the statements in question. But I think pretty much everyone on A2K is used to that now from one side or another...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you or Brandon wishes to judge me a coward for backing out, that's perfectly fine with me. But it doesn't change the fact that Brandon's deep-seated cowardice precludes the ability of having a debate with him, because he cannot abide the possibility of being declared the loser.

That's an interesting accusation, given that you were the one who cancelled the debate in question.

It is a studied accusation. But in any case, it seems clear that agreement won't be reached on this matter.

So, why don't we begin afresh? Consider that the dawn has arrived and that this new day allows a clear and unweighted potential to sort out the Ps and Qs of things.

What say, Brandon? Here's your chance to both demonstrate that you've got this right and also to shut me up (not to mention cyclo and gus) for a while. That looks like a win win. And it will be a challenge and a laudatory intellectual exercise, no? An orderly forum, an objective panel. The appropriateness of your debate style should be - is bound to be- clearly and convincingly evident to all.

I'll say "please" if that will help.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you or Brandon wishes to judge me a coward for backing out, that's perfectly fine with me. But it doesn't change the fact that Brandon's deep-seated cowardice precludes the ability of having a debate with him, because he cannot abide the possibility of being declared the loser.

That's an interesting accusation, given that you were the one who cancelled the debate in question.

It is a studied accusation. But in any case, it seems clear that agreement won't be reached on this matter.

So, why don't we begin afresh? Consider that the dawn has arrived and that this new day allows a clear and unweighted potential to sort out the Ps and Qs of things.

What say, Brandon? Here's your chance to both demonstrate that you've got this right and also to shut me up (not to mention cyclo and gus) for a while. That looks like a win win. And it will be a challenge and a laudatory intellectual exercise, no? An orderly forum, an objective panel. The appropriateness of your debate style should be - is bound to be- clearly and convincingly evident to all.

I'll say "please" if that will help.

It's not completely clear what you're asking me, but I'll take a guess, based on your previous posts in this thread.

First, I take your ostensibly fair and reasonable post to me as a mere pretty packaging of an essentially dishonest and insincere proposition, but I will give you one opportunity to display more integrity than you have up to now. Don't ask me what I mean by this, I won't play.

1. I agree to debate the topic "The Correctness of the War in Iraq" with anyone on the board except Cyclops, under the terms I have enunciated above. Don't pretend that you don't know what they are or I'll just get weary of your games and stop wasting my time on you. The posts which comprise such a debate will stand or fall on their own merit. There can be a panel of judges under the assumption that a way of choosing them can be devised to our mutual agreement, but no absolute declaration of a winner.

2. I will not agree to your silly suggestion that the "loser" absents himself from the board.

3. Furthermore, you have even now not replied to my normal and reasonable request that you give a scenario regarding what might have happened behind the scenes of Rumsfeld's resignation. You opined that a reliable theory can be synthesized based on the facts on hand. You then took great exception to my rather ordinary statement that I doubt there are enough facts around to support such a theory, and that you seemed to be engaging in unsupported musings. I didn't myself state any theory of the resignation. I said that if it's not what it appears to be, I doubt there are enough facts at our disposal to determine what it is. I said that if you feel this way, it's incumbent on you to clearly enunciate one single theory of what happened behind the scenes and then provide some evidence to support it. You have still not done so. An honest person is willing to explain why he believes what he asserts is true. Don't change the subject, don't post about me, don't challenge me to a debate, don't wait for your friends to help you, just give a little evidence to support what you asserted here or admit that you cannot.

0 Replies

You are not an honest person, Brandon, so why you insist on honesty from others is beyond me.

Key line, Blatham -

Quote:

There can be a panel of judges under the assumption that a way of choosing them can be devised to our mutual agreement, but no absolute declaration of a winner.

Brandon has already declared himself the winner of your debate, so I'm not sure why you should bother dealing with a base coward.

Other than for the entertainment value Smile

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This is the most sterile and pointless discussion I have ever seen that did not involve me as a participant.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

This is the most sterile and pointless discussion I have ever seen that did not involve me as a participant.

LOL

0 Replies

You forgot childish. I am just starting a four day weekend in which I have a lot of personal and family things to attend to, but I'll drop in from time to time during the period, and will respond to any sincere communications either within this thread or in the forum at large.

0 Replies

Who dismissed Rumsfield?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know