| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
 Posted - 12/03/2002 : 00:45:02
|
| So, Jim, you would rather debate about the rules of debate than pointng out exactly where I was wrong in my argument. I pointed out how you were wrong and I was right. Who is flinging the red herrings now? I am in awe of your debating style, it's almost as if you have no argument at all. Truly brilliant. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 12/03/2002 00:46:35 |
 |
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 00:48:07
|
| Again you have shot your other foot. Calling your debating partner an "Idiot" is something we all would expect from someone devoid of any real ideas. Fancy words and posturing do not win debates. Ideas and the ability to express them are the mothers milk of debating, and you have only given us skim milk Jim. Why would you proclaim yourself superior in debating when Kile went to the trouble of expressing just what he believes in and you refuse to express your views out of fear that someone will read them. Jim a little self examination would be in order. You seem to have an attitude of I am knowledgeable, therefore superior. The world is full of educated derelects. Is it that hard to admit Kile just plain beat you 99 to 0. By the way mr Red Herring, we did not want your political views as much as WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE. |
Edited by - Justin on 12/03/2002 00:57:56 |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 00:54:53
|
Kile, I think calling his debating style "Brilliant" is a REACH. But I will admit it is a common style used by those on the left. Attack, Attack, Attack, maybe nobody will notice.
READ Math. 24:4 it tells it all. "Take heed that no man decieves you." |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 01:06:09
|
Kile, the 'rules' of debate are not debatable, but then again, if you were a serious and skilled 'debater' you would already know that.
Accept my challenge if you are truly open to the 'truth' and take this whole thread to 3 major university collegiate debate coaches/teachers for their scoring and analysis, if you can bear to hear the truth about who realy 'won' by any popularly accepted standards other than your own.
But again, I have conceded the 'win' in this 'debate' to you, for reasons apparent in my posts, and I have no further need to justify my political position nor debate technique with those uninformed about accepted standards of didactic debate, who's response to every statement is to invoke the L (liberal) word.
Just to comment on a couple of your inadequcies in logic:
Debate is all about presenting empirical evidence and your comments about 'liberals not having a sense of hunor' reflects your opinion and not a fact based on empirical evidence.
Your statement that 'liberals HATE the military' again is your personal opinion and does not in any way reflect any postulation of empirical evidence.
I could go on and on about such outlandish misguided statements, but needless to say, posting opinions as you have already said in earlier posts, do not and can not and will not ever win a 'debate'.
When you state your opinions as 'fact' the burden is on you in debate to provide your empirical evidence for such statements to allow the opposing side the opportunity to research and respond to the empirical evidence presented.
Without counting, you presented dozens of such personal 'opinions' in this thread (mostly in description of 'liberals' or in your attempt to make your own definition of 'liberal' the accepted standard, inconsistent with more generally accepted definitions) as if they were 'facts' which while lacking your posting of your empirical evidence, fails in convincing intelligently discriminating audiences of any credibility of empirical factualization.
Again, Kile, Thanks for the fun and a delightful evening's entertainment. As e e cummings would said, it was "mud luscious and puddle wonderful".
|
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 01:30:22
|
I stay off the computer for half a day and look where this thread goes... certainly not what I had in mind when I made my original post!
I was all prepared to provide my logic for being a libertarian but realize now that Jim's question about the source of one's political views is long forgotten. I respect Jim's right to not share his political beliefs in this forum. In a world where it's not what you know, but who you know he is right to avoid alienating those he hopes to work for.
Jim, you sound like an educated man... I am sure me and my political scientist husband (he's working on his doctorate now) would love to spend an evening of lively discussion with you. If you are still interested in my logic for libertarianism, let me know.
Kile & Justin, what can I say? I don't really agree with your approach to the discussion this evening but I feel we have more in common politically than Jim & I. Just don't forget to vote. :-)
Truce? We are all adjusters and in the end just want to work and be the best we can be in catastrophe claims. Remember, it takes all kinds to make the world go around.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 01:42:49
|
| Jim, the debate centered on logic. A subject that is obviously beyond your grasp. You posed a question to me. I used two very good analogies to explain to you why the question you posed did not have any direct relationship to the statement I made prior to that. In my experience, people on the left, The Clintons, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, insert liberal name here, quite often make arguments out of context or try to compare apples and oranges. Everything must be taken in context and the White House lawyer question you asked me, did not apply to the statement I made about not wanting to work for person who would refuse to hire a man because of his political oppinions. You know that I am an insurance adjuster, therefore you should have known that I was speaking in the context of a claims manager not hiring an insurance adjuster because of his political views. You took that and tried to apply it to a political setting. I'll explain it for you one more time. The two situations are not the same therefore my statement pertaining to the first relationship (adjuster/claims manager) would not apply to the second relationship (liberal lawyer/conservative politician). If you fail to see why your argument was out of context and not applicable to the original statement then I suggest you request a refund of all that college tuition you paid, because you were ripped off. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 09:04:20
|
| The beauty of the conservative arguement is that it is based on right and there any counter arguement is flawed. Tell me how calling tom D evil is not a personal attack? Oh I get it it's a fact therefore it is not personal. Hollywood has given us the two great politican thinkers that explain conservative politics, Forrest Grump and Chancey Gardiner. A pat on the back for those who can match them to the appropriate presidents. Another think that confuses me is your comments about (liberals ) having no snese of humour, I have only met a few conservatives with a real sense of humour, most have their humour tied to that which puts down what they believe is wrong. I would likely be a liberal by your standards. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 09:17:35
|
| It is simply my experience that those with a liberal bent lack the ability to find humor in anything. They are always serious, they run around screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". Feminists, rabid environmentalists, Political Correctness freaks, Barbara Steisand the list goes on and on, most of the people who fit these definitions that I have met take themselves way to seriously and can't find the humor in anything. They are always so concerned about everything that they can't just sit back and enjoy life. And yes, I don't believe calling Tom Daschle evil is name calling because I really believe that he is evil. That's one good thing about us conservatives, we aren't wishy washy. We call it like it is. There's good in this world and there is bad in this world. As the President said, you're either with us, or against us. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 09:29:22
|
Mark, don't you just find it hilarious when you encounter those who are ignorant of their own ignorance?
Who said we don't have a sense of humor? I suppose that the devil makes us do it explains our wicked (evil) sense of humor. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 10:36:12
|
Wow, look how this went on and on, and on; not my pint of ale but each to their own. I replied last night to Jim, but got lost in a dark cave of going off line and somehow losing my login and finally losing my typed post; anyway I don't want Jim to say or think I shirked his questions. Gosh Jim, look at us, we are having a discussion! No need to be sensitive, I'm not throwing mud, certainly not intentionally.
I'll try and reconstruct my thoughts from last night, first with the things I agreed with in your posts to the time of your questions to me. Basically all of your first post, I was just a casual observer, quite honestly mildly upset or at odds with this type of thread and the "Anything Goes" forum on CADO. But, I rationalized it in my mind with the good laugh I got from Jenn's Thanksgiving satirical top 20, which I hope is only bested by Linda's Christmas dinner again this year. It's just the technical side of me that says this type of thing doesn't belong here and that politics is a volatile subject to banter in an open forum. Your second post made your point congenially, and I shared your thought that it really wasn't a debate at that time as much as it was a Limbaugh postmortem. However, all the participants to that point seemed to be enjoying the interchange, and I was quite impressed with Mark's accurate summation of the political forces at play here in Canada.
However, by your 18.15 PM post, I felt you were either expressing your anger directly at the people who posted, or your pretty acute frustration at the people who were party to the discussion; and that you were no longer addressing the issues that were being bantered. I have a pretty leather like exterior after quite a few years exposed to the harshness of the realities of life, but comments like, ".... one resorts to childish .... attacks ....", or ".... don't insult those educated ....", or the inference of the worth of others opinions beyond the 8th grade, or the inability to debate with a warthog - all seem to me to be detached from the issue and centered on those whom you disagree with.
It's just the verbal tone, it - from my "read" - seems to attack the person, not their view. Instead of objecting to the viewpoint, it tends to be quite critical of the person whose view you are oppossed to.
My thoughts when I said I echoed a sentence of Justin's, was not a request but was to suggest that I agreed with that statement, in that you tend to regularly or too often (but not always) pontificate as oppossed to presenting your views and "selling" them based on reasoned argument of the issue. If you look at your post where you raised your questions to me, it is quite a pleasant contrast to your earlier posts that preceeded it. In that post you seem calm and relaxed again, and I think your views expressed there are much more easily adoptable than others.
However, as I stated earlier in these thoughts, and as you have, this is a forum for adjusting and I agree fully with your comments related to that and the discussion of politics.
So sir, these comments are the basic roots of our / my "personal" disagreements we have had pre and post 9/15; not a big deal really, just one persons interpretation of some of another persons manner of expressing their views.
However, going over this thread again this morning, it is easy for me to conclude that you are one better than myself, as I would not have had the patience to continue a dialogue of a supposed "debate" in the manner in which it was unfolding.
Back to this thread, I think Kile was somewhat naive with his comments regarding politics denying a man work, but you have illustrated the reality of that in a political context. However, I don't think the trough of patronage has any private or public sector boundaries. |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 11:41:54
|
Jim, if your debating style or posture is representative of what you learned from your years of matriculation at old mossy univ. then just maybe Kile was right. Demand a refund. For your information Webster's defines debate as;
1. To consider or deliberate.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
4. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
You may wish to compare the definition above to the text of your and Kile's postings and then I think you will probably see that Kile debates, you obfuscate.
|
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 12:46:47
|
| Kile states; "I don't believe calling Tom Daschle evil is name calling because I really believe that he is evil." That is the trouble with debating conservatives, there is no debate with them. Clayton since Trudeaumania Canadian politics have been interesting. Certainly nothing could be more frustrating then choosing between Bush and Gore. It was enough to make me wish Jesse was running. Kile by your thought process you will win any debate, because anything you state is fact anything the evil forces state is a lie or personal attack. Congradulations on winning (at least in your mind and that of Justin). |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 12:54:13
|
Dirt, the trouble with debating liberals is that there is no debate with them either. Gee looks like anything you state is also, in your mind, fact! Kind of like a "portland dixie mind", all mixed up and permanently set. Yeah, Jessie is just what we need in this country. If Jessie was elected, it would only be a matter of time before we were just like Canada, our little brother to the north, socalist and broke. Choosing between Bush and Gore. Are you kidding, not even the democrats want this idiot. He's been made over more times than Michael Jackson.
JUST FOR ONCE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE OF YOU LIBERALS REFUTE A CONSERVATIVE IDEA WITH SOMETHING BESIDES INNUENDO AND PERSONAL ATTACK.
|
Edited by - Justin on 12/03/2002 12:56:39 |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 14:27:23
|
| Justin you have made the problem clear, you are not capable for debating or listening to any arguement to refute your beliefs because by your very thoguht process there is no possible way to refute what has been written on a tablet and brought down form the mountain. Also your knowledge and understanding of Canada shows. I am always happy to hear an arguement based on logic and fact, but we have a diffence in defining logic and fact. After a noble responce to 9-11 now all we hear is crush Saddam. If we ask about the econony it's get Iraq, if we ask about anything it's get Iraq, and if we question the logic of the Oresisent it's you are against America. Now being a conservative you will immediately assume I am anti military and against invading Iraq. You could even be wrong although you would never admit it. I just hope that we are spending lives and money on more then securing a supply of mid-east oil (ref: Rush himself in several shows late last August). |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 17:45:44
|
This is not intended to ruffle feathers, but I have took part in the
three democrat wars, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Prior to Vietnam I mostly voted for the man and not the party now I vote in oposition to someone or their platform.
This is something to think about, if we continue to have our freedom eroded by the activists and the new laws being passed each year that takes the resposibility from the individual and places it in the hands of regulators it will soon put us in the ranks of the third world.
This is being done for the public interest, thats the claim.
This is being crafted by the pseudo intelectuals, media, politicians,
and most of all by those with their snoot in the government trough of grant money. Welfare programs promote poverty and as the bible states the poor will always be with us. I think that has been proven, however we could come up with some intelectual idiot to prove us wrong.
For instance the people of Alaska want to explore for oil, forget about States rights, the government has grabbed up all the land and made a pristene wilderness for all the people, not the Alaskans. How many people will that serve, only those with enough Escuodas to hire a bush pilot, and believe me most people with that kind of money are going to keep it.
Party politics is for the people who don't spend enough time looking at the agenda of those running for office. Not to mention the block votes by those special intrest groups that want their people to have special priveleges. Those are the people who are bringing this country into moral decay, and its not a racial thing so much as it is an attitude of poor me and poor them. The sun will shine on anyone with the brass to get out in it .
This is kinda the way it goes ,you give a man a fish and feed him for a day, you teach him to fish and he will sit out in the boat and drink beer and lie like a rug. People are basicly a strange species, and I don't know if God kept trying to get one right or just give up left. I know he must have a sense of humor, so ya'll laugh.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Partisan Politics
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
