PF Debates: Will You Participate?

Calling the other side stupid and acting like an elitist is moronic. Get off of your throne.

 

Why should someone who is elite act like anything else; even though he's not, unfortunately.

 

Thanks

Indeed. Its why I came up with the 'everyone judges' to make it more fair, but EPV has a great point why that isn't a great idea.
No judging, at least in the beginning, sounds more appealing, just until we know where this may lead.
Once we see the first debate taking place, get more of a grasp of what is expected, the rules can easily be changed and judges be added.

If that were the only reason, perhaps it would be easier to moderate current threads a bit more, be more strict in enforcing the rules, esp on trolling, and less lenient with those who just go around posting nonsense and outlandish statements.
Yes, one might argue that posters have a right to say these things, but allowing trolling adds nothing positive to the discussions, or to the forum.
While an occasional jib might lighten the mood, some posters bring forth nothing but baiting one liners, which are very disruptive for sure.

 

What, are you contending that liberals snuck into the quorum and stirred you kids up? Who the hell is to blame for stuff conservatives do other than conservatives?

 

I just make a comment about trolling in another post. That we seem to agree on. But those people are few, very disruptive, but few.

 

True but I am sure most of the issues that would be chosen would have proper arguments for both sides.

 

Or convinced their OPINIONS are gospel?
Don't forget, both sides can offer sources for their opinion. It doesn't make one more right than the other, certain science being an exception.
All else is fair game, subjective.
That's why I think judges are nonsense, at least in the beginning.

 

Aww thanks Catch, but that's not true. I mean, 80% of the time the poster on the right just doesn't present an argument or evidence at all, so I don't count those. But I've lost plenty of the other 20%. Frogger, taxpayer, Shiva, Sir Thaddeus, Southpaw, etc, have all won debates against me. And others I'm sure. And Frodly too, although he's not a conservative.

 

Sources of quality don't exactly support two sides on every issue. Opinion are fine, but in terms of those being able to convert their opinion, via source and lecture, to anything more is strictly one-sided.

Yeah, and how many of those are out in force now? Sir Thad and Southpaw are quality posters, but they're rarely vocal enough to represent their side.

Sadistic Savior would be a fearsome opponent in international politics, but other than that; the pedigree is just lacking.

 

I'd have no problem participating, with or without judging. What's to lose?

 

Dignity, a certain few know they don't stand a chance; and they've shown their otherwise proud counterparts that indeed such an idea would favor one side.

 

Me too John. The only place we part ways may be with our willingness to give it a shot anyway. Like I stated in the very first post for this idea, this is all very raw at the moment, and we reserve the right to add or omit certain aspects of it in order to better something that may just turn out to be some fun. If not, we'll scrap it... without protest.

 

As I already said, straw men are not legitimate arguments. They are the last refuge of people with no actual argument to make in defense of their position, so they resort to misrepresenting the position of the person they are debating. I did not come up with this idea. I did not support the idea of judging when I first heard it. Yet you keep saying this idea is somehow connected to me? Which quite clearly means you have no actual argument to make, so you need to resort to lying about what I have actually said. Raise your game flounder.

 

No, we just care about more than negative liberties and we care about more than liberty for the very wealthy. Our ideology maximizes liberty for the most number of people, yours maximizes liberty for the very wealthy, while the rest of the country gets crapped on. That doesn't interest me.

 

Can you point to a post where one of them have been exposed as incorrect? No, and if you could, it'd be one concession of many victories. You know as well that you couldn't tackle some of the forum's intellectual behemoths, luckily they stick to certain fora and certain topics.

I didn't know we had the California legislature here; but if you say so, I'd love for you to point them out.

 

Nope this is not the same. There are intelligent people on both sides of the aisle. There are stupid people on both sides as well. And the majority of people on both sides are somewhere in between. It just so happens this forum is a magnet for unthinking right wing trolls. So while your side is represented by some smart people here, they are a small minority!! That is not elitist, it is an honest assessment of the intellectual capability of the posters at this forum. The worst part is, most of the very stupid people think they are brilliant, and therefore see no need to reassess their failed arguments. It means that people not only begin misinformed and stupid, they will never grow because growth requires some sort of acceptance that growth is possible. Most right wing trolls think they are brilliant, therefore have no room to grow.

 

I'd love to take on Reiver or frodly.

Reiver is probably using the same database as I am, and he's something of a market socialist, so I'm not sure what the topic would be and how we'd differ.

frodly, though, would be more entertaining...

 

You clearly said this was ''NOT Exclusive''

Here is your Quote;;
''It isn't exclusive at all. Anyone can join in, and can debate another person. The idea was meant to be fun and novel, like a presidential style debate.''

And that is what I answered, I am not insinuating this is your idea. I am saying it is exclusive and I have proved all of this with quotes. This site does not exclude other posters to debate, now they want to and you are obviously agreeing. After I proved to you it does exclude people you balk about ''straw man'',,what that has to do with anything I have no idea., YOU SAID IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE, IT IS.
We do not ''EXCLUDE'' posters here of being on a thread where there is debate. The fact you are ''forced'' into one of these debates to be on the thread is proof of that. There should not be any forcing, or ''BLACKMAIL''. THE THREAD SHOULD BE OPEN TO EVERYBODY, NOT TO JUST THE DEBATERS.

 

Our ideology maximizes liberty with big government?

Give me a break, we are forced to take obamacare, we are forced to use lead filled light
bulbs that if they break we need to get EPA involved in its containment. we are forced
to buy toilets that flush with very little water, and they will lower that still more in the
future. we are forced on every front the list goes on.
So you talk about liberty, but did you know liberty does not include force?
scew your form of liberty.

...

 

You just got a perfect example of their ''Judging'',,,undefeated?? at what?, Cow tossing? HAHAHAHAHA,,it would seem others who are debating to them are nothing more than window dressing to ''SHOWCASE'' themselves,,,HAHAHAHA

 

and what do you consider 'certain science' to be?

 

I'd like to once again ask you to find a mistake or error, provable by fact, that any of those aforementioned have made; and then compare it to their triumphs.

 

You have proved nothing, and now you have changed the subject!! But this isn't exclusive. Anyone can join in. Anyone can debate in the section. The fact that some choose not to doesn't actually make it exclusive!!


On top of that, you seem to see some fundamental difference between social groups and a special section of the forum. Social groups exist in a special section of the forum, just like this will. It will not take place in political opinion. It will not take place in latest news, it will not take place in the elections, or current events section. It will be off by itself where anyone interested can take part, and anyone not interested can just not.

PS. If ever an exclusionary echo chamber has existed, it is social groups. There is a reason I have no interest in joining the progressive underground, because I don't want a liberal echo-chamber. If I did, I would join a left wing political forum. That doesn't interest me though. I would be bored.

PPS. Look at the post count and membership level of your little clubhouse vs the liberal version, to see just who it is who is more exclusive and who enjoys an echo-chamber more!!

 

What's the real world going to hit him with? Employment? Promotion?

People used that line on me for years... and now all I can do is laugh.