Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Basil II the B.S]

I have a question.

Why do liberals resort so much to ''are you saying...?'' (or variants) followed by a strawman as first line of defense?
There's hardly anything that's so common in political debates. Anyone?

[Katsumoto]

Can I ask a question first? Why do you have trouble answering simple questions? I didn't understand why you brought up 'the Guardian as a source lmao', I thought you were implying they were 'fake news', which is why I asked if you were implying that they were lying... I thought it was pretty simple. Liberals have nothing to do with this, turn off your kneejerk, it's daft. So did you think the Guardian was lying or what? Because there's, like, a video of Trump talking and everything... I would link it but that seems like it'd be an insult to your intelligence.

[Cope]

Can I ask a question first? Why do you have trouble answering simple questions? I didn't understand why you brought up 'the Guardian as a source lmao', I thought you were implying they were 'fake news', which is why I asked if you were implying that they were lying... I thought it was pretty simple. Liberals have nothing to do with this, turn off your kneejerk, it's daft. So did you think the Guardian was lying or what? Because there's, like, a video of Trump talking and everything... I would link it but that seems like it'd be an insult to your intelligence.

I think his point is that the political tunnel vision which caused you to jump up and down because Trump (an OAP) misspoke is bordering on desperate.

[PointOfViewGun]

I have a question.

Why do liberals resort so much to ''are you saying...?'' (or variants) followed by a strawman as first line of defense?
There's hardly anything that's so common in political debates. Anyone?

This is just you trying to deflect from your deflection.

[Katsumoto]

I think his point is that the political tunnel vision which caused you to jump up and down because Trump (an OAP) misspoke is bordering on desperate.

Basil can probably speak for himself. And forgive my massive eye roll at 'political tunnel vision'. But if that was his point, how many times does Trump get to 'misspeak' before I'm allowed to question his intelligence and fitness for office?

[Cope]

Basil can probably speak for himself. And forgive my massive eye roll at 'political tunnel vision'. But if that was his point, how many times does Trump get to 'misspeak' before I'm allowed to question his intelligence and fitness for office?

Since the majority of your recent posts in the D&D have been dedicated to whining about Trump's supposed lack of "intelligence and fitness for office" I don't think its fair for you to suggest that anyone is disallowing you from your myopic complaining.

[Basil II the B.S]

Can I ask a question first? Why do you have trouble answering simple questions? I didn't understand why you brought up 'the Guardian as a source lmao', I thought you were implying they were 'fake news', which is why I asked if you were implying that they were lying... I thought it was pretty simple. Liberals have nothing to do with this, turn off your kneejerk, it's daft. So did you think the Guardian was lying or what? Because there's, like, a video of Trump talking and everything... I would link it but that seems like it'd be an insult to your intelligence.

I was just making fun of your source of preference due to the fact they consistently post garbage. That's it.
Edit: the furthest you can go is reading it as ''don't you have another source?''

As for the ''implying''... I know you did, you guys do it all the time. ''Are you implying?''... Is it so hard to ask a more neutral ''What do you mean with that?''. No. You have to make me defend something I didn't say.

[Muizer]

I have a question.

Why do liberals resort so much to ''are you saying...?'' (or variants) followed by a strawman as first line of defense?
There's hardly anything that's so common in political debates. Anyone?

If I ever say anything along those lines to you, you may assume it's a mixture of puzzlement and curiosity, not a debating trick. I am (wrongly?) assuming that there is some sort of coherent world view that informs your posts. I think the discussion would benefit from being at that level. But in practice you make that very difficult when your posts and especially new threads rarely go beyond what could as easily be explained as reflexively invoked mantras.

[Katsumoto]

I was just making fun of your source of preference due to the fact they consistently post garbage. That's it.

Forgive me, next time I'll be sure to use the quality journalism of Zero Hedge and Daily Caller.

Edit: the furthest you can go is reading it as ''don't you have another source?''

I mean usually when someone questions a source they are implying the source isn't being entirely accurate, and I wouldn't even understand why you'd be asking for another source since it's so easily provable what he said. It's not like the Guardian would completely make up what Trump said, despite what you seem to think.

As for the ''implying''... I know you did, you guys do it all the time. ''Are you implying?''... Is it so hard to ask a more neutral ''What do you mean with that?''. No. You have to make me defend something I didn't say.

This is just utterly amusing considering 90% of your posts do exactly this. You lump anyone that happens to disagree with your view with some fringe 'liberals' you found on Twitter and assign arguments to them they never made.

[Cope]

While we're on the subject of ludicrous remarks, here is Joe Biden arguing that Russian interference wouldn't have happened on his "watch". Skip to ~1m40sec

[Basil II the B.S]

Forgive me, next time I'll be sure to use the quality journalism of Zero Hedge and Daily Caller.

Daily Caller at worst posts hot female golfers. Zerohedge how much they hate fiat currencies. None of that even remotely compares with the examples provided by the Guardian. Or do you really want to discuss those?
Because I really, really, really want to discuss the quality of articles such as:
OK, so you think you're a vampire. Whose job is it to tell you you're not?
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-you-youre-not

Why I won't date another 'male feminist'
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-male-feminist

Or anything from that list. You chose a source, this is their editorial standard. I'm questioning it.

This is just utterly amusing considering 90% of your posts do exactly this. You lump anyone that happens to disagree with your view with some fringe 'liberals' you found on Twitter and assign arguments to them they never made.

Almost correct. Except for one element but if I reveal it, it ruins my fun.

While we're on the subject of ludicrous remarks, here is Joe Biden arguing that Russian interference wouldn't have happened on his "watch". Skip to ~1m40sec

Also Obama guaranteed US elections were safe and couldn't be hacked. This was as long as he believed Hillary would win. Different outcome, change of narrative.

If I ever say anything along those lines to you, you may assume it's a mixture of puzzlement and curiosity, not a debating trick. I am (wrongly?) assuming that there is some sort of coherent world view that informs your posts. I think the discussion would benefit from being at that level. But in practice you make that very difficult when your posts and especially new threads rarely go beyond what could as easily be explained as reflexively invoked mantras.

No, it's not the case. The vast majority of ''are you saying'' questions require the interlocutor to defend things he didn't claim, and the goal of the person making the question is simply to paint him in a negative light, so that his argument can be dismissed.

Those get a hostile answer which simply means ''I know what you are doing, it's not honest, if you want to go this way, this is what you get''. Reasonable people get reasonable arguments from me. You'll never see me giving hostile answers to Dante and he's a leftist, nor Roma Victrix (same, also where are you buddy?) or Bigdaddy who's a Muslim. Black Knight is also an interesting fella, Ludicus is fine, etc.

[Katsumoto]

Or anything from that list. You chose a source, this is their editorial standard. I'm questioning it.

Let me try a neutral question here. Are you familiar with the difference between an Opinions section and a News section? Do you know that these employ different writers with different roles?

[Muizer]

No, it's not the case.The vast majority of ''are you saying'' questions require the interlocutor to defend things he didn't claim

So exactly what 'is not the case'?

[Aexodus]

Let me try a neutral question here. Are you familiar with the difference between an Opinions section and a News section? Do you know that these employ different writers with different roles?

To be fair you can’t totally separate an opinion column from the paper. There’s still an editorial role in the piece, as well as deciding who they hire to write said opinion pieces. There’s a reason the majority of the Guardian’s opinion pieces lean center of left.

[Infidel144]

how many times does Trump get to 'misspeak' before I'm allowed to question his intelligence and fitness for office?

None. As in no times. You can question his intelligence and fitness all you want. And you do.

Am I allowed to question the intelligence of people who repeatedly call Trump stupid dumb or whatever, but somehow lose to him?

[Basil II the B.S]

Let me try a neutral question here. Are you familiar with the difference between an Opinions section and a News section? Do you know that these employ different writers with different roles?

That's a valid point but it still does not justify in any way the abysimal quality of the former. If the editorial board decides that's the type of opinion they want to promote, good for them, it's going to reflect how their newspaper is perceived.

So exactly what 'is not the case'?

''Are you saying'' questions aren't, for the most part, neutral.

[Muizer]

''Are you saying'' questions aren't, for the most part, neutral.

And did I say they were?

[Fahnat]

I would like to see your opinion of this video from Extra Credits and their "normalizing nazis" and their opinions about it.
This as blown up on their faces with many people responding negatively with their ideas on this video, and i agree with the criticism.
Here is a video that i really liked that articulated very well their criticism of the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0P4_yDLNyw


Merged with the Discussion & Debate thread. ~Abdülmecid I

[Diocle]

I would like to see your opinion of this video from Extra Credits and their "normalizing nazis" and their opinions about it.
This as blown up on their faces with many people responding negatively with their ideas on this video, and i agree with the criticism.
Here is a video that i really liked that articulated very well their criticism of the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0P4_yDLNyw


Merged with the Discussion & Debate thread. ~Abdülmecid I

Censuring! The only thing they are able to do and think is censuring people's opinions, speeches, books, games, comics, TV shows, movies, internet, art, press, everything! Censoring is actually synonym of defeat, the fear of others' opinions is the public admission you think being not able to stand and fight them, so, censurers are losers in the facts, losers in spirit, losers as mental and existential condition.

[Infidel144]

Its gotta be some sort of joke video. Right?