They're not supporting you.... it seems to me the other way around - you're just parroting them.
I can't debate the Supreme Court, Rich. No matter how hard I try or what salient points I make, Bill Rehnquist isn't going to come back from the dead and respond to me. And the ones who are still living probably aren't going to be much more inclined to do so either. Nor is the text going to jump off the page and defend itself.
For me to engage in a debate, someone needs to take a seat at the table opposite and make the case for themselves. Deal themselves a hand. I can make an argument.... I'm just not going to put in the effort if there's no real engagement from the other side.
I can see from your desperation that you really don't understand this debating concept. It's clear you never studied arts at college level
Leaving aside your somewhat disparaging comments about "parroting" others, the basics of debate is to build a case of supporting evidence
When writing a paper on a certain topic you list and discuss events or the writings of well respected commentators who support the preposition that you're arguing for
This isn't "parroting" what they say/said it's
QUOTING them
Now there's a logical fallacy called "
an appeal to authority". It is where you use someone's opinion to support your own.
eg:
The recent wave of protests across the USA were by socialist revolutionaries looking to destroy America, and Donald Trump says so" - is an appeal to authority because Trump is not in any position to know
You quote, not
parrot, respected individuals who are
qualified to be an
authority on the subject
eg: if you go to a talk on the future of NASCAR racing, the speaker might start something like:
"Hello I am
Mr X and I was a NASCAR driver for 20 years and now I work in Ford's engine development department...". That is their
AUTHORITY to be speaking to you
It's not "Hello, I am
Mr Y and I once saw a NASCAR race on TV" - so quoting
Mr Y in a debate in "
an appeal to authority" fallacy, whereas quoting
Mr X is not
There was a now banned poster on here called Samwise. He kept posting that in his opinion a state(s) could secede from the union because there was no clause in the Constitution that specifically said "No state can secede once it joins the union"
It was pointed out to him over and over that it was just his
opinion and his alone
And the the union government didn't think the states could secede in 1861 and fought a war over the issue
Also constitutional scholars over the years, notably former Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, Joseph Story said that the language of the Constitution made this prohibited
Moreover he was backed up by virtually every constitutional scholar since
So no, you don't debate dead men, you can however use their writings to back your argument (assuming that they carry sufficient
AUTHORITY to be so used)
Right now you are like Samwise and arguing against a Supreme Court ruling based just on your
opinion
That is not debating that is simply parroting contradiction
So if you are to continue, don't just say what you think (any college professor will tell a student never to voice personal opinion in a paper as no-one gives a damn about what YOU think), substantiate it with evidence of some kind
Only then will your posts rise from
opinion, into an
argument.