Debate "Tactics" on this forum that annoy you

[dragonslayer]

I will follow Bush, where ever he may go
I’ll follow him into the sea, to mountains so high I can’t see
For he is my President,

It don’t matter if I die, even though I follow a lie
There’s less and less work in my town, and our wages are going straight down
this is my destiny ,,, to follow and die.

He’s sent my job overseas, and I can’t afford a disease
No medical for me, god forbid, and I can’t feed my kids
This is my destiny.

To the Army I went and to Iraq I was sent
Nobody seems to know why, I was sent there to die.
It is my destiny

Bush sends good soldiers to fight, for his buddies on the far Right
my leg flew off with a boom, I awoke in a hospital room,
it is my destiny

Soon they sent me home, then I received a medical bill,
they said I owed them back pay, for losing my leg on that day
it is my destiny

my working credit they smashed, cause the DOD was needing my cash
Bush won’t pay my leg bill, cause there’s a good leg left on me still
it is my destiny.

my leg or my life did not matter, and Cheney’s mad as a hatter.
Cheney sits alone and prays, that Bush will die or resign one fine day.
It is his dream.

Watch your back Julius Ceasar Bush, for the ides of march are near.

Our VP may want to be the first Emporer,, now that our Democracy is dying. of Patriot Actitis.
​

 

[cnredd]

When it comes to "Debate "Tactics" on this forum that annoy you", I'm going to go with poems that have been cut and pasted in the wrong thread...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Zyphlin:
Basically the reason I said it seems like you're not reading my whole point is that many of the things from my posts that you're quoting and then questioning me on have you sounding as if you think that the Tactic i'm stating i dislike is actually my stance on something. IE:

I posted this..."People are fighting and dieing and have faught and died for your right to critize the government....SO don't you go critizing the government"...quote as a sarcastic example of a tactic I dislike. The fact that people talk about how soilders fight and die for peoples rights to critize the government, and then use that fact to tell people they're not allowed to. However you reply with:

"So your saying they fought for a right I'm not allowed to use? Even if it is used with the intent of saving their lives?"

Which seemed to me that you were implying that that quote of mine was what I thought. However, reading back...perhaps you were saying that in reference to that "tactic" and not thinking that its actually one I support?

I'd add on more tactics here but havn't been around the forums a lot lately to look and see any new ones yet

This is probably my fault, but I'm still confused with what your saying. Let me ask you this, do you think it is OK to criticize government? No sarcasm this time, what do YOU believe.

 

[freethought6t9]

It annoys me when Billo doesn't get sarcasm, like on one post I said anyone who doesn't support genocide committed by their own country is a traitor, because I had previously posted in giant red letter like this;

I LOVE STALIN

and he asked if I supported his purges, so anyway even though I was obviously (I hope) being sarcastic he called me a traitor to humanity!

But what really pisses me off is when someone doesn't read your post properly and attacks you for something you never said, or cherry picks a quote and argues with you about it, when it's been taken out of context, so the position you end up defending, or they try to make you defend is a one you have never taken. Or how about when you post something relevant and effective to your argument and it is just ignored, I really hate that. Instead they just go into a rant about all the things wrong with liberals, and when a couple of them start a rant together, and by the end of it, they're sure they've proven you wrong when no attempt has been made to debate you on the substance of your posts.

Or how about you post any link with any kind of evidence, and they scream bias, or when they post a link that is totally detrimental to their own position, you point this out and SKILS (yeah, thats right) accuses you of not having read it. I find this one of the strangest 'tactics' I have ever come across, pretty Orwellian really, although not really, kind of like saying the sky is green and then pointing up to prove your point. And the only response I've gotten off him yet is that he "alledgedly" read the article before I did. I even went through the conclusion point by point (couldn't post the results tables) just like he asked and still nothing. I really really hate this, maybe more than Nazis... nah not really.

 

[dragonslayer]

Of course People should always criticize the government if they choose.

it is our constitutional duty. it is our 1st amencment duty, it is necessary. otherwiise you get what we are getting now. A government that has suppressed the constitution so badly that we are on the road to a Corporate Dictatorship.

 

[Zyphlin]

I think they do have the right Billo and should do it, however I also agree there are ways and times to do it. I think there can be extremes on it where it just gets stupid.

My problem was however that I disliked how people on this forum (and in general) will go to someone complaining about the government (mostly the war) and say "How can you critize the military, if it wasn't for the military you wouldn't have the ability to critize them." Personally, I think that logic is stupid. If that is what they fight and die for it is not a disservice to them to critize but it actually is in a way thanking them for what they do.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Of course People should always criticize the government if they choose.

it is our constitutional duty. it is our 1st amencment duty, it is necessary. otherwiise you get what we are getting now. A government that has suppressed the constitution so badly that we are on the road to a Corporate Dictatorship.

Who says we're not already.

Fun Fact: in the American Civil War, Northern manufacturing companies sold arms to the south, for profits, then to keep the war going so more arms would have to be bought which=profits.

 

[dragonslayer]

I think they do have the right Billo and should do it, however I also agree there are ways and times to do it. I think there can be extremes on it where it just gets stupid.

My problem was however that I disliked how people on this forum (and in general) will go to someone complaining about the government (mostly the war) and say "How can you critize the military, if it wasn't for the military you wouldn't have the ability to critize them." Personally, I think that logic is stupid. If that is what they fight and die for it is not a disservice to them to critize but it actually is in a way thanking them for what they do.

When the government is screwing up everything in the world and living by the bayonet instead of law, we need to scream and shout and there is no extreme, anything any time to win the elections and get the Right Wingers out of Government.

Each night I pray for Bush and Cheney to come down with a nasty disease. So, far the lord thiinks like yu do that there extremes. Soon, though he will get Bush Gingrich, Rumfeld, Rice, and Cheney in his siights and send down a huge tornado on the Bush's ranch or something.
Just kidding,. I guess.

 

[nefarious_plot]

The ultimate lame ass tactic is the you didnt spell this right tactic. These people have there head in there ass. It is the bar none stupidist thing EVER to think for one ****ing minute that typing has any bearing on the issue or at all shows any lakc of credibility in the argument. for ****sakes einstien couldnt tie his shes at 13!!!!

OR for that manner the words everybody has to type in ****

People that say well you sweaar so your point isnt relveant. thats ***ing Dumb.

Issac newton get hit on the head withan apple and says oww **** that HURT. And suddenly gravity is not valid???? E = ***ing MC squared doesnt mean anything?

Lame diversionary tactics.


and the post link. I swear. The next person to ask for a link is gonna get: Suckmydong.com.

Websites are a dime a dozen and dont mean *** all. Anybody can make one.



And AMERICANS.....YOU *****s Call EVERRRYYYBOOODYY A NAZI. HITLERS BEEN DEAD for SIX DECADES. TURN OFF THE TV FOR CHRIST SAKE!!! TV AND HOLLYWOOD IS NOT HISOTRY.


I heard a kid talk about Vietnam. And it looked liek fun cause you playee softball with melons on your off time. a scen from "GOOD MORNING VIETNAM"

OH MY GAWD!!!! Your all insane. PRZOAC IS ON ISLE 5!! HAVE SOME!!.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The ultimate lame ass tactic is the you didnt spell this right tactic. These people have there head in there ass. It is the bar none stupidist thing EVER to think for one ****ing minute that typing has any bearing on the issue or at all shows any lakc of credibility in the argument. for ****sakes einstien couldnt tie his shes at 13!!!!

OR for that manner the words everybody has to type in ****

People that say well you sweaar so your point isnt relveant. thats ***ing Dumb.

Issac newton get hit on the head withan apple and says oww **** that HURT. And suddenly gravity is not valid???? E = ***ing MC squared doesnt mean anything?

Lame diversionary tactics.


and the post link. I swear. The next person to ask for a link is gonna get: Suckmydong.com.

Websites are a dime a dozen and dont mean *** all. Anybody can make one.



And AMERICANS.....YOU *****s Call EVERRRYYYBOOODYY A NAZI. HITLERS BEEN DEAD for SIX DECADES. TURN OFF THE TV FOR CHRIST SAKE!!! TV AND HOLLYWOOD IS NOT HISOTRY.


I heard a kid talk about Vietnam. And it looked liek fun cause you playee softball with melons on your off time. a scen from "GOOD MORNING VIETNAM"

OH MY GAWD!!!! Your all insane. PRZOAC IS ON ISLE 5!! HAVE SOME!!.

Proper grammatical usage and spelling are signs of a superior intellect. When you take the time to make your posts coherent it makes your points all the more valid.

 

[The Truth-Bringer]

What annoys me and should annoy everyone is, In those Moderated Discussions:

1.) People go off topic completely and reply to someone's post , instead of a reasonable, comment, they reply with a unkind, rude, arrogant, and stupid comeback.

2.) People refuse to change their view no matter how much contradictory evidence and reasonable things is put in front of them.

3.) People who think Intelligence is solely based on the ability to use spelling and grammer effectively, when the only reason you spell the way you do, or use grammer the way you do, is because: Your teacher/Guardian told you so. There is NO Understanding or analysis involved, There is no serious group devoted to Grammer studies or research, because there is no such thing as grammer research, language is a thing we humans make up. Its useful, but things like capitalization at wrong spots, just are annoyances, but they do not show inferior intellect in truth, but only in probally the world of rhetoric.

 

[The Truth-Bringer]

Yea, when they are doing that they are just being cruel and stupid. Or just being mean.

 

[nefarious_plot]

Propergrammer for hillbilly like you is a sign of a spell checker Otto. KISS MY ASS

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Zyphlin:
I think they do have the right Billo and should do it, however I also agree there are ways and times to do it. I think there can be extremes on it where it just gets stupid.

My problem was however that I disliked how people on this forum (and in general) will go to someone complaining about the government (mostly the war) and say "How can you critize the military, if it wasn't for the military you wouldn't have the ability to critize them." Personally, I think that logic is stupid. If that is what they fight and die for it is not a disservice to them to critize but it actually is in a way thanking them for what they do.

I think I got it now. I apologize if my comprehension was a little lacking that day.

 

[Busta]

I hate the "scorched-earth-denial" approach.

No mater how much I repell stereo types about me and my ilk, no mater many existing laws, literal cut&paste dictionary definitions, studies, websites and or other credible references I site, the responce is always the same: "Dishonest PL revisional linguistic hyperbole", "claptrap lies and sophistry" and the ever descriptive "your claim is false" and "you are lying". (sorry if I missed a few, steen).

When I quote an on-line dictionary (with a link), then you say that I'm lying, you are arguing with the dictionary.

When I quote 2 existing laws so as to show that my use of a legal term, in a legal debate, is properly used, then you say that I'm spewing forth dishonesty and or sophistry, you are arguing directly with that law, not me.

Oh...and one other denial that I often see....if your "observation" is directly insulting, then it's a direct insult, NOT the innocent "observation" that you claim it to be.

 

[nefarious_plot]

I detest when people insist that just cause its on a website its absolute gospel. Posting a link is not definate confimation of anything.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I guess my #1 pet peeve in debate tactics is the attack, criticize, defame, insult, etc. the other member, his political party, his ideology etc. instead of articulating an argument for a position. Some people think this is actually debate. Wow, if I can get in the best insult, then I win!

I am convinced if you can't defend an opinion without saying 'you're an idiot' or 'Bush sucks' or "all liberals (or Christians, conservatives, socialists, nazis, accordian players or whatever) are stupid (or racist, hateful, ignorant, clueless, et al), you have no argument at all.

 

[Kelzie]

I guess my #1 pet peeve in debate tactics is the attack, criticize, defame, insult, etc. the other member, his political party, his ideology etc. instead of articulating an argument for a position. Some people think this is actually debate. Wow, if I can get in the best insult, then I win!

I am convinced if you can't defend an opinion without saying 'you're an idiot' or 'Bush sucks' or "all liberals (or Christians, conservatives, socialists, nazis, accordian players or whatever) are stupid (or racist, hateful, ignorant, clueless, et al), you have no argument at all.

Me too.

If they start slinging mud, I consider the argument won in my favor.

 

[teacher]

Me too.

If they start slinging mud, I consider the argument won in my favor.

What if you destroy their points with logic, facts, and truth...then insult them with wit and humor? What I call smack. I find they glean over your points and zero in on the insults claiming victory because I have deemed to "lower" the bar. How does that make the points I made before the smack irrelevant? Big difference between saying, "your a dumbass" and "your a dumbass because...." Then you go live in the basement. Home sweet home.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well, if you didn't convince them with the brilliance of your argument, do you really think you can find a creative enough way to call them a *@(#$*% to make your point?

 

[teacher]

Well, if you didn't convince them with the brilliance of your argument, do you really think you can find a creative enough way to call them a *@(#$*% to make your point?

If they have no rebuttal to my "brilliant argument", then the rest is just fun, at their expense. That, I think, speaks for itself. In short, not only do I "win", but I get a chuckle out of it as well. And maybe others chuckle too. That's what I'm looking for. I'm not here to change the world. To win a political debate through facts, morality, truth, honesty, calling it like I see it, (with nary the link or source), is one thing, easy to do. To make them slink away with nary the response, with insults biting heir ass, embarrassed that they ever wrongly opened their trap is, pure smack.

As always, the simple unanswered question, dictates the winner. Just ask champs.

The rest, just amuses me.

 

[cnredd]

If they have no rebuttal to my "brilliant argument", then the rest is just fun, at their expense. That, I think, speaks for itself. In short, not only do I "win", but I get a chuckle out of it as well. And maybe others chuckle too. That's what I'm looking for. I'm not here to change the world. To win a political debate through facts, morality, truth, honesty, calling it like I see it, (with nary the link or source), is one thing, easy to do. To make them slink away with nary the response, with insults biting heir ass, embarrassed that they ever wrongly opened their trap is, pure smack.

As always, the simple unanswered question, dictates the winner. Just ask champs.

The rest, just amuses me.

I think that way, too...

"Dumbass" uses no creativity...making whoever said it sound like they can't even think for themselves.

Instead of saying "He's a dumbass", I'll say something like, "He calls Jessica Simpson for help with his homework"...

Same thing, but done with some thought...

 

[Gardener]

People are debating here? I just figured that this place was like most any other of its kind and that people pissed and moaned, ranted and raved, and pretty much attacked anything that moved.

figutively.


Can't say too much about this place, but I have encountered enough cut and paste info bombers at other places to last me a lifetime. Don't know if folks here have seen it, but I have seen people who, when they encounter an opinion they want to run off the board, will just copy and paste pages and pages of text from various websites as their rebuttal. I guess this is one of my pet peeves in general, in that so many people don't think with their own head, but allow somebody else to do it for them, and just go with the program. I'm a certifiable dogmaphobe, I am, and I'm fairly well equally annoyed whether a person types, and out comes every single talking point and attitude of Sean Hannity or they type and out comes every single talking point and attitude of Noam Chomsky. I'm not much for idealoguery in general.

 

[AlbqOwl]

People are debating here? I just figured that this place was like most any other of its kind and that people pissed and moaned, ranted and raved, and pretty much attacked anything that moved.

figutively.


Can't say too much about this place, but I have encountered enough cut and paste info bombers at other places to last me a lifetime. Don't know if folks here have seen it, but I have seen people who, when they encounter an opinion they want to run off the board, will just copy and paste pages and pages of text from various websites as their rebuttal. I guess this is one of my pet peeves in general, in that so many people don't think with their own head, but allow somebody else to do it for them, and just go with the program. I'm a certifiable dogmaphobe, I am, and I'm fairly well equally annoyed whether a person types, and out comes every single talking point and attitude of Sean Hannity or they type and out comes every single talking point and attitude of Noam Chomsky. I'm not much for idealoguery in general.

There are those, however, who challenge every opinion with an insult and accusation of stupidity, ignorance, or lies, and sometimes a well researched and documented cut and past can support your argument. Of course then the idiot fringe will say that evidence doesn't prove anything.:smile:

I agree however, that I have never understood why the opinion of some media hack should be any more credible than an opinion of a member posting in the forum. I won't agree that every talking point and attitude of Sean Hannity or even Chomsky has to be avoided as both cover so much territory that if we avoided everything they said, there would be nothing left to say. I will agree that some parrot what they say without a clue as to how they arrived at their conclusion, and then get mad when an explanation or substantiation is asked for. That's maybe my #2 pet peeve.

 

[cnredd]

There are those, however, who challenge every opinion with an insult and accusation of stupidity, ignorance, or lies, and sometimes a well researched and documented cut and past can support your argument. Of course then the idiot fringe will say that evidence doesn't prove anything.:smile:

I agree however, that I have never understood why the opinion of some media hack should be any more credible than an opinion of a member posting in the forum. I won't agree that every talking point and attitude of Sean Hannity or even Chomsky has to be avoided as both cover so much territory that if we avoided everything they said, there would be nothing left to say. I will agree that some parrot what they say without a clue as to how they arrived at their conclusion, and then get mad when an explanation or substantiation is asked for. That's maybe my #2 pet peeve.

Agreed...Especially since we've both used the word "peeve":2wave:

From an earlier post of mine from another thread...

Biased sources are one of my "pet peeves" in this forum...especially if someone tries to "break" a story. If it's SUCH a huge story, then why isn't it reported elsewhere?

There are a couple of people on this forum that get all of their sources from the same few places; all of them totally partisan...They just can't seem to understand that....

a)It makes them look like they're just towing the party line blindly...

b)makes debate futile because any objective person would just "consider the source"

One exception is when a source is used AGAINST one's own affiliation...

Let's say I heard a story about a Liberal acting like an idiot...

If a Liberal says, "Where'd you hear that?" and I say "Ann Coulter", then the credibility is gone....the Lib "considered the source"...

But if I said, "Al Franken", then the Liberal might believe the story has some merit...the Lib "considered the source".

Other than that, arguing FOR your side using Op-ed pieces and facts that are slanted means absolutely nothing except you found someone to agree with your ideology...

Big deal....