Niftydrifty wants a private debate

[Harshaw]

thanks for making your disingenuousness clear. you left out the part about the private debate again. context is everything. a selective lack of context is what you employ in order to make your non-point.

Ok, you had said something about personal attacks, and also "there's no reason to get personal with me, either." I was wondering how I had possibly attacked you, Harshaw, and it turns out that I didn't. addressing a person, is not always an attack, is it? It seems you wish to point out how there's no reason for me to address you, when you already had addressed me. and so it went, like a conversation.

only to some, not all.

why so eager to divorce yourself from your inaccuracies?

Dude . . . you made it clear you'd accept the topic M14 chose, which is the sticky point of "private debate" you're now clinging to -- both parties agreeing to the topic Like I said, you pre-agreed.

If that's not what you meant (though I think it was), then you need to be more clear when you make your statements. Sloppiness of language is your own problem.

 

[Felicity]

I would like to explore this. it could be quite interesting. how about in a few weeks?

Sure...just PM me when you're ready.:2wave:

 

[niftydrifty]

Dude . . . you made it clear you'd accept the topic M14 chose, which is the sticky point of "private debate" you're now clinging to -- both parties agreeing to the topic Like I said, you pre-agreed.

If that's not what you meant (though I think it was), then you need to be more clear when you make your statements. Sloppiness of language is your own problem.

sounds like you didn't know what a private debate was. (neither did Shooter).

 

[M14 Shooter]

sounds like you didn't know what a private debate was. (neither did Shooter).

Sounds like you're trying to wriggle out of the fact that you pre-approved any topic of discussion and pre-determined which side of the argument you'd take.

 

[niftydrifty]

that's quite an authoritative statement on the nature of our private debate, coming from someone that didn't even know what a private debate was until after the comments in question were made. btw, have you read the guidelines yet? and most importantly, when/if you did read them, did you understand em?

 

[M14 Shooter]

that's quite an authoritative statement on the nature of our private debate, coming from someone that didn't even know what a private debate was until after the comments in question were made. btw, have you read the guidelines yet? and most importantly, when/if you did read them, did you understand em?

None of this takes away from the fact that you're trying to wriggle out of your pre-approval of any topic of discussion and pre-determination of which side of the argument you'd take.

 

[niftydrifty]

conclusions ought to be based upon evidence. ought to be.

 

[Harshaw]

sounds like you didn't know what a private debate was. (neither did Shooter).

What am I saying that's inconsistent with the rules of private debate?

 

[niftydrifty]

Harshaw, you're saying that when I asked Shooter to participate in a private debate with me, that I was waiving the guidelines of the debate. you either (1) assumed I was doing so, or (2) didn't know what those guidelines were. asking someone to pick a topic doesn't mean that you've already agreed to go with it, ESPECIALLY when the topic is for a format that has preset guidelines that explicit say both parties must agree.

 

[Harshaw]

Harshaw, you're saying that when I asked Shooter to participate in a private debate with me, that I was waiving the guidelines of the debate. you either (1) assumed I was doing so, or (2) didn't know what those guidelines were. asking someone to pick a topic doesn't mean that you've already agreed to go with it, ESPECIALLY when the topic is for a format that has preset guidelines that explicit say both parties must agree.

No, I'm saying that when you made the challenge, you pre-agreed to any topic M14 chose. There's no other way to read it.

What you're doing now is more or less the same thing as challenging him to basketball, saying that he can have possession at the start, and when he takes the ball at the whistle, you say "hey, wait; the rules say we have to have a tip-off."

 

[niftydrifty]

No, I'm saying that when you made the challenge, you pre-agreed to any topic M14 chose. There's no other way to read it.

What you're doing now is more or less the same thing as challenging him to basketball, saying that he can have possession at the start, and when he takes the ball at the whistle, you say "hey, wait; the rules say we have to have a tip-off."

LOL, "or less," in fact, oh thanked-less one. much less.

 

[Harshaw]

LOL, "or less," in fact, oh thanked-less one. much less.

Ah, well, then the only other possibility was that your challenge was disingenuous, and that you were actually NOT willing to debate M14 on the topic of his choice.

I'm sure that you'll now say "I agreed, didn't I"? But if that's the case, then what was the big fuss over to begin with?

 

[niftydrifty]

Ah, well, then the only other possibility was that your challenge was disingenuous, and that you were actually NOT willing to debate M14 on the topic of his choice.

I'm sure that you'll now say "I agreed, didn't I"? But if that's the case, then what was the big fuss over to begin with?

LOL, read the thread. there was a discussion about it. there was a progression from then to now, involving several factors. if you now must ask me what those were, then it is clear why you've come here out of the blue and accused me these things of which you have an incomplete understanding. what was the fuss about? you have no idea.

 

[Harshaw]

LOL, read the thread. there was a discussion about it. there was a progression from then to now, involving several factors. if you now must ask me what those were, then it is clear why you've come here out of the blue and accused me these things of which you have an incomplete understanding. what was the fuss about? you have no idea.

It was a rhetorical question, nifty. The fuss was about your making a challenge that you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to live up to, even after saying M14 would be a "coward" for not accepting it, and then hiding behind a technicality to justify yourself when it didn't go in a direction you particularly cared for.

So, what you're saying is that your original challenge was "You can pick the topic* and I'll argue . . .



*as long as I *agree* to the topic, of course."

A call-out with fine print, I guess.

 

[niftydrifty]

It was a rhetorical question, nifty. The fuss was about your making a challenge that you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to live up to, even after saying M14 would be a "coward" for not accepting it, and then hiding behind a technicality to justify yourself when it didn't go in a direction you particularly cared for.

So, what you're saying is that your original challenge was "You can pick the topic* and I'll argue . . .

*as long as I *agree* to the topic, of course."

A call-out with fine print, I guess.

"kicking and screaming," you're hilarious. "hiding behind a technicality," LOL. the only kicking and screaming going on here is on behalf of sanity. I explained why this is a lame debate topic, and Shooter, nor you, would hear anything about it. so be it. I agreed anyway.

you call it "fine print," because you were unaware of what a private debate is, as was Shooter. the asterisk you insert was present in the sentences I typed before which you purposely omit now.

likewise, you're unaware of so much else. for example, what it is that I must "do research" about in order to find out Liberalism, vis a vis gun politics.

this tiresome "debate" we're having right now, is IMO a thousand times more interesting than a discussion about why there is a national consensus, amongst Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, as to the meaning of the second amendment. *yawn*

but that's what M14 Shooter wanted. and we're about to "debate" it. woohoo.

 

[Harshaw]

"kicking and screaming," you're hilarious. "hiding behind a technicality," LOL. the only kicking and screaming going on here is on behalf of sanity. I explained why this is a lame debate topic, and Shooter, nor you, would hear anything about it. so be it. I agreed anyway.

you call it "fine print," because you were unaware of what a private debate is, as was Shooter. the asterisk you insert was present in the sentences I typed before which you purposely omit now.

likewise, you're unaware of so much else. for example, what it is that I must "do research" about in order to find out Liberalism, vis a vis gun politics.

this tiresome "debate" we're having right now, is IMO a thousand times more interesting than a discussion about why there is a national consensus, amongst Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, as to the meaning of the second amendment. *yawn*

but that's what M14 Shooter wanted. and we're about to "debate" it. woohoo.

Ya know, I can play your ego like a piano all day, and it HAS been fun, but I gotta scoot. Good luck.

 

[M14 Shooter]

this tiresome "debate" we're having right now, is IMO a thousand times more interesting than a discussion about why there is a national consensus, amongst Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, as to the meaning of the second amendment. *yawn*

:shock:

I just fell of my chair.

There's a -consensus- between Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals as to the meaning of the 2nd amendment?

:shock:

OMFG. You can't be serious.

:shock:

Have you paid attention at ALL to any of the gun control discussions here, or anywhere else?

:shock:

 

[niftydrifty]

:shock:

I just fell of my chair.

There's a -consensus- between Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals as to the meaning of the 2nd amendment?

:shock:

OMFG. You can't be serious.

:shock:

Have you paid attention at ALL to any of the gun control discussions here, or anywhere else?

:shock:

I have, set up our debate, and pay attention. sounds like you're about to learn much. prepare to be schooled.

 

[niftydrifty]

Ya know, I can play your ego like a piano all day, and it HAS been fun, but I gotta scoot. Good luck.

LOL, maybe someone will thank you someday for your comments if you could get out of the gutter with these pointless accusations. good luck.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have, set up our debate, and pay attention. sounds like you're about to learn much. prepare to be schooled.

Its pretty clear I'm about to be shown just exactly how little you really know about this issue.

The debate is set up, BTW, and my opening statement is posted.

 

[niftydrifty]

Its pretty clear I'm about to be shown just exactly how little you really know about this issue.

The debate is set up, BTW, and my opening statement is posted.

...said the man who proposed a debate to which there is only one side. I'm amassing evidence as we speak, and it ain't lookin' good for you, mister.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...said the man who proposed a debate to which there is only one side.

And as complains the man who said I could pick whatever subject I wanted and that he'd argue the liberal position against it.

If there is only "one side" to the argument, maybe you could explain a current poll that indicates that there are a number of differing opinions as to what sort of weapons are protected by the 2nd.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/6284-what-weapons-protected-2nd-amendment.html

That you dont happen to share any of these differing opinion is, well, your problem.

Amassing evidence for what? An opening statement?
You dont present evidence in an opening statement. :roll:

 

[niftydrifty]

And as complains the man who said I could pick whatever subject I wanted and that he'd argue the liberal position against it.

that is what I intend to do. sounds like you don't know what that position is.

If there is only "one side" to the argument, maybe you could explain a current poll that indicates that there are a number of differing opinions as to what sort of weapons are protected by the 2nd.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/6284-what-weapons-protected-2nd-amendment.html

reading comprehension. nukes are not firearms. I plan to argue on behalf of my own opinions and on behalf of the opinions of most Liberals, as agreed. you picked a lame topic, guy. I tried to warn you. re-read this thread now with your new found knowledge and now perhaps it'll make more sense.

That you dont happen to share any of these differing opinion is, well, your problem.

irrelevant.

Amassing evidence for what? An opening statement?
You dont present evidence in an opening statement. :roll:

you just love to make assumptions, don'tchya? I say sumpin, so you assume why or what for.

 

[M14 Shooter]

that is what I intend to do. sounds like you don't know what that position is...I plan to argue on behalf of my own opinions and on behalf of the opinions of most Liberals, as agreed.

Yes.

And dont forget that you're going to have to show that the position you stake out is the liberal position - with "liberal" being in the Modern American context.

And you havent a prayer in that.

 

[niftydrifty]

you sound so certain...LMAO!