• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prejudicial Dismissal and Declarations of Irrelevance

Status
Not open for further replies.

XDU

Banned
Joined
Jan 5, 2022
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
407
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect.

These are serious civility issues. If you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.

You're just reducing debate to a yes/no squabble which isn't even a debate. It's just a declaration of opinion.
 
Are you asking for a rule change or just general comments on discourse around here?
 
You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect.

These are serious civility issues. If you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.

You're just reducing debate to a yes/no squabble which isn't even a debate. It's just a declaration of opinion.

You sure have learned a lot in your 3 days here New Guy.

Tell me...how did you find us?
:LOL:

But to your point: there is a certain ardent gun "enthusiast" here that constantly declares any counter argument "irrelevant"...I guess that is the same as declaring victory? I won't mention any names because its hard to know what does and does not constitute a breach of forum rules. LOL.
You are very perceptive, and such a quick study!
 
Are you asking for a rule change or just general comments on discourse around here?
I'm not sure a rule change would even fix this. It's more of a rule interpretation matter.
 
You sure have learned a lot in your 3 days here New Guy.

Tell me...how did you find us?
:LOL:

But to your point: there is a certain ardent gun "enthusiast" here that constantly declares any counter argument "irrelevant"...I guess that is the same as declaring victory? I won't mention any names because its hard to know what does and does not constitute a breach of forum rules. LOL.
You are very perceptive, and such a quick study!
I've seen it among both right and left wingers here across issues...

...but yea, it's like saying someone's stepped up to plate and hit a baseball, and without actually looking at where the ball goes, declaring it a home run or fly out.
 
Are you asking for a rule change or just general comments on discourse around here?
We don't need a rule change...just enforcement of existing rules.
 
I'm not sure a rule change would even fix this. It's more of a rule interpretation matter.
We don't need a rule change...just enforcement of existing rules.

Elaborate please, I do not see the same thing where the hint is that rules are not being enforced. Which rule is not being enforced (or not enforced enough if that helps?)
 
You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect.

These are serious civility issues. If you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.

You're just reducing debate to a yes/no squabble which isn't even a debate. It's just a declaration of opinion.
Please, share examples to support your assertions. 🍿
 
Please, share examples to support your assertions. 🍿
When I see more examples, I'll let you know.

I was busy participating on the forum, not recording that participation.
 
I was busy participating on the forum, not recording that participation.
We look forward to your providing of evidence. After all, if you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.
 
We look forward to your providing of evidence. After all, if you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.
...except evidence isn't the point.

You can have rational conversations by discussing the meanings of words and how they must be defined in certain ways for ideas to make sense. The problem here is nobody wants to do that.
 
But you had time to make a litany of churlish observations about others? Hmmm.
You would agree observations can be made without being recorded, yes?
 
The real problem around here is people being pedantic about debate/rhetorical techniques.
 
You would agree observations can be made without being recorded, yes?
Sure, but that doesn't excuse you from providing evidence for your assertions.
 
...except evidence isn't the point.

You can have rational conversations by discussing the meanings of words and how they must be defined in certain ways for ideas to make sense. The problem here is nobody wants to do that.

Most of us use the accepted meaning / definition of a "word". Are you suggesting a poster can make up their own meaning of a word?
 
@XDU If you were truly concerned about the level of discourse, the first thing you would have done is provide evidence for your assertions. Instead, you chose to start a thread of vague insults.

Making vague insults while finger-wagging about civility and squabbles seems ...
 
Last edited:
Sure, but that doesn't excuse you from providing evidence for your assertions.
Mmm... if you want to be utopian, sure.

If you want to be realistic though, you'll need to come to terms with the difference between facts and evidence. Otherwise, you'll ignore truth which has no record and end up becoming wrong in your understanding of reality.
 
What do you mean by substantiation?
Well, you claimed 'nobody' converses rationally in the manner you described as desirable. Nobody means no one--including yourself. So, you've now made an universal claim that applies to the hundreds/thousands of posters across this site, and imputes yourself in the process.

The way I see it you now have two paths forward:

1. You provide evidence to support your universal generalization, as a matter of rational discourse.

2. We take your statement at face value, which imputes you as part of the problem, and start by having you explain why you're not debating rationally. If we can work together to "fix" you first, then perhaps we'll have developed a roadmap for improving the quality of discourse for everyone.

Which do you prefer?
 
You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect.

These are serious civility issues. If you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.

You're just reducing debate to a yes/no squabble which isn't even a debate. It's just a declaration of opinion.
OK, I've responded to two of your claims in other threads. The first was that Trump was a Democrat at one time, which is true. He was also a reform party member, and a republican, then a democrat, then Republican. So he was whatever he decided he was when he woke up that morning, and what he believed served his interests at that time. He's certainly not ever been anything like a 'leader' of the Democratic party - at best an occasional member of it who sometimes donated when doing so might have advanced his interests. That's fine, but no one ever looked to Trump about the Democratic party's position on anything, any more than they prior to 2016 looked to him about where the Republican party stood on anything. So you made a point - he was a Democrat - but what you didn't say is why that matters to anything, when in this reality he is, as we sit here, the de facto head of the GOP.

You also pointed out that the birther claims originated with someone apparently on the Hillary side who started a baseless rumor. Again, why does this matter? It's not a defense of Trump's actions on the issue, so if it's not an attempt to sidestep his own actions with a bogus butwhatabout, why do we care?

So dismissing those points isn't a prejudicial declaration of irrelevance, it's a rational dismissal of the relevance and it's because you can demonstrate no relevance for your point. Those are different things.
 
Most of us use the accepted meaning / definition of a "word". Are you suggesting a poster can make up their own meaning of a word?

I'm suggesting words have multiple meanings. Not only in dictionaries do words often have multiple meanings listed for them, but definitions are often vague since everything isn't technically defined.

More importantly, words are defined in context of other words, and those words have multiple and vague meanings which creates a compound problem.
 
If you were truly concerned about the level of discourse, the first thing you would have done is provide evidence for your assertions. Instead, you chose to start a thread of vague insults.

Making vague insults while finger-wagging about civility and squabbles seems ...

Concerned people often recognize an issue is a problem before evidence of the problem is gathered. The point is to share their concern as soon as possible to minimize the time something is going on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom