Things to avoid if you want to debate honestly and fairly

I'd recommend everyone give this a glance; this is about the kind of debate we want to see here, rather than shit-slinging flame wars.

Below is a link to a good, detailed article about the do's and don'ts of fair debate. Here's just a small sample of the tactics of dishonest debaters it lists:

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive.

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent.

3. a. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong because, but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

b. Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is like tactic number 2 changing the subject; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers.”

c. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of.

d. My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot.

4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2: changing the subject

5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not.

He says there are only two things you can do to refute someone in an intellectually honest debate: Point out a flaw in the other person's facts, or in their logic. It's really simple if you just stick to that principle.

Here's the link as promised: https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

If you haven't done any of these, you surely know somebody who has

No ad homs or stereotyping around here. Nope, never seen it.

If certain people on forums followed all the above rules they would be rendered mute.

I know one name that comes to mind, in fact I think we all do !

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I'd recommend everyone give this a glance; this is about the kind of debate we want to see here, rather than shit-slinging flame wars.

Below is a link to a good, detailed article about the do's and don'ts of fair debate. Here's just a small sample of the tactics of dishonest debaters it lists:

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive.

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent.

3. a. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong because, but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

b. Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is like tactic number 2 changing the subject; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers.”

c. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of.

d. My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot.

4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2: changing the subject

5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not.

He says there are only two things you can do to refute someone in an intellectually honest debate: Point out a flaw in the other person's facts, or in their logic. It's really simple if you just stick to that principle.

Here's the link as promised: https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

If you haven't done any of these, you surely know somebody who has

That is the dodgy didge handbook!

Syl wrote:If certain people on forums followed all the above rules they would be rendered mute.

If admin enforced it, it might help.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:If certain people on forums followed all the above rules they would be rendered mute.

If admin enforced it, it might help.

If everyone could be trusted to act like decent adults there would never be a reason for anyone to interfere in debate, obviously thats not the case, and when good people are staying away to give them a break from all the unpleasantness, maybe the rules should be enforced better.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I'd recommend everyone give this a glance; this is about the kind of debate we want to see here, rather than shit-slinging flame wars.

Below is a link to a good, detailed article about the do's and don'ts of fair debate. Here's just a small sample of the tactics of dishonest debaters it lists:

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive.

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent.

3. a. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong because, but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

b. Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is like tactic number 2 changing the subject; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers.”

c. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of.

d. My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot.

4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2: changing the subject

5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not.

He says there are only two things you can do to refute someone in an intellectually honest debate: Point out a flaw in the other person's facts, or in their logic. It's really simple if you just stick to that principle.

Here's the link as promised: https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

If you haven't done any of these, you surely know somebody who has

You forgot to add a number of fallacies used by posters here

Question dodging is a rhetorical technique involving the intentional avoidance of answering a question. This may occur when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response.[1] Overt question dodging can sometimes be employed humorously, in order to sidestep giving a public answer in a political discussion: when a reporter asked Mayor Richard J. Daley why Hubert Humphrey had lost the state of Illinois in the 1968 presidential election, Daley replied "He lost it because he didn't get enough votes."[2] Often the aim of dodging a question is to make it seem as though the question was fulfilled, leaving the person who asked the question feeling satisfied with the answer, unaware that the question was not properly answered. A false accusation of question dodging can sometimes be made as a disingenuous tactic in debate, in the informal fallacy of the loaded question. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. This can lead the person questioned to be accused of "dodging the question".

Appeal to ignorance poor arguments used

Any time ignorance is used as a major premise in support of an argument, it’s liable to be a fallacious appeal to ignorance. Naturally, we are all ignorant of many things, but it is cheap and manipulative to allow this unfortunate aspect of the human condition to do most of our heavy lifting in an argument. Interestingly, this fallacy is often used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once. Consider the following two claims: “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials exist, so they must not be real.” “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials do not exist, so they must be real.” If the same argument strategy can support mutually exclusive claims, then it’s not a good argument strategy.

Circular argument

When a person’s argument is just repeating what they already assumed beforehand, it’s not arriving at any new conclusion. We call this a circular argument or circular reasoning. If someone says, “the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true"—that’s a circular argument. One is assuming that the Bible only speaks truth, and so they trust it to truthfully report that it speaks the truth. Another example of circular reasoning is, "According to my brain, my brain is reliable.” Well, yes, of course we would think our brains are in fact reliable if our brains are the one’s telling us that our brains are reliable.

Equivocation (ambiguity)

Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can “say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) (Eddie used this one last night on Tommy)

Argumentum ad misericordiam is Latin for “argument to compassion". Like the ad hominem fallacy above, it is a fallacy of relevance. Personal attacks, and emotional appeals, aren’t strictly relevant to whether something is true or false. In this case, the fallacy appeals to the compassion and emotional sensitivity of others when these factors are not strictly relevant to the argument. Appeals to pity often appear as emotional manipulation.

Bandwagon Fallacy (countless posters use this fallacy, claiming they are right based on a majority of posters being in agreement)

The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it. A couple different fallacies can be included under this label, since they are often indistinguishable in practice. The ad populum fallacy (Lat., “to the populous/popularity") is when something is accepted because it’s popular. The concensus gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people") is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it. And the status appeal fallacy is when something is considered true, right, or good because it has the reputation of lending status, making you look "popular,” "important," or “successful.”

phil wrote:You forgot to add a number of fallacies used by posters here

Phil, don't you see it as your job--as a debater--to point out fallacies? After all, fallacies are logical errors in argument. Just as you would point out factual errors, it's the debater's job to point out logical errors. Allow some room for participants to make mistakes; and as a participant in the debate, you point them out. Kudos to you, that’s debate!

Fallacies are part of the argument. For the house to do it would border on censorship. We all benefit if you point them out, and why they are they are logical fallacies.

phildidge wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I'd recommend everyone give this a glance; this is about the kind of debate we want to see here, rather than shit-slinging flame wars.

Below is a link to a good, detailed article about the do's and don'ts of fair debate. Here's just a small sample of the tactics of dishonest debaters it lists:



He says there are only two things you can do to refute someone in an intellectually honest debate: Point out a flaw in the other person's facts, or in their logic. It's really simple if you just stick to that principle.

Here's the link as promised: https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

If you haven't done any of these, you surely know somebody who has

You forgot to add a number of fallacies used by posters here

Question dodging is a rhetorical technique involving the intentional avoidance of answering a question. This may occur when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response.[1] Overt question dodging can sometimes be employed humorously, in order to sidestep giving a public answer in a political discussion: when a reporter asked Mayor Richard J. Daley why Hubert Humphrey had lost the state of Illinois in the 1968 presidential election, Daley replied "He lost it because he didn't get enough votes."[2] Often the aim of dodging a question is to make it seem as though the question was fulfilled, leaving the person who asked the question feeling satisfied with the answer, unaware that the question was not properly answered. A false accusation of question dodging can sometimes be made as a disingenuous tactic in debate, in the informal fallacy of the loaded question. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. This can lead the person questioned to be accused of "dodging the question".

Appeal to ignorance poor arguments used

Any time ignorance is used as a major premise in support of an argument, it’s liable to be a fallacious appeal to ignorance. Naturally, we are all ignorant of many things, but it is cheap and manipulative to allow this unfortunate aspect of the human condition to do most of our heavy lifting in an argument. Interestingly, this fallacy is often used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once. Consider the following two claims: “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials exist, so they must not be real.” “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials do not exist, so they must be real.” If the same argument strategy can support mutually exclusive claims, then it’s not a good argument strategy.

Circular argument

When a person’s argument is just repeating what they already assumed beforehand, it’s not arriving at any new conclusion. We call this a circular argument or circular reasoning. If someone says, “the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true"—that’s a circular argument. One is assuming that the Bible only speaks truth, and so they trust it to truthfully report that it speaks the truth. Another example of circular reasoning is, "According to my brain, my brain is reliable.” Well, yes, of course we would think our brains are in fact reliable if our brains are the one’s telling us that our brains are reliable.

Equivocation (ambiguity)

Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can “say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) (Eddie used this one last night on Tommy)

Argumentum ad misericordiam is Latin for “argument to compassion". Like the ad hominem fallacy above, it is a fallacy of relevance. Personal attacks, and emotional appeals, aren’t strictly relevant to whether something is true or false. In this case, the fallacy appeals to the compassion and emotional sensitivity of others when these factors are not strictly relevant to the argument. Appeals to pity often appear as emotional manipulation.

Bandwagon Fallacy (countless posters use this fallacy, claiming they are right based on a majority of posters being in agreement)

The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it. A couple different fallacies can be included under this label, since they are often indistinguishable in practice. The ad populum fallacy (Lat., “to the populous/popularity") is when something is accepted because it’s popular. The concensus gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people") is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it. And the status appeal fallacy is when something is considered true, right, or good because it has the reputation of lending status, making you look "popular,” "important," or “successful.”

There are an awful lot of words there /\….when a few words can sum it all up quite neatly.

In debate just be respectful to people and understand that though their opinion may not be your opinion....they are entitled to have it.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:You forgot to add a number of fallacies used by posters here

Phil, don't you see it as your job--as a debater--to point out fallacies?  After all, fallacies are logical errors in argument.  Just as you would point out factual errors, it's the debater's job to point out logical errors.  Allow some room for participants to make mistakes; and as a participant in the debate, you point them out.  Kudos to you, that’s debate!

Fallacies are part of the argument.  For the house to do it would border on censorship.  We all benefit if you point them out, and why they are they are logical fallacies.

Dont get me wrong Quill, I agree. That this should not arise to censurship

i was merely pointing out that there is many fallacies and agree its best if I simple point these out within debate

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

You forgot to add a number of fallacies used by posters here

Question dodging is a rhetorical technique involving the intentional avoidance of answering a question. This may occur when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response.[1] Overt question dodging can sometimes be employed humorously, in order to sidestep giving a public answer in a political discussion: when a reporter asked Mayor Richard J. Daley why Hubert Humphrey had lost the state of Illinois in the 1968 presidential election, Daley replied "He lost it because he didn't get enough votes."[2] Often the aim of dodging a question is to make it seem as though the question was fulfilled, leaving the person who asked the question feeling satisfied with the answer, unaware that the question was not properly answered. A false accusation of question dodging can sometimes be made as a disingenuous tactic in debate, in the informal fallacy of the loaded question. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. This can lead the person questioned to be accused of "dodging the question".

Appeal to ignorance poor arguments used

Any time ignorance is used as a major premise in support of an argument, it’s liable to be a fallacious appeal to ignorance. Naturally, we are all ignorant of many things, but it is cheap and manipulative to allow this unfortunate aspect of the human condition to do most of our heavy lifting in an argument. Interestingly, this fallacy is often used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once. Consider the following two claims: “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials exist, so they must not be real.” “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials do not exist, so they must be real.” If the same argument strategy can support mutually exclusive claims, then it’s not a good argument strategy.

Circular argument

When a person’s argument is just repeating what they already assumed beforehand, it’s not arriving at any new conclusion. We call this a circular argument or circular reasoning. If someone says, “the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true"—that’s a circular argument. One is assuming that the Bible only speaks truth, and so they trust it to truthfully report that it speaks the truth. Another example of circular reasoning is, "According to my brain, my brain is reliable.” Well, yes, of course we would think our brains are in fact reliable if our brains are the one’s telling us that our brains are reliable.

Equivocation (ambiguity)

Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can “say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) (Eddie used this one last night on Tommy)

Argumentum ad misericordiam is Latin for “argument to compassion". Like the ad hominem fallacy above, it is a fallacy of relevance. Personal attacks, and emotional appeals, aren’t strictly relevant to whether something is true or false. In this case, the fallacy appeals to the compassion and emotional sensitivity of others when these factors are not strictly relevant to the argument. Appeals to pity often appear as emotional manipulation.

Bandwagon Fallacy (countless posters use this fallacy, claiming they are right based on a majority of posters being in agreement)

The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it. A couple different fallacies can be included under this label, since they are often indistinguishable in practice. The ad populum fallacy (Lat., “to the populous/popularity") is when something is accepted because it’s popular. The concensus gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people") is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it. And the status appeal fallacy is when something is considered true, right, or good because it has the reputation of lending status, making you look "popular,” "important," or “successful.”

There are an awful lot of words there /\….when a few words can sum it all up quite neatly.

In debate just be respectful to people and understand that though their opinion may not be your opinion....they are entitled to have it.

You more than most really need to understand fallacies Syl, as you often make them in debate

Happy to post some links on this for you to understand

I have also never stopped a single poster having an opinion or claimed they are not entittled to an opinion.

What you need to understand is I am allowed to ask questions and am also allowed to rubiish piss poor claims with evidence and facts

Cheers

phil wrote:Dont get me wrong Quill, I agree. That this should not arise to censurship

i was merely pointing out that there is many fallacies and agree its best if I simple point these out within debate

OK...we do agree.

Maddog wrote:No ad homs or stereotyping around here. Nope, never seen it.    

whats that???

Syl wrote:If certain people on forums followed all the above rules they would be rendered mute.

just how the praetorian guard likes it

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:If certain people on forums followed all the above rules they would be rendered mute.

just how the praetorian guard likes it

Mature debate is the dream here, smelly.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

just how the praetorian guard likes it

Mature debate is the dream here, smelly.

Wrong

Mature debate is A dream here.

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

There are an awful lot of words there /\….when a few words can sum it all up quite neatly.

In debate just be respectful to people and understand that though their opinion may not be your opinion....they are entitled to have it.

You more than most really need to understand fallacies Syl, as you often make them in debate

Happy to post some links on this for you to understand

I have also never stopped a single poster having an opinion or claimed they are not entittled to an opinion.

What you need to understand is I am allowed to ask questions and am also allowed to rubiish piss poor claims with evidence and facts

Cheers

I was speaking generally.

Of course, in a debate, you have to look out for “The Waffler” - that poster who gets tripped up by their own words or statements and then waffles their way out of it...sort of backtracking and adding some other non-point in just to distract you.
The Waffler often gets aggressive too and may even call you names so that you will get angry and then the topic will divert accordingly.

eddie wrote:Of course, in a debate, you have to look out for “The Waffler” - that poster who gets tripped up by their own words or statements and then waffles their way out of it...sort of backtracking and adding some other non-point in just to distract you.
The Waffler often gets aggressive too and may even call you names so that you will get angry and then the topic will divert accordingly.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT MY GOAT, BITCH, HE DIDNT DRINK YOUR PERSECCO!!!

HE IS A Muslim GOAT AND DOESNT DRINK...................OR HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:Of course, in a debate, you have to look out for “The Waffler” - that poster who gets tripped up by their own words or statements and then waffles their way out of it...sort of backtracking and adding some other non-point in just to distract you.
The Waffler often gets aggressive too and may even call you names so that you will get angry and then the topic will divert accordingly.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT MY GOAT, BITCH, HE DIDNT DRINK YOUR PERSECCO!!!

HE IS A Muslim GOAT AND DOESNT DRINK...................OR HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Well, they say a pet takes on its owners personality.

eddie wrote:Be teachable.
You’re not always right.  

It's very important to remain open-minded, to listen to opinions that differ from your own.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

eddie wrote:Be teachable.
You’re not always right.  

It's very important to remain open-minded, to listen to opinions that differ from your own.

Indeed. We must never think we are right and sometimes it’s better to agree to differ.
Some posters can’t though. It’s as though they’re uncomfortable with agreeing to differ.

I don’t get it.

eddie wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

eddie wrote:Be teachable.
You’re not always right.  

It's very important to remain open-minded, to listen to opinions that differ from your own.

Indeed. We must never think we are right and sometimes it’s better to agree to differ.
Some posters can’t though. It’s as though they’re uncomfortable with agreeing to differ.

I don’t get it.

Yeah, once everyone has said everything they have to say, it's time to move on.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:Of course, in a debate, you have to look out for “The Waffler” - that poster who gets tripped up by their own words or statements and then waffles their way out of it...sort of backtracking and adding some other non-point in just to distract you.
The Waffler often gets aggressive too and may even call you names so that you will get angry and then the topic will divert accordingly.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT MY GOAT, BITCH, HE DIDNT DRINK YOUR PERSECCO!!!

HE IS A Muslim GOAT AND DOESNT DRINK...................OR HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Ps. It’s “Prosecco”.

is this a satire thread??

BEN-jong-un >THE ban really< is talking about listening to other peoples opinions????

what in the fuck kind of freak show have i just stepped into here??

smelly-bandit wrote:is this a satire thread??

BEN-jong-un >THE ban really< is talking about listening to other peoples opinions????

what in the fuck kind of freak show have i just stepped into here??

What do you mean? You spend half your time talking to him saying “yes sir no sir three bags full sir”.

smelly-bandit wrote:is this a satire thread??

BEN-jong-un >THE ban really< is talking about listening to other peoples opinions????

what in the fuck kind of freak show have i just stepped into here??

I listen to everyone's opinions, thoroughly, but I don't have to agree with them. And when they're overt racial slurs, I don't have to have them on my forum, and I will punish rule-breakers the same as any admin.

Now, check out this other statement you made a while back:

smelly bandit wrote:the african is predisposed to savagery which is why most of africa is war torn and life is so cheap on that god forsaken continent, their lust for war is strong than their desire for peace and they will die from war long before they tire from it.

As much as I disagree with and despise that statement, I (and all the other mods) let it stand because it was your opinion, stated without using racial slurs.

So all your moaning about how we don't allow opinions we don't like on here is clearly bullshit. And anyway, if you really felt as oppressed as you make out, you'd have left long ago.

“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or self-confidence.”
Robert Frost.

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:is this a satire thread??

BEN-jong-un >THE ban really< is talking about listening to other peoples opinions????

what in the fuck kind of freak show have i just stepped into here??

What do you mean? You spend half your time talking to him saying “yes sir no sir three bags full sir”.

its "yes sir yes sir three bags full sir" according to dear leader

agreeing with an unstable personaity type that can bin you is a surefire way to avoid getting binned

you dont really think all those smiling north korean citizens are happy do you??

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:is this a satire thread??

BEN-jong-un >THE ban really< is talking about listening to other peoples opinions????

what in the fuck kind of freak show have i just stepped into here??

What do you mean? You spend half your time talking to him saying “yes sir no sir three bags full sir”.

its "yes sir yes sir three bags full sir" according to dear leader

agreeing with an unstable personaity type that can bin you is a surefire way to avoid getting binned

you dont really think all those smiling north korean citizens are happy do you??

"Yes sir yes sir three bags full" without the final "sir" is what I said.

Screw it up again and you're banned for three months.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:is this a satire thread??

BEN-jong-un >THE ban really< is talking about listening to other peoples opinions????

what in the fuck kind of freak show have i just stepped into here??

I listen to everyone's opinions, thoroughly, but I don't have to agree with them. And when they're overt racial slurs, I don't have to have them on my forum, and I will punish rule-breakers the same as any admin.

Now, check out this other statement you made a while back:

smelly bandit wrote:the african is predisposed to savagery which is why most of africa is war torn and life is so cheap on that god forsaken continent, their lust for war is strong than their desire for peace and they will die from war long before they tire from it.

As much as I disagree with and despise that statement, I (and all the other mods) let it stand because it was your opinion, stated without using racial slurs.

So all your moaning about how we don't allow opinions we don't like on here is clearly bullshit. And anyway, if you really felt as oppressed as you make out, you'd have left long ago.

you let it stand because you know its true.

stated without using racial slurs?? thats funny because i didnt use a racial slur when elizel sent me down for a stretch, and yet i see some of your chosen few using racial slurs with impunity

but i aint no snitch, snitches get stitches and ditches

rules???

come off it, everyone knows there is a multi tiered whim based rule system in force here.

Not by me there isn’t.
And I can only speak for myself.

eddie wrote:Not by me there isn’t.
And I can only speak for myself.

er yes by you

you pulled elizel up for how he did it

you said, you would have pulled me on it first and then decided

he just sent me down, no questions asked, shoot first and last and fuck the questions

so are you wrong or is he??

Smelly, I know what you said is false. I've met people from all over the world, enough to know there's not some other type of person out there I've never encountered.

Most of us want the same basic things, regardless of where we were born and what color our skin is.

Your racial slur was in comparing black people to apes, something which has been made abundantly clear to you, so if you don't mind dropping the victim act because that was months ago, buddy.

And honestly, I'd have un-basemented you sooner than the 10 days or whatever that you were in there, but I sort of forgot about you. My bad.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:Not by me there isn’t.
And I can only speak for myself.

er yes by you

you pulled elizel up for how he did it

you said, you would have pulled me on it first and then decided

he just sent me down, no questions asked, shoot first and last and fuck the questions

so are you wrong or is he??

He’s wrong IN MY OPINION.
But he isn’t me, is he?

I always ask first. Like I said, doesn’t make me a popular moderator or person, oftentimes.
I already told you all this.

Why do I always have to repeat myself? Don’t I make sense when I post?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Smelly, I know what you said is false. I've met people from all over the world, enough to know there's not some other type of person out there I've never encountered.

Most of us want the same basic things, regardless of where we were born and what color our skin is.

Your racial slur was in comparing black people to apes, something which has been made abundantly clear to you, so if you don't mind dropping the victim act because that was months ago, buddy.

And honestly, I'd have un-basemented you sooner than the 10 days or whatever that you were in there, but I sort of forgot about you. My bad.

you ever lived in africa??? ever SEEEEEN africa??? thought not

i have,lived through history, almost died there too,though i imagine the tourist experience is somewhat more pleasant than the authentic one.

i didnt compare blacks to apes, elizel made that connection.

if you ask me that speaks more about his internal subconscious racism, and yours, than some loaded comment i made.

automatically connecting THOSE dots and jumping to THAT conclusion??? seems you all got has dark issues youre struggling to deal with so you lash out whenever you are made to feel guilty or awkward, just like everyone does.

except me, i dont feel guilty cause i think about what i say before i say it, jump to a conclusion?? he jumped right into my trap same as always and same as always you all followed him in face first.

comparing blacks to apes isnt a racial slur, its an opinion at the base of it, the offence comes when YOU feel awkward about it, see above reference your latent racism that you cant accept, and thats when you apply your "rules" so that you feel like youve done something about it.

as annoying as didge is, he would make a better mod than all of you combined, he at least will try to argue the toss using what ever insanity passes for logic with him, he fails of course but at least he tries, you democrats just lash out with your feelings.

a racial slur would be sometiing like "cracker" to refer to whites wouldnt it?? or are you like quill and think whites cant be victims of racism or descrimination??

would you say "uncle tom" is a racial slur??

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

er yes by you

you pulled elizel up for how he did it

you said, you would have pulled me on it first and then decided

he just sent me down, no questions asked, shoot first and last and fuck the questions

so are you wrong or is he??

He’s wrong IN MY OPINION.
But he isn’t me, is he?

I always ask first. Like I said, doesn’t make me a popular moderator or person, oftentimes.
I already told you all this.

Why do I always have to repeat myself? Don’t I make sense when I post?

youre a mod and so is he, so when you say he is wrong its a problem.

which means its a two tiered (at least) rules system like i said

shouldnt all mods operate to a common standard to rule out abuses of power becasue of personal dislikes and biases??

clearly not.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

er yes by you

you pulled elizel up for how he did it

you said, you would have pulled me on it first and then decided

he just sent me down, no questions asked, shoot first and last and fuck the questions

so are you wrong or is he??

He’s wrong IN MY OPINION.
But he isn’t me, is he?

I always ask first. Like I said, doesn’t make me a popular moderator or person, oftentimes.
I already told you all this.

Why do I always have to repeat myself? Don’t I make sense when I post?

youre a mod and so is he, so when you say he is wrong its a problem.

which means its a two tiered (at least) rules system like i said

shouldnt all mods operate to a common standard to rule out abuses of power becasue of personal dislikes and biases??

clearly not.

I ask the mods to use their best judgement. Sometimes we disagree and hash things out in private, but that's the way it works here, and it works pretty well most of the time.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

er yes by you

you pulled elizel up for how he did it

you said, you would have pulled me on it first and then decided

he just sent me down, no questions asked, shoot first and last and fuck the questions

so are you wrong or is he??

He’s wrong IN MY OPINION.
But he isn’t me, is he?

I always ask first. Like I said, doesn’t make me a popular moderator or person, oftentimes.
I already told you all this.

Why do I always have to repeat myself? Don’t I make sense when I post?

youre a mod and so is he, so when you say he is wrong its a problem.

which means its a two tiered (at least) rules system like i said

shouldnt all mods operate to a common standard to rule out abuses of power becasue of personal dislikes and biases??

clearly not.

We are moderators on a forum - we don’t always agree - but we will back each other on public even if we disagree in private.

I’m far more easygoing than everyone else. I have no idea whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Smelly, I know what you said is false. I've met people from all over the world, enough to know there's not some other type of person out there I've never encountered.

Most of us want the same basic things, regardless of where we were born and what color our skin is.

Your racial slur was in comparing black people to apes, something which has been made abundantly clear to you, so if you don't mind dropping the victim act because that was months ago, buddy.

And honestly, I'd have un-basemented you sooner than the 10 days or whatever that you were in there, but I sort of forgot about you. My bad.

you ever lived in africa??? ever SEEEEEN africa??? thought not

i have,lived through history, almost died there too,though i imagine the tourist experience is somewhat more pleasant than the authentic one.

i didnt compare blacks to apes, elizel made that connection.

if you ask me that speaks more about his internal subconscious racism, and yours, than some loaded comment i made.

automatically connecting THOSE dots and jumping to THAT conclusion??? seems you all got has dark issues youre struggling to deal with so you lash out whenever you are made to feel guilty or awkward, just like everyone does.

except me, i dont feel guilty cause i think about what i say before i say it, jump to a conclusion?? he jumped right into my trap same as always and same as always you all followed him in face first.

comparing blacks to apes isnt a racial slur, its an opinion at the base of it, the offence comes when YOU feel awkward about it, see above reference your latent racism that you cant accept, and thats when you apply your "rules" so that you feel like youve done something about it.

as annoying as didge is, he would make a better mod than all of you combined, he at least will try to argue the toss using what ever insanity passes for logic with him, he fails of course but at least he tries, you democrats just lash out with your feelings.

a racial slur would be sometiing like "cracker" to refer to whites wouldnt it?? or are you like quill and think whites cant be victims of racism or descrimination??

would you say  "uncle tom" is a racial slur??

You’re operating under a lot of assumptions and mistruths about me.  I actually agree with a lot of what you’ve just  said.

Ps I’m not a democrat?

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Smelly, I know what you said is false. I've met people from all over the world, enough to know there's not some other type of person out there I've never encountered.

Most of us want the same basic things, regardless of where we were born and what color our skin is.

Your racial slur was in comparing black people to apes, something which has been made abundantly clear to you, so if you don't mind dropping the victim act because that was months ago, buddy.

And honestly, I'd have un-basemented you sooner than the 10 days or whatever that you were in there, but I sort of forgot about you. My bad.

you ever lived in africa??? ever SEEEEEN africa??? thought not

i have,lived through history, almost died there too,though i imagine the tourist experience is somewhat more pleasant than the authentic one.

i didnt compare blacks to apes, elizel made that connection.

if you ask me that speaks more about his internal subconscious racism, and yours, than some loaded comment i made.

automatically connecting THOSE dots and jumping to THAT conclusion??? seems you all got has dark issues youre struggling to deal with so you lash out whenever you are made to feel guilty or awkward, just like everyone does.

except me, i dont feel guilty cause i think about what i say before i say it, jump to a conclusion?? he jumped right into my trap same as always and same as always you all followed him in face first.

comparing blacks to apes isnt a racial slur, its an opinion at the base of it, the offence comes when YOU feel awkward about it, see above reference your latent racism that you cant accept, and thats when you apply your "rules" so that you feel like youve done something about it.

as annoying as didge is, he would make a better mod than all of you combined, he at least will try to argue the toss using what ever insanity passes for logic with him, he fails of course but at least he tries, you democrats just lash out with your feelings.

a racial slur would be sometiing like "cracker" to refer to whites wouldnt it?? or are you like quill and think whites cant be victims of racism or descrimination??

would you say  "uncle tom" is a racial slur??

The point isn't what you or I know about Africa. The point is you weren't pulled up for saying something very negative about Africans, and that was because you said it using a grown-up's vocabulary.

You can say all you want that you didn't make a racial slur in reference to the video. Guess what? I don't believe you. Neither does Les. We have to go with our guts. My gut still tells me that was a racial slur.

Even if it wasn't intended that way, it looked that way. Since I don't know you, I have no way of judging whether you meant it as a racial slur. But I've read your expressions of your negative attitudes toward black people, so has Les, and we put two and two together.

I'm done talking about this.

Quick edit: I wouldn't say Uncle Tom is a racial slur -- it's usually used as an insult from what black person to another, and it loses all meaning if a white person says it.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

you ever lived in africa??? ever SEEEEEN africa??? thought not

i have,lived through history, almost died there too,though i imagine the tourist experience is somewhat more pleasant than the authentic one.

i didnt compare blacks to apes, elizel made that connection.

if you ask me that speaks more about his internal subconscious racism, and yours, than some loaded comment i made.

automatically connecting THOSE dots and jumping to THAT conclusion??? seems you all got has dark issues youre struggling to deal with so you lash out whenever you are made to feel guilty or awkward, just like everyone does.

except me, i dont feel guilty cause i think about what i say before i say it, jump to a conclusion?? he jumped right into my trap same as always and same as always you all followed him in face first.

comparing blacks to apes isnt a racial slur, its an opinion at the base of it, the offence comes when YOU feel awkward about it, see above reference your latent racism that you cant accept, and thats when you apply your "rules" so that you feel like youve done something about it.

as annoying as didge is, he would make a better mod than all of you combined, he at least will try to argue the toss using what ever insanity passes for logic with him, he fails of course but at least he tries, you democrats just lash out with your feelings.

a racial slur would be sometiing like "cracker" to refer to whites wouldnt it?? or are you like quill and think whites cant be victims of racism or descrimination??

would you say  "uncle tom" is a racial slur??

The point isn't what you or I know about Africa. The point is you weren't pulled up for saying something very negative about Africans, and that was because you said it using a grown-up's vocabulary.

You can say all you want that you didn't make a racial slur in reference to the video. Guess what? I don't believe you. Neither does Les. We have to go with our guts. My gut still tells me that was a racial slur.

Even if it wasn't intended that way, it looked that way. Since I don't know you, I have no way of judging whether you meant it as a racial slur. But I've read your expressions of your negative attitudes toward black people, so has Les, and we put two and two together.

I'm done talking about this.

Quick edit: I wouldn't say Uncle Tom is a racial slur -- it's usually used as an insult from what black person to another, and it loses all meaning if a white person says it.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t27000-do-you-run-from-a-challenge

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

you ever lived in africa??? ever SEEEEEN africa??? thought not

i have,lived through history, almost died there too,though i imagine the tourist experience is somewhat more pleasant than the authentic one.

i didnt compare blacks to apes, elizel made that connection.

if you ask me that speaks more about his internal subconscious racism, and yours, than some loaded comment i made.

automatically connecting THOSE dots and jumping to THAT conclusion??? seems you all got has dark issues youre struggling to deal with so you lash out whenever you are made to feel guilty or awkward, just like everyone does.

except me, i dont feel guilty cause i think about what i say before i say it, jump to a conclusion?? he jumped right into my trap same as always and same as always you all followed him in face first.

comparing blacks to apes isnt a racial slur, its an opinion at the base of it, the offence comes when YOU feel awkward about it, see above reference your latent racism that you cant accept, and thats when you apply your "rules" so that you feel like youve done something about it.

as annoying as didge is, he would make a better mod than all of you combined, he at least will try to argue the toss using what ever insanity passes for logic with him, he fails of course but at least he tries, you democrats just lash out with your feelings.

a racial slur would be sometiing like "cracker" to refer to whites wouldnt it?? or are you like quill and think whites cant be victims of racism or descrimination??

would you say  "uncle tom" is a racial slur??

The point isn't what you or I know about Africa. The point is you weren't pulled up for saying something very negative about Africans, and that was because you said it using a grown-up's vocabulary.

You can say all you want that you didn't make a racial slur in reference to the video. Guess what? I don't believe you. Neither does Les. We have to go with our guts. My gut still tells me that was a racial slur.

Even if it wasn't intended that way, it looked that way. Since I don't know you, I have no way of judging whether you meant it as a racial slur. But I've read your expressions of your negative attitudes toward black people, so has Les, and we put two and two together.

I'm done talking about this.

Quick edit: I wouldn't say Uncle Tom is a racial slur -- it's usually used as an insult from what black person to another, and it loses all meaning if a white person says it.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t27000-do-you-run-from-a-challenge

Yeah, but you didn't challenge me.

Here's another thing to avoid if you want to debate properly -- the Gish gallop!

Which is:

During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.^[3][4] In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.^[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved^[6] or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.


Another way to put this is: "You've now said a dozen things that I have to challenge. Are you done yet, or should I start taking notes, so that I can remember how much shit you've said that I must refute in order to make my point?"


There are two ways to thwart a Gish galloper -- either you refute their central points before they make them, or you interrupt them as a means of breaking up their long string of contested points into digestible bits.


Especially helpful when someone is treating you like a strawman or a stereotype based on what they know of your beliefs.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd recommend everyone give this a glance; this is about the kind of debate we want to see here, rather than shit-slinging flame wars.

Below is a link to a good, detailed article about the do's and don'ts of fair debate. Here's just a small sample of the tactics of dishonest debaters it lists:

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive.

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent.

3. a. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong because, but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.

b. Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is like tactic number 2 changing the subject; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers.”

c. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of.

d. My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot.

4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2: changing the subject

5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not.

He says there are only two things you can do to refute someone in an intellectually honest debate: Point out a flaw in the other person's facts, or in their logic. It's really simple if you just stick to that principle.

Here's the link as promised: https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

If you haven't done any of these, you surely know somebody who has

Not forgetting Sophistry & Chicanery, the evil twins. Too frequently deployed online and IRL. Ewww!

Quill sometimes mentions 'false equivalency' too - which I hadn't come across before, it's a useful term.

Ben Reilly wrote:Here's another thing to avoid if you want to debate properly -- the Gish gallop!

Which is:

[size=39]During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[/size]^[3][4][size=39] In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.[/size]^[5][size=39] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved[/size]^[6][size=39] or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.[/size]


[size=39]Another way to put this is: "You've now said a dozen things that I have to challenge. Are you done yet, or should I start taking notes, so that I can remember how much shit you've said that I must refute in order to make my point?"[/size]


[size=39]There are two ways to thwart a Gish galloper -- either you refute their central points before they make them, or you interrupt them as a means of breaking up their long string of contested points into digestible bits.[/size]


[size=39]Especially helpful when someone is treating you like a strawman or a stereotype based on what they know of your beliefs.[/size]

The so called 'gish gallop' attack has been a well used and particular favourite tactic of the lefty over recent years...


They often resort to this tactic of spewing out a wall of waffle at their perceived political opponents whenever they get the chance... often witnessed on programmes like question time and politics show etc...


To a lefty, facts and detail are irrelevant... to them, it's only the slinging of enough mud in the hope that some will stick, that's important!

"If you can't dazzle them with science,  then baffle them with bullshit."