Agnapostate's Pissing Match Challenge

[Palin Rider]

The majority of political forums are all the same. Most have their views and will not bend. Many will ultimately lead to harsh words if the other fails to agree with their POV. I defy you to find a political site where members have a habit of changing their stance once they hear the opposing persons POV.

No need to change anyone's stance. Still, it's very possible to disagree POLITELY.

Even with all of that - most that oppose STILL won't change their POV or agree with the other party.

Whether you agree with an opponent's position has nothing to do with which one of you does a better job defending their arguments.

Making stricter rules to make EVERY debate/thread free of flames/insults/personal jabs - will lead to a decline in membership.

Not necessarily at all. Some very large forums have very strict rules.

It's up to members to police themselves, place users on ignore that can't debate worth a damn & hold themselves to standards better than their opponent.

Ignore is for pussies.

[Kathianne]

No need to change anyone's stance. Still, it's very possible to disagree POLITELY.

Whether you agree with an opponent's position has nothing to do with which one of you does a better job defending their arguments.

Not necessarily at all. Some very large forums have very strict rules.


Ignore is for pussies.

I've moderated for a 'hands off' owner and one that wanted your type of moderating. I'll stick with the hands off, tyvm.

The only large forums that have strict rules are echo chambers like DU.

[Palin Rider]

I've moderated for a 'hands off' owner and one that wanted your type of moderating. I'll stick with the hands off, tyvm.

Sure, because you're lazy.

The only large forums that have strict rules are echo chambers like DU.

Dems aren't nearly as monolithic as the right wants to think. Mississippi Democrats are farther right than New Jersey Republicans.

[Agnapostate]

This makes no sense. You are claiming a problem with the board, then go on to claim you can "spank any of our asses" (I assume to mean beat any of us in a debate), and that you can bust the balls of anyone who tries, but the problem of the board is that some members won't change their views no matter what facts they are faced with? Am I summarizing this incorrectly? Did you ever stop to think maybe others here feel that it's YOU who won't change any of your stances in the face of facts?

Certainly. However, that's an inaccurate perception, since I've changed my entire political ideology since I started reading Internet message boards about five years ago. I've also changed policy views, based on the fact that I consider scientific empirical research to be superior to preconceived dogma or anecdotal experiences. Several weeks ago, for example, a member asserted that labor unions had a negative effect on the U.S. economy. I posted a meta-analysis that indicated that they had a positive effect, and a negative effect on the UK economy. A comment was then made about teachers' unions having negative effects, and I briefly searched Google Scholar, expecting to find the same general conclusions, but I instead found research indicating that they indeed did have such negative effects, and said so. I was the one willing to freely admit what the empirical literature indicated, while others simply remained entrenched in their preconceived dogmatic notions.

It mostly comes down to one's perspectives and points of view - unless of course you are asking a question like what is 2+2 - where there is obviously a correct answer and an opinion cannot change that.

You're a rightist; you know quite well that not all "perspectives and points of view" are equally valid. Some are right and some are wrong. The accurate ones can be defended and the inaccurate ones rejected through sound argumentation.

Sounds like you feel you are superior to everyone on this board.

I do honestly believe that I'm a better debater than every rightist on the board, a lesson of experience. I've encountered a number of rightists that I consider better debaters than me on political message boards, but none of them are on this forum.

It's a free country, but don't take too much time patting yourself on the back, while you write cool looking paragraphs with grown up words - but that has nothing to do with "right or wrong" or who can win a debate.

If they contain superior arguments and evidence, they do.

You can write 200 paragraphs about illegal immigration with words that I might spend days looking up in the dictionary - and I can reply with - "We live in a country with laws, and we have a very clear immigration policy. If you don't follow it, you are here illegally. If you don't like said laws, write your representatives and do what you must to change these laws". - My bet is that the overwhelming majority would agree with me and not your long winded fancy schmancy words that mean nothing without our laws.

So? That would simply be more evidence that the rightists on this board simply favor commentary that they agree with, regardless of its argumentative merits, because what you wrote isn't an argument of any sort. There's no reason why a comment of, "We live in a country with laws, and we have a very clear segregation policy. If you don't follow it, you are in segregated establishments illegally. If you don't like said laws, write your representatives and do what you must to change these laws," couldn't have been uttered in the 1950's, in the same vein of legal fetishism. It would have the same lack of argumentative content. I do believe it's related to the close-mindedness of political rightists. That's been supported by empirical research into political psychology.

You start off by insulting the entire member base here, and then expect these people to take time out of their lives to engage you in some sort of debate? Maybe it's just me, but you might have been better off going to to debate discussion forum and mention a few subjects you would be interested in debating, act like half of a human being, and you might get a few more bites. Then again, your attitude since you've been a member here might have turned off one too many members.

Believe it or not, I can agree with you here. I try to remain calm, civil and mature when debating/discussing with others. But as soon as someone acts like a schmuck, I return the favor ten fold. But quite honestly, I VERY rarely ever see you making any posts here without trying to belittle someone.

On the contrary, I routinely receive compliments for my willingness to tolerate the extreme intractability that PalinRider mentioned.









It's an accurate sentiment. For example, I absolutely trounced the originator of this thread, as I'm able to do. It was derailed, as threads often are, by that moronic troll Chafin' simply ignoring every single argument made and posting an idiotic, repetitive image, a behavior that he engages in in every thread he quotes me. He's the equivalent of a broken bot.

I already tried this, and spent a fair amount of time reading through material you provided, but you then decided that I was too stupid for you to bother to reply to, I'm assuming you still think the same.

I've never claimed that you're stupid; I've claimed that you're ignorant of economics and history in instances where you've insisted on essentially putting your foot in your mouth.

Putting Agna's personality aside, the fact is that this intractability is practically a pandemic across the whole forum.

At least 70-80% of the regular posters here will never actually defend a point they make or attack an opponent's point in any kind of logical way. They will just repeat denials (or stoop to name-calling) no matter what kind of counter-argument they're faced with. Nearly every thread gets spoiled by this pattern. Drive-by posting and political spammers are a major problem as well. All in all, it comes down to an overwhelming majority of posts that add no value to the topic.

If you are interested in more serious debate around here, I would recommend holding the members to stricter rules that foster it.

I doubt that stricter rules would have much of an effect. They would just censor symptoms of the intractability that you've mentioned without altering fundamental attitudes. RevLeft has few restrictions on personal attacks, but is one of the most intellectually challenging forums I've ever posted on, for example. There's more diversity between socialist tendencies than there is in this rightist echo chamber.

the problem is, there so seldom is anything presented by the left that's worth looking at twice.....if YOU are interested in serious debate, post something worth discussing.....

Yes, this is a perfect example of exactly the tendency mentioned.

Soo
Debate.org

hows that work? you debate they decide?

I'm not really interested in debate for debate sake. I've got pretty strong opinions on a lot of issues but I'm willing to bend and admit facts and logical points. A few other here do that as well. From what I've seen so far your not one of them.

Funny, I see the same of you. It's unfortunate because you also do seem more intelligent and openminded than the other posters here. But after I thoroughly and extensively argued my point about rightism and white populism, you simply responded with an inane couple of sentences.

But if you start a thread here one day that I have the time and interest in it we can take it to debate.org and may the best logic and facts win.

We can do that with the rightism and white populism discussion right now.

uh, I get the impression that your a very strong political partisan (Utopian Communist?) , when i say that i mean you seem to hold a political point of view in a place where others put a religious faith. You quote the luminaries of you political position like I quote the Bible. I could be wrong but that's the air you give. And that my friend is a weakness. NO political or economic system is complete or close to perfect in an of itself. At least in the way you seem to think. I say that just to say.. your faith is misplaced if you think your political views can't be assaulted and crumbled. And no amount of erudition makes up for a bad argument, shaky foundation and disconnects from reality.

Not at all; my ideology is that of anarchism, which specifically requires tolerance for a diversity of organizational paradigms. If dogmatic, it's essentially a dogmatic anti-dogmatism. It's also deliberately anti-utopian in my case.

But you know, if others vote on debates or something over there how about just taking that bit where you asserted Conservatism is = to or leads to racism , i replied to your post, to the logical grounds you based it on, and you lost, but of course you disagree. You added to your bad logic text from Stormfront intellectuals and some left wing psychiatrist or psychologist if i remember correctly. Both unbiased and reliable? I don't think so.

I'd be interested in seeing the reply debate.org has to that one.

Anyway maybe later.

The only way to test your theory is engagement in that debate forum. You lost that exchange very badly, in my opinion. Even after your admission that I'd come "closer" to making a point by quoting a prominent neo-Nazi on his "transition" from mainline rightism to rightist extremism, you abandoned the exchange.

[jimnyc]

Certainly. However, that's an inaccurate perception, since I've changed my entire political ideology since I started reading Internet message boards about five years ago. I've also changed policy views, based on the fact that I consider scientific empirical research to be superior to preconceived dogma or anecdotal experiences. Several weeks ago, for example, a member asserted that labor unions had a negative effect on the U.S. economy. I posted a meta-analysis that indicated that they had a positive effect, and a negative effect on the UK economy. A comment was then made about teachers' unions having negative effects, and I briefly searched Google Scholar, expecting to find the same general conclusions, but I instead found research indicating that they indeed did have such negative effects, and said so. I was the one willing to freely admit what the empirical literature indicated, while others simply remained entrenched in their preconceived dogmatic notions.

And I've seen members here change their stances on subjects, and seen some even apologize for errors when pointed out. What's your point?

You're a rightist; you know quite well that not all "perspectives and points of view" are equally valid. Some are right and some are wrong. The accurate ones can be defended and the inaccurate ones rejected through sound argumentation.

With many instances, yes, but the majority of OPINIONS cannot be defeated. If someone does not believe in abortion, no amount of debating or "evidence" will make that persons stance any less valid or "right".

I do honestly believe that I'm a better debater than every rightist on the board, a lesson of experience. I've encountered a number of rightists that I consider better debaters than me on political message boards, but none of them are on this forum.

My experience tells me that the majority of those who proclaim to be "king of debating" are generally loudmouths looking for attention. While I think you are very smart for your age, you need to understand that your book reading and constant repetition of "empirical evidence" does not automatically make you right in a debate. I've seen members here soundly defeat you in an argument with short sentences. But again, that's the whole point of these types of boards, for everyone to share their points of view and have an opportunity to express why they believe their stance is correct. Unfortunately, we have a few who think they are always correct and proclaim to be the best on the board, even when they clearly aren't.

If they contain superior arguments and evidence, they do.

And your belief that your arguments are superior are just that - YOUR beliefs.

So? That would simply be more evidence that the rightists on this board simply favor commentary that they agree with, regardless of its argumentative merits, because what you wrote isn't an argument of any sort. There's no reason why a comment of, "We live in a country with laws, and we have a very clear segregation policy. If you don't follow it, you are in segregated establishments illegally. If you don't like said laws, write your representatives and do what you must to change these laws," couldn't have been uttered in the 1950's, in the same vein of legal fetishism. It would have the same lack of argumentative content. I do believe it's related to the close-mindedness of political rightists. That's been supported by empirical research into political psychology.

I couldn't care less about your history lessons, I care about TODAY. And in today's world - my argument would be sound. Argue all you like, the laws are the laws, they are on MY side, and it would be up to you to do the leg work to have said laws changed.

On the contrary, I routinely receive compliments for my willingness to tolerate the extreme intractability that PalinRider mentioned.

And I can post 1,000 similar reps of my own, and thanks on threads, and PM's... Yes, you'll appeal to some, and turn off others. I'm VERY confident that you have some true quality NEGATIVE reps to go along with your back slapping.

It's an accurate sentiment. For example, I absolutely trounced the originator of this thread, as I'm able to do. It was derailed, as threads often are, by that moronic troll Chafin' simply ignoring every single argument made and posting an idiotic, repetitive image, a behavior that he engages in in every thread he quotes me. He's the equivalent of a broken bot.

I won't even bother to open a thread where someone proclaims to trounce others. You start this thread by insinuating that others will never change their points of view no matter what facts presented, and that the problem of this board is that so many are entrenched in their views. Problem is, since that opening statement, all you've done is show us how that applies to YOU.

[Agnapostate]

And I've seen members here change their stances on subjects, and seen some even apologize for errors when pointed out. What's your point?

The exception proves the rule. More often than not, no such thing occurs.

With many instances, yes, but the majority of OPINIONS cannot be defeated. If someone does not believe in abortion, no amount of debating or "evidence" will make that persons stance any less valid or "right".

You mean "sound," since the term "valid" actually has a distinct meaning referring to the technical structure of deductive arguments within the field of logic. And if one opinion is right, the contrary opinion is wrong. The correct opinion is the one that sound ethical analysis yields.

My experience tells me that the majority of those who proclaim to be "king of debating" are generally loudmouths looking for attention. While I think you are very smart for your age, you need to understand that your book reading and constant repetition of "empirical evidence" does not automatically make you right in a debate.

"Smart for your age" is an insulting appellation, since it implies that others are not smart. But regardless, if the empirical research evidences a certain position, it is reasonable to conclude that the position in question is accurate, and the burden of proof is on its opponents to produce evidence of superior quality. Hence the scientific method. If I didn't want to appeal to it, I could still best the majority of board members on several subjects based on personal experience alone. For example, one particular aged member who resides in "wine country" thought to "teach" me about the organized conspiracy of an ethnic minority group concentrated in urban settings, when I live among them, as less of an outsider than this person.

I've seen members here soundly defeat you in an argument with short sentences.

No, you haven't. You've seen members post positions that you personally agreed with, and therefore considered to be "sound arguments."

But again, that's the whole point of these types of boards, for everyone to share their points of view and have an opportunity to express why they believe their stance is correct. Unfortunately, we have a few who think they are always correct and proclaim to be the best on the board, even when they clearly aren't.

A few? Actually, the majority of the forum seems to be composed of persons with that mentality, with only a small minority resisting.

And your belief that your arguments are superior are just that - YOUR beliefs.

And if those arguments are the most logically sound arguments presented in an exchange, that belief is an accurate one.

I couldn't care less about your history lessons, I care about TODAY. And in today's world - my argument would be sound. Argue all you like, the laws are the laws, they are on MY side, and it would be up to you to do the leg work to have said laws changed.

Argument soundness is not temporal. Moreover, it's not even relevant because your statement was not an argument. It didn't appeal to any ethical analysis, or to any theoretical or empirical justifications. It's just a form of legal fetishism, wherein you attempted to infer the prescriptive from the descriptive. Within logic, this is known as the is-ought problem. If taken as a "sound argument," it would mean that any argumentative criticisms of current laws were pointless, because legality = morality. Do you not like the application of eminent domain law? That's too bad. It's the law. Oh, you have some sort of criticism of it? Your criticism is irrelevant: it's the law.

And I can post 1,000 similar reps of my own, and thanks on threads, and PM's... Yes, you'll appeal to some, and turn off others.

You can, but I strongly suspect that most of yours would be based on shared agreement with a wide group of people, which I must necessarily lack due to having a unique political perspective in a hostile environment. The expressions of gratitude that I do receive are generally based on my willingness to stick out an argument, not agreement with the particular sentiments that I express.

I'm VERY confident that you have some true quality NEGATIVE reps to go along with your back slapping.

So go ahead and check. On the contrary, most are composed of short personal insults and the like.

I won't even bother to open a thread where someone proclaims to trounce others. You start this thread by insinuating that others will never change their points of view no matter what facts presented, and that the problem of this board is that so many are entrenched in their views. Problem is, since that opening statement, all you've done is show us how that applies to YOU.

Not at all; I specifically cited an example to the contrary. Your problem is that you have little preconceived notions that you will not allow evidence to alter.