Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×
guests can now post ×
welcome guests . feel free to test the waters. ×

Rules for video/audio debates.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Not allowing debate participants to use external media (articles from whatever.com), seems like a decent rule.

 

...hmmm...

 

Interesting.

 

Using your logic then what is done to extinguish TEAMMATEism that can reign supreme when deciding who won any debate?

 

 For example, if I am debating and I tell a truth which clearly wins me the debate.  What guards and defenses do I have, if 15 Liberals come screaming that I lost because I lied?  external reputable certified media facts would decide who is telling a lie vs who is telling the truth, in an unbiased way too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

Yes

 

...hmmmm...

 

I better get my eyes checked then.  Because I went to the videos ---and they are different. It is not the same video, over and over, so please provide links to what you saw that I must've missed when I searched.  

 

thx in adv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pmurT said:

 

...hmmm...

 

Interesting.

 

Using your logic then what is done to extinguish TEAMMATEism that can reign supreme when deciding who won any debate?

 

 For example, if I am debating and I tell a truth which clearly wins me the debate.  What guards and defenses do I have, if 15 Liberals come screaming that I lost because I lied?  external reputable certified media facts would decide who is telling a lie vs who is telling the truth, in an unbiased way too.

You may or may not have the honesty to admit this but a lot of what is in the media is not objective fact... it is opinion and nothing more. Posting a deluge of op-ed pieces that simply happen to align with your view is of no substance. It is simply winning by war of attrition. Quantity is not the same as quality. 

 

I could be wrong but the winner is not decided by popular votes. Let me look back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

You may or may not have the honesty to admit this but

 

be careful with your word trickery, because if we get into journals and congressional webpages and etc ... then those are including in what I referenced.  Keep my words in context, even when they prove that you are being illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pmurT said:

 

be careful with your word trickery, because if we get into journals and congressional webpages and etc ... then those are including in what I referenced.  Keep my words in context, even when they prove that you are being illogical.

And you think that most on here would not post a deluge of op-ed pieces? Interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

And you think that most on here would not post a deluge of op-ed pieces? Interesting. 

 

And you think that there is not a way to post links from "whatever.com" which verifies what is fact versus what is opinion, about any issue whatsoever: PATHETIC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pmurT said:

 

And you think that there is not a way to post links from "whatever.com" which verifies what is fact versus what is opinion, about any issue whatsoever: PATHETIC!

You forget that the overwhelming percentage(not 100% but close) of articles from whatever.com are glorified op-ed pieces. Do you think that op-ed pieces are of value in an objective debate? If so, kind of sad but predictable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

You forget that the overwhelming percentage(not 100% but close) of articles from whatever.com are glorified op-ed pieces. Do you think that op-ed pieces are of value in an objective debate? If so, kind of sad but predictable. 

 

most-sadly predicatable; you are actually sitting here trying to justify why it is NOT a good idea to use whatever.com aids for the purpose of truthfully distinguishing facts from opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pmurT said:

 

most-sadly predicatable; you are actually sitting here trying to justify why it is NOT a good idea to use whatever.com aids for the purpose of truthfully distinguishing facts from opinions.

Interesting how you can't acknowledge that most of these links would be to op-ed pieces. 

 

Here is a compromise. Only one link can be brought forth. So in other words, it had better be damn good. Copying and pasting a deluge of op-ed pieces is not winning in my book. However, it apparently is in yours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Interesting how you can't acknowledge that most of these links would be to op-ed pieces. 

 

No. I addressed nothing of the sort. 

 

I only acknowledged how your remarks are not based in, logic, if you expect a forum of biased liberal lunatics to be forthright and honest ---to a magnitude where debates are prohibited from using whatever.com for verifying what is fact vs what is opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Copying and pasting a deluge of op-ed pieces is not winning in my book. However, it apparently is in yours. 

 

dude. i will destroy you on any topic, any time, with no assistance from an op-ed from whatever.com ---but that does not change what can be verified at whatever.com

Face this.

 

and stop blaming me because you are too, dumbfucc'd, to comprehend the veracity of using verified facts and truths according to sources you can't dispute from whatever.com whenever I verify that I perfected an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pmurT said:

 

dude. i will destroy you on any topic, any time, with no assistance from an op-ed from whatever.com ---but that does not change what can be verified at whatever.com

Face this.

 

so stop blaming me because you are too, dumbfucc'd, to comprehend the veracity of using verified facts and truths according to sources you can't dispute from whatever.com whenever I verify that I perfected an opinion.

You assume that your links to whatever.com will not be op-ed pieces. Or that others will not put forth what is essentially garbage. Interesting. I am assuming that you can acknowledge that disproving one's opinion with yet another opinion is illogical. I expected too much.. oh well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

You assume that your links to whatever.com will not be op-ed pieces. Or that others will not put forth what is essentially garbage. Interesting. 

 

Nope. I assume that you know it is, illogical, to not be able to have debates where even a neutral person can go to whatever.com to ensure any debate contributor is posting facts and not opinion ---if they are deemed a winner especially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pmurT said:

 

Nope. I assume that you know it is, illogical, to not be able to have debates where even a neutral person can go to whatever.com to ensure any debate contributor is posting facts and not opinion ---if they are deemed a winner especially.

Hence the need to limit the number of links as a compromise. Make it about quality and not quantity. Anybody with the simplest ability to do google searches can find hundreds of op-ed pieces that align with their views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pmurT said:

 

...hmmmm...

 

I better get my eyes checked then.  Because I went to the videos ---and they are different. It is not the same video, over and over, so please provide links to what you saw that I must've missed when I searched.  

 

thx in adv

 

I didn't say there was only one video, but he posts the same ones over and over. I'm not linking you to that I've seen it a million times, go look yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SixShooter said:

go look yourself!

 

No, you go look at how to quit trying to use word trickery.  You chimed in with some, bullshit, and you know its true. 

 

Its not SPAM if he is posting different videos. Tell the truth, or shut up. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pmurT said:

 

No, you go look at how to quit trying to use word trickery.  You chimed in with some, bullshit, and you know its true. 

 

Its not SPAM if he is posting different videos. Tell the truth, or shut up. 

 

Damn pmurT... did the old lady kick you in the balls when you tried to get frisky this morning or what?

 

Not that you are entitled to one, but I gave you the explanation this morning for five getting put back in the boo box. You either can't comprehend, or just don't want to hear it... either way, it doesn't really matter because it's a done deal, so get over it already.

 

Jeeeeessssh...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rippy38 said:

I gave you the explanation this morning

 

 

 

fucc you and your explanation ---LOL--- as you now sound worse the SCOTUS telling Trump to be content with the explanation that they won't address illegal voting laws. Not that illegality never existed, but that the SCOTUS refused to address the fraud.

 

you gave an explanation that he was posting different videos each time, which is not SPAMMING, by definition too as long as the videos are different each time.  You admit that he is NOT posting the same exact video each time ---but you still claimed he's SPAMMING. LOL. Clearly, your punkAZZ is trying to be accepted by Admin here and their eternally-moving the goalpost to suit their agenda against certain posters.  The fact that the website owner posted dude's phone call, is suspect enough, without you bringing your putrid pink panties along to assist with sabotaging that member 5x5.

 

Now you dumbASS has topped that off, by running up to me here/shooting your mouth off, about an issue I have with 6shooter which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what you ---once again, using me as your vehicle to try to impress Admin--- since you know Admin does not appreciate me posting on this website.

 

You are OFFICIALLY a punkBITCHazz mod now. Please do not address again, for any reason ---unless you are banning me for a violation you made up out of thin air.  LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Hence the need to limit the number of links as a compromise. Make it about quality and not quantity. Anybody with the simplest ability to do google searches can find hundreds of op-ed pieces that align with their views. 

 

if the debate derails then, should the limit stay the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...