Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I might just check it out. If it’s any good, I would consider that… a win/win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, but it requires a login account to access. And that is merely a single example. As I said earlier, I also know of a single example.
Tell me: is that place… better than here? I surely hope so!
Your glaring contradiction aside, what you appear to advocate isn’t so much a “debate” (implying win/lose or tie) as a dialectic (implying win/win or lose/lose), which would… be great! True dialectics are precious few though (sort of like good debates here, as I said earlier)…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
“Yet Type1 won that debate even after failing to convince you. How confusing! I take it, then, that your above framework is not exactly the case?”
i was referencing the second scenario"and it is possible for both sides to win (both sides learn something valuable)"
Ok, and that sounds good and all; I truly like the spirit of it… but I neglected to ask you this at the time:
How do you reconcile it with your claim (you even put it in bold!) which you have stated twice, AND which constituted your rebuttal to me:
persuading an audience is an entertaining metric, but it does tend to favor ad hominem attacksi try to relate debate skill to real-life one-on-one communicationif you fail to convince the person you disagree withyour argument has failed and you have lost the debate
Lastly, I was actually asking for an example of where an opponent was actually convinced, which I have contended all along constitutes a rarity, and you have been taking exception to it… with insufficient evidence thus far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
“So in conclusion, Type1 succeeded in convincing you that science IS objective?”
not exactly
Well, you started off by making this claim… exactly:
the only way to win a debateis to CONVINCE your opponent
Which you even reiterated in a post to me:
if you fail to convince the person you disagree withyour argument has failed and you have lost the debate
Yet Type1 won that debate even after failing to convince you. How confusing! I take it, then, that your above framework is not exactly the case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because there exists a law where you do not have to be charged for an underlying crime to be found guilty.6th Amendment strictly prohibits this.
Looks like plenty of grounds for appeal. This, from a WSJ column:
All nine justices in Schad, then, believed unanimity is required to convict when the means by which a crime can be committed are so broad that the accused doesn’t receive fair notice of the basis of the charge. New York’s election law requires that the violation occur “by unlawful means,” so any “unlawful” act—including, in Scalia’s example, either robbery of failure to file a tax return—can qualify. That’s clearly overbroad. Thus, Judge Merchan’s instruction that the jury “need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were” was unconstitutional.
So, either the underlying crimes required unanimity among the jurors, OR the defense was entitled to prior full disclosure of what those underlying crimes were in order to mount a defense. Neither occurred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So in conclusion, Type1 succeeded in convincing you that science IS objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
well, it's easy for both sides to lose (both sides remain unconvinced)and it is possible for both sides to win (both sides learn something valuable)
Ah, I see. Well, I have seen far, far more (around 99+%) of the former than the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
How many times have you successfully convinced your interlocutor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, as long as one refuses to be convinced, one can always win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the only way to win a debateis to CONVINCE your opponent
I’ve actually only witnessed that once, and it was over a pretty obscure and esoteric subject. More realistically, I think the best metric for winning is who persuaded the bigger percentage of the audience. Intelligence Squared uses this standard, and I think it’s great.
Meanwhile, here at debateart.com, I see people winning most often via forfeit or finding and exploiting a semantic loophole. Or sometimes a judge brings his own argument into play and claims the loser failed to address that issue which never came up in the actual debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, the similarities between Jesus and Trump are uncanny:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The extra votes take a lot of time to manifest— usually via US born children of immigrants. What happens more quickly is greater representation in congress according to population size.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it is an objective fact that the 14th amendment makes executive branch nullification completely illegal
Could you lay out that argument, please? I don’t believe it is known as “nullification” but rather “prosecutorial discretion.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The executive branch is responsible for the enforcement of our nation’s laws… or non enforcement as the case may be… sometimes even finding creative ways around them (usually via emergency powers).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Squatter’s rights!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If Trump goes to jail, he could be like Mandela!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I am courious as to what the GOP consistently stands for.
Sorry, but you do not show curiosity about this subject at all. With that, I have your decision. I will leave you with this dandy article:
“What Is Intellectual Curiosity? Definition and Importance”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Changing America is not exclusively a left wing thing.
I didn’t say it was. You need to stop translating everything I say into binary absolutes.
These are synonyms. If I ask you to what is a woman (to you, it’s chromosomes), then it would be the same thing as asking for a definition of a woman.
Wow— we cannot even agree on this! If you wish only to distill political party membership to precise, inviolable definitions, then I’m out. If you are willing to be more reasonable and more intellectually curious, then I am still in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Democrats have their things that they are proud of America for.
Sure, it’s just that the current trend is for Democrats to emphasize areas of shame as opposed to pride. People on the left tend to like America most for how they are able to change it.
I wouldn't say closed off; I would say more that if that's your definition, then it's not a good one.
Hmm… well, your apparent contradiction from one sentence to the next not withstanding, I never claimed it is a definition. You are the only individual I have seen attempting to shoehorn political party memberships into mathematically precise boxes— any exception (whether real or, more likely in your case, imagined) disproves the claim! It’s bizarre. Anyway, your thread title is “What is a Republican?” not “Define a Republican.” So, I gave a generalization of how a typical, contemporary Republican differs from a typical, contemporary Democrat. I have more, too, when you are ready.
Created:
For a laugh, read the New York Times’s supposedly searching account of the Justice Department’s decision to pursue Mr. Trump for Jan. 6 crimes. After failing to find the expected financial or other ties between the Trump circle and Jan. 6 rioters, “the department’s leadership had no alternative but to steer the investigation into choppy, uncharted waters: They shifted focus to election fraud.”
Notice the words “had no alternative.” Actually the department had an alternative, which any agency has when an investigation doesn’t pan out: End the investigation.
“Trump’s Conviction and Biden’s Worst Decision” - WSJ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Like what?
Exactly. Non Republicans have a hard time coming up with examples of things to be proud of.
Edit: I even made a reference to this pride in America in post 4. You seem very closed off to the answers I provide to your questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No hard feelings after almost 200 years, I guess…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A number of US citizens emigrated to Canada to help England in the Battle of Britain. They were known as the Eagle Squadron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
JFK said, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” I don’t see those sorts of things as a renunciation of loyalty to the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well, I guess the ethos I have observed in the GOP as it currently stands is: “Despite its flaws currently and historically, there is much to be proud of in America.”
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
We have a few posters who value quantity over quality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Neither do I.
Then I’m not sure what your excuse is for imagining what by all appearances is a nonsense, weed induced hypothetical. Produce actual, real life people’s views to demonstrate how my pithy comparison is completely off base. Or we can merely agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sorry, I don’t smoke pot. I deal in what actually exists as opposed to weed induced hypotheticals such as yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
As long as you demand a fair trial prior to the execution, then justice is served.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
They didn’t mention a trial in the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sure, Professor Non Sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
They claim to believe in the US legal system, but they want to skip past the indictment, trial, verdict and go straight to the death penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As if he has any cookies to give away, nobody has any cookies in communism.
Probably not, but they do offer a delightful cracker:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No concession on my part has been offered or is necessary as I was never arguing that it was morally justified in the first place. That was YOU putting words in MY mouth.
This would be my argument on the subject of moral justification in territorial disputes:
P1: Moral justification in territorial disputes is irrelevant if no nation is completely morally justified historically being situated where it is currently.
P2: No nation is completely morally justified historically being situated where it is currently.
C: Moral justification in territorial disputes is irrelevant.
It’s really just Savant’s post 13 in syllogistic form. Note that no one even attempted to answer his question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So my posts have been relevant to the thread topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
When I discussed something other than moral justification, you said it was irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is about the historical territorial dispute between the Native American populations and European settlers. In effect, you are saying that moral justification is the only relevant aspect of this topic.
I ask again (only expecting a Whopper, really): how is this so?
I ask again (only expecting a Whopper, really): how is this so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
In your post 57, you claimed (without real basis actually) that moral justification is the only relevant aspect of territory disputes. How is this so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You claimed the relevance of moral justification when it comes to seizing or holding territory. How is moral justification relevant to the efficacy of holding or acquiring territories historically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Please explain how territory is defended purely via moral justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think the allies won WWII because they were morally justified?
*crickets*
Your concession by silence to the inefficacy of moral justification is noted. If you are ever carjacked— or bicycle or tricycle jacked as the case may be— you will no doubt be shouting “Hey, this is theft! You are NOT morally justified in doing this!!” Yes, you will no longer have your ride, but you will have the deep satisfaction of knowing that the thief was clearly not morally justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Oh, you get to define the topic now? How convenient for you, not even being the OP and all. At BK, you can have it your way!
Do you think the allies won WWII because they were morally justified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yet you insist that you aren’t twisting my words. That is the laughable bit. I never, anywhere used the words “morally justified.” That’s your twist.
As you refuse to get it, I will spell it out for you: I am describing the world as it IS in reality, not as you, me, nor anyone WISHES it were. Do you see the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
How do you propose to debunk that? Snarkiness does not a refutation make…
Created: