Which tactics win a debate and attract more supporters?

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:33 pm

the poll is self-explanatory

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:37 pm

Your bushit poll choices are clever!

I was not trying to convince anyone but you, YT, so I already lost, and I concede that I have not changed your mind.

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:39 pm

pictures of naked chicks.

Post by **Ursus A. Horribilis** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:40 pm

youngterrier wrote:the poll is self-explanatory

They are probably about equal. 1/2 the audience is gonna try and listen to reason and the other 1/2 is gonna buy into the bullshit. That goes for liberals, conservatives, whoever your audience is. I'm in the 1/2 that really prefers the "reasoned approach" to any debate because the other side of the debate is an intelligence insulting tactic.

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:49 pm

It is was good that you mentioned the "slippery slope" theory. Let's watch the economy over the next couple of years if Obamacare passes.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:49 pm

native wrote:Your poll choices are clever bullshit, but I was not trying to convince anyone but you, YT, so I already lost.

quit trying. I'm not going to call people names based on speculation or use the slippery slope theory as a cop out. I can explain why the other viewpoint is wrong, based on the outcomes of what they advocate, not based on the outcomes of what they advocate will lead to

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:53 pm

youngterrier wrote:
native wrote:Your poll choices are clever bullshit, but I was not trying to convince anyone but you, YT, so I already lost.
quit trying. I'm not going to call people names based on speculation or use the slippery slope theory as a cop out. I can explain why the other viewpoint is wrong, based on the outcomes of what they advocate, not based on the outcomes of what they advocate will lead to

I am not trying. It's a duty to call your bluff from time to time.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:55 pm

native wrote:
youngterrier wrote: quit trying. I'm not going to call people names based on speculation or use the slippery slope theory as a cop out. I can explain why the other viewpoint is wrong, based on the outcomes of what they advocate, not based on the outcomes of what they advocate will lead to
I am not trying. It's a duty to call your bluff from time to time.

like a Klingon I never bluff

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:56 pm

youngterrier wrote:
native wrote:
I am not trying. It's a duty to call your bluff from time to time.
like a Klingon I never bluff

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:05 pm

youngterrier wrote:
native wrote:Your poll choices are clever bullshit, but I was not trying to convince anyone but you, YT, so I already lost.
quit trying. I'm not going to call people names based on speculation or use the slippery slope theory as a cop out. I can explain why the other viewpoint is wrong, based on the outcomes of what they advocate, not based on the outcomes of what they advocate will lead to

The direct connection between forced reditribution of wealth and socialism/communism is not speculation or theory. Forced redistribution is forced redistribution. The Constitution was intended to protect property rights. It has failed to do so.

The measurable Social Security deficit for this year is $28 Billion. Unfunded liabilities are in the trillions. That is a real, measurable outcome, YT, not speculation.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:09 pm

native wrote:
youngterrier wrote: quit trying. I'm not going to call people names based on speculation or use the slippery slope theory as a cop out. I can explain why the other viewpoint is wrong, based on the outcomes of what they advocate, not based on the outcomes of what they advocate will lead to
The direct connection between forced reditribution of wealth and socialism/communism is not speculation or theory. Forced redistribution is forced redistribution. The Constitution was intended to protect property rights. It has failed to do so.

The measurable Social Security deficit for this year is $28 Billion. Unfunded liabilities are in the trillions. That is a real, measurable outcome, YT, not speculation.

the bold is the only thing needed in a debate, and I acknowledge it, however the other part isn't 100% confirmed yet (Europe has a massive welfare state, but they are not quite socialist yet and for all we know they might not)

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:11 pm

youngterrier wrote: ...quit trying. I'm not going to call people names based on speculation ...your constant defense of crazy people is sickening...

Quit lying. You already condemned millions of tea Party activists as "crazy people" based on speculation that some of them did something ugly.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:13 pm

native wrote:[quote="youngterrier] ...quit trying. I'm not going to call people names based on speculation ...

Quit lying. You already condemned millions of tea Party activists as "crazy people" based on speculation that some of them did something ugly.

youngterrier wrote:...your constant defense of crazy people is sickening...

[/quote]
I didn't condemn "millions of people" I condemn those who stoop to the level of slurs

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:14 pm

youngterrier wrote: I didn't condemn "millions of people" I condemn those who stoop to the level of slurs

Well then, you falsely accused me, because I did not defend the use of slurs.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:17 pm

native wrote:
youngterrier wrote: I didn't condemn "millions of people" I condemn those who stoop to the level of slurs
Well then, you falsely accused me, because I did not defend the use of slurs.

and you clarified that AFTER I said that

I did not improperly accuse you with your initial quote

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:19 pm

youngterrier wrote:
native wrote:
Well then, you falsely accused me, because I did not defend the use of slurs.
and you clarified that AFTER I said that

It only needed clarification because of the original false accusation. I DID NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF RACIAL SLURS.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:22 pm

native wrote:
youngterrier wrote: and you clarified that AFTER I said that
It only needed clarification because of the original false accusatiuon. I DID NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF RACIAL SLURS.

no one could tell with your initial post

and I don't think you do either after your following post but if you're going to say I improperly accused you I'm gonna

and throw the BS Flag

native · Post by **native** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:24 pm

youngterrier wrote:
native wrote:
It only needed clarification because of the original false accusatiuon. I DID NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF RACIAL SLURS.
no one could tell with your initial post and I don't think you do either after your following post but if you're going to say I improperly accused you I'm gonna and throw the BS Flag

Cute, but not accurate, YT.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:33 pm

How so? you wrote

It is not hatred to be pissed off when you pocket is being picked.

and I wrote

It is when you use the N word and the "Fag" word

your constant defense of crazy people is sickening

to where you said

Maybe someone said those things, and maybe they didn't. I didn't say them, and I do not support such language.

your initial post inferred that what was said by those people wasn't hateful to where I called BS and then you clarified

I don't see any inaccuracies but then again I (and others) saw and heard Glenn Beck infer a Representative of this country was working for the enemy while you said "I made that up"

Post by **travelinman67** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:34 am

youngterrier wrote:How so? you wrote
It is not hatred to be pissed off when you pocket is being picked.
and I wrote

It is when you use the N word and the "Fag" word

your constant defense of crazy people is sickening
to where you said
Maybe someone said those things, and maybe they didn't. I didn't say them, and I do not support such language.
your initial post inferred that what was said by those people wasn't hateful to where I called BS and then you clarified

I don't see any inaccuracies but then again I (and others) saw and heard Glenn Beck infer a Representative of this country was working for the enemy while you said "I made that up"

Holy crap!

You need to either take this to one of the same-sex relationship threads...

...or get a room.

native · Post by **native** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:23 am

travelinman67 wrote:
youngterrier wrote:How so? you wrote

and I wrote

to where you said

your initial post inferred that what was said by those people wasn't hateful to where I called BS and then you clarified

I don't see any inaccuracies but then again I (and others) saw and heard Glenn Beck infer a Representative of this country was working for the enemy while you said "I made that up"
Holy crap!

You need to either take this to one of the same-sex relationship threads...

...or get a room.

I hurt his feelings, t-man. YT is young and on a roll. Give the terrier his day.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:50 am

native wrote:
travelinman67 wrote:
Holy crap!

You need to either take this to one of the same-sex relationship threads...

...or get a room.

I hurt his feelings, t-man. YT is young and on a roll. Give the terrier his day.

No your feelings were hurt and you decided to rewrite history and i had to correct you

native · Post by **native** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:56 am

youngterrier wrote:
native wrote:
I hurt his feelings, t-man. YT is young and on a roll. Give the terrier his day.
No your feelings were hurt and you decided to rewrite history and i had to correct you

Have your day pup.

There is lots of history yet to discuss.

As you grow older you will get even better.

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:03 am

native wrote:
youngterrier wrote: No your feelings were hurt and you decided to rewrite history and i had to correct you
Have your day pup. There is lots of history yet to discuss. As you grow older you will get even better.

And you still have not acknowleged the point i put forward, but would rather ignore it and change the subject, hoping it goes away becuase you know i caught you in this one and am right. classic native

youngterrier · Post by **youngterrier** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:03 am

native wrote:
youngterrier wrote: No your feelings were hurt and you decided to rewrite history and i had to correct you
Have your day pup. There is lots of history yet to discuss. As you grow older you will get even better.

And you still have not acknowleged the point i put forward, but would rather ignore it and change the subject, hoping it goes away becuase you know i caught you in this one and am right. classic native

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums