Which tactics win a debate and attract more supporters?

[native]

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

No pup. You have been emotional and dishonest with yourself about several points. I did not challenge this particular point because I dont want to agitate you any further. With a handful of magnificent exceptions, your responses have not been substantive.

I have already conceded that I failed to change your mind about whatever the original point was.

Peace.

[youngterrier]

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

No pup. You have been emotional and dishonest with yourself about several points. I did not challenge this particular point because I dont want to agitate you any further. With a handful of magnificent exceptions, your responses have not been substantive.

Peace.

Thats the opinion only you share, Ive gotten props for substanitive arguments through pms. its apparent that your the only one who hasnt acknowledged facts as you've done time after time. seriously your the ONLY poster to say i lacked substance and you've lacked to cite examples of how my posts have lacked substance. I feel sorry for you man, you know Im right but dont want to acknowledge it so you keep telling yourself that i dont have substance when there are plenty examples of the contrary

[native]

No pup. You have been emotional and dishonest with yourself about several points. I did not challenge this particular point because I dont want to agitate you any further. With a handful of magnificent exceptions, your responses have not been substantive.

Peace.

Thats the opinion only you share, Ive gotten props for substanitive arguments through pms. its apparent that your the only one who hasnt acknowledged facts as you've done time after time. seriously your the ONLY poster to say i lacked substance and you've lacked to cite examples of how my posts have lacked substance. I feel sorry for you man, you know Im right but dont want to acknowledge it so you keep telling yourself that i dont have substance when there are plenty examples of the contrary

There are lots of things you are right about, YT, and you deserve credit for standing your ground. Although the way you framed your poll is not one of them, in part because it mimics the elements of Beck's style that you purport to abhor, you do deserve credit for a clever and entertaining thread!

Congratulations for your props! I did not engage you on this forum to beat you in a debate or win a popularity contest. I engaged you to challenge you to see the connections between the dangerous socialist elements of the current American political situation and the potential for horrible consequences in both the near term and the long term. You do not see the chipping away of your personal liberties as a slippery slope toward more horrible loss of liberties and economic failure. I do see it that way, and I predict you will see it that way at some point in the future. However, I readily concede that I have not persuaded you to my point of view.

Beck is very outspoken, makes some mistakes, and is unpopular among the majority correspondents of this blog site, so it is easy to generate sympathy for your anti-Beck point of view. This is not remarkable. What I do find disappointing is only that you have failed to examine Beck's ideas more thoroughly, and for that I blame myself fo pushing you too hard. I apologize.

Peace. Really. Don't worry, I will engage you on substance again.

[youngterrier]

Natty, the only emotion Im feeling is amusement because when i first came on this board i was described a poster who gets straight to the point but now when i debate you supposedly I lack substance. only when i debate you. i think thats you getting so emotional you cant interpret facts and lacks substance as no examples of my lack of substance have been identified whereas you watched a clip where beck implied a state representative working for our enemies and you said imade it up but that fact was right in front of you.

[native]

Natty, the only emotion Im feeling is amusement because when i first came on this board i was described a poster who gets straight to the point but now when i debate you supposedly I lack substance. only when i debate you. i think thats you getting so emotional you cant interpret facts and lacks substance as no examples of my lack of substance have been identified whereas you watched a clip where beck implied a state representative working for our enemies and you said imade it up but that fact was right in front of you.

YT, I already corrected myself when the part of the transcript I missed was posted. Would you like me to do so again?

[youngterrier]

Thats the opinion only you share, Ive gotten props for substanitive arguments through pms. its apparent that your the only one who hasnt acknowledged facts as you've done time after time. seriously your the ONLY poster to say i lacked substance and you've lacked to cite examples of how my posts have lacked substance. I feel sorry for you man, you know Im right but dont want to acknowledge it so you keep telling yourself that i dont have substance when there are plenty examples of the contrary

There are lots of things you are right about, YT. The way you framed your poll is not one of them. You do deserve credit for a clever an entertaining thread.!

Congratulations for your props! I did not engage you on this forum to beat you in a debate or win a popularity contest. I engaged you to challenge you to see the connections between the dangerous socialist elements of the current American political situation and the potential for horrible consequences in both the near term and the long term. You do not see the chipping away of your personal liberties as a slippery slope toward more horrible loss of liberties and economic failure. I do see it that way, and I predict you will see it that way at some point in the future. However, I readily concede that I have not persuaded you to my point of view.

Beck is very outspoken, makes some mistakes, and is unpopular among the majority correspondents of this blog site, so it is easy to generate sympathy for your anti-Beck point of view. This is not remarkable. What I do find disappointing is only that you have failed to examine Beck's ideas more thoroughly, and for that I blame myself fo pushing you too hard. I apologize.

Peace. Really. Don't worry, I will engage you on substance again.

I do see them as a slippery slope, im just saying when you compare people at the top of the slope to the evil ones who were at the bottom less swing-voters if you will. will join your side because the misrepresntation of others goals. thats why i dont like beck, he says progressives want to control every aspect of peoples lives when that is not true

good people hate us because we compare them to fascists

[youngterrier]

Natty, the only emotion Im feeling is amusement because when i first came on this board i was described a poster who gets straight to the point but now when i debate you supposedly I lack substance. only when i debate you. i think thats you getting so emotional you cant interpret facts and lacks substance as no examples of my lack of substance have been identified whereas you watched a clip where beck implied a state representative working for our enemies and you said imade it up but that fact was right in front of you.

YT, I already corrected myself when the part of the transcript I missed was posted. Would you like me to do so again?

That post was started before your last post

[native]

There are lots of things you are right about, YT. The way you framed your poll is not one of them. You do deserve credit for a clever an entertaining thread.!

Congratulations for your props! I did not engage you on this forum to beat you in a debate or win a popularity contest. I engaged you to challenge you to see the connections between the dangerous socialist elements of the current American political situation and the potential for horrible consequences in both the near term and the long term. You do not see the chipping away of your personal liberties as a slippery slope toward more horrible loss of liberties and economic failure. I do see it that way, and I predict you will see it that way at some point in the future. However, I readily concede that I have not persuaded you to my point of view.

Beck is very outspoken, makes some mistakes, and is unpopular among the majority correspondents of this blog site, so it is easy to generate sympathy for your anti-Beck point of view. This is not remarkable. What I do find disappointing is only that you have failed to examine Beck's ideas more thoroughly, and for that I blame myself fo pushing you too hard. I apologize.

Peace. Really. Don't worry, I will engage you on substance again.

I do see them as a slippery slope, im just saying when you compare people at the top of the slope to the evil ones who were at the bottom less swing-voters if you will. will join your side because the misrepresntation of others goals. thats why i dont like beck, he says progressives want to control every aspect of peoples lives when that is not true

good people hate us because we compare them to fascists

I understand your point! There are plenty of posters whose opinions do not count much with me, but yours is not one of them, YT.

If you DO see the slippery slope, then hell, it appears that we both "won!"

[travelinman67]

...progressives want to control every aspect of peoples lives when that is not true

YT, you are wrong. I have EXTENSIVE experience dealing with "progressive" government agencies, in particular EPA, DLR, EEOC and HUD. Their onerous, invasive policies and practices inject governmental control into the daily lives of those they infect. The Progressives playbook is clear:

1) Create a "crisis" or "causor" to justify intervention.
2) Persuade their victim they will be "better off" living under the progressive's proposed plan.
3) Compel said victim to enter into a legally binding agreement (or consent decree), using threat of financial depletion/asset confiscation (cost to litigate/property seizure) as the normal method of extorted settlement.
4) Once under thumb, manage acquired "asset" (converted victim) as a means of controlling others.

This is real.

Read.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/19/261792 ... roved.html

Note that the EEOC attorney imposed operational conditions upon the business, so onerous, no investor was willing to purchase them (the Chico stores), and hence, they will close and 200 people will lose their jobs. And, BTW, note that the article, published in one of our Nation's most liberal daily papers, utilized the attorney's self-assessment as "the final word".

You are still very young. Once you too become a victim of Big Goverment, you will understand.

[youngterrier]

...progressives want to control every aspect of peoples lives when that is not true

YT, you are wrong. I have EXTENSIVE experience dealing with "progressive" government agencies, in particular EPA, DLR, EEOC and HUD. Their onerous, invasive policies and practices inject governmental control into the daily lives of those they infect. The Progressives playbook is clear:

1) Create a "crisis" or "causor" to justify intervention.
2) Persuade their victim they will be "better off" living under the progressive's proposed plan.
3) Compel said victim to enter into a legally binding agreement (or consent decree), using threat of financial depletion/asset confiscation (cost to litigate/property seizure) as the normal method of extorted settlement.
4) Once under thumb, manage acquired "asset" (converted victim) as a means of controlling others.

This is real.

Read.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/19/261792 ... roved.html

Note that the EEOC attorney imposed operational conditions upon the business, so onerous, no investor was willing to purchase them (the Chico stores), and hence, they will close and 200 people will lose their jobs. And, BTW, note that the article, published in one of our Nation's most liberal daily papers, utilized the attorney's self-assessment as "the final word".

You are still very young. Once you too become a victim of Big Goverment, you will understand.

I didn't really read the article, but just because one does wish to be manipulative doesn't mean that the other millions of progressives do

ps: I am a victim of Big government, I'll be paying off you guys' debt

[native]

YT, you are wrong. I have EXTENSIVE experience dealing with "progressive" government agencies, in particular EPA, DLR, EEOC and HUD. Their onerous, invasive policies and practices inject governmental control into the daily lives of those they infect. The Progressives playbook is clear:

1) Create a "crisis" or "causor" to justify intervention.
2) Persuade their victim they will be "better off" living under the progressive's proposed plan.
3) Compel said victim to enter into a legally binding agreement (or consent decree), using threat of financial depletion/asset confiscation (cost to litigate/property seizure) as the normal method of extorted settlement.
4) Once under thumb, manage acquired "asset" (converted victim) as a means of controlling others.

This is real.

Read.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/19/261792 ... roved.html

Note that the EEOC attorney imposed operational conditions upon the business, so onerous, no investor was willing to purchase them (the Chico stores), and hence, they will close and 200 people will lose their jobs. And, BTW, note that the article, published in one of our Nation's most liberal daily papers, utilized the attorney's self-assessment as "the final word".

You are still very young. Once you too become a victim of Big Goverment, you will understand.

I didn't really read the article, but just because one does wish to be manipulative doesn't mean that the other millions of progressives do

ps: I am a victim of Big government, I'll be paying off you guys' debt

DAMM RIGHT you are a victim of big government, and I am very pissed off that we am leaving so much debt to you and my own kids. Thus I have very little patience wth progressives/ resdistributionists/ socialists/ communists and am perhaps overly aggressive sometimes, as you rightly suggest.

[BlueHen86]

I always thought that typing in all CAPS was the best way to win a debate. Also good is to always have the last word.

I never considered the two options that were listed here.

[youngterrier]

I always thought that typing in all CAPS was the best way to win a debate. Also good is to always have the last word.

I never considered the two options that were listed here.

Bill O'Reily would agree

[travelinman67]

While it's not fair to say "all" progressives wish to control "all" aspects of everyone's lives, by definition, a Progressive seeks change, therefore changing others is a primary goal.

Progressivism is nannyism: A patronizing belief in social engineering through behavior modification.

It is a "mindset" incorporated by the vast majority of the "progressive" Big Government agencies I mentioned.

And yes, the costs associated with defending against the invasive Progressivism, which has plagued Americal for the past 40 years, will be burdened on many generations.

[native]

While it's not fair to say "all" progressives wish to control "all" aspects of everyone's lives, by definition, a Progressive seeks change, therefore changing others is a primary goal.

Progressivism is nannyism: A patronizing belief in social engineering through behavior modification.

It is a "mindset" incorporated by the vast majority of the "progressive" Big Government agencies I mentioned.

And yes, the costs associated with defending against the invasive Progressivism, which has plagued Americal for the past 40 years, will be burdened on many generations.

T-man, let's start a new thread and let the Young Terrier have the triumphant last word on his own thread.

[youngterrier]

last word

[AZGrizFan]

last word

Not.

[youngterrier]

last word

Not.

so

[soul man]

While it's not fair to say "all" progressives wish to control "all" aspects of everyone's lives, by definition, a Progressive seeks change, therefore changing others is a primary goal.

Progressivism is nannyism: A patronizing belief in social engineering through behavior modification.

It is a "mindset" incorporated by the vast majority of the "progressive" Big Government agencies I mentioned.

And yes, the costs associated with defending against the invasive Progressivism, which has plagued Americal for the past 40 years, will be burdened on many generations.

T-man, let's start a new thread and let the Young Terrier have the trimphant last word on his own thread.

that's a very classy move!

[youngterrier]

I have the last word