 |
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Bezerker = Ethelred. |
He's a split personality then! Wow!
The whole style of writing seems different comparing the two. For example, B seems to be able to spell and use grammer and I dont recall E using the word 'cogent' before (as B did a few posts back). B's arguments dont drift quite the same way either.
Maybe you meant they have the same debating style?
Last edited by SpencerH on 28-04-2003 at 21:51
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
MRT - quote:
i lose by not playing the game. right? |
You admitted you don't debate because losing will only boost my ego (btw, it won't). So why assume you'll lose?
Spiffor - quote:
To put it simply : don't consider debates to be battles where there has to be a winner and a loser. |
Yeah, you're in the crowd here who only seeks enlightenment. 
quote:
This is the kind of misconception that makes a debate with you a pain. |
The purpose of debate is to convince others to adopt your viewpoints, learning new ideas is secondary. When schools have organised debates, the goal is to win, not lose or become "enlightened". And since you've admitted not debating me in the past and judging me based on this thread, a thread designed for a flame war, your comments are not based on an adequate source.
quote:
Besides, I am amazed you argue so much the same way as my friend. Are you sure you're not him ? (and yes, my friend is a real person, not some rethorical trick I used to speak about you indirectly) |
Did I say he was fictional? Since you don't debate me, how do you know if I've ever admitted being wrong on a point? How do you know if GP or Agathon or others have admitted being wrong in a debate? You see, I have admitted being wrong. Will you now admit you were wrong? Hmm...
Agathon - quote:
Once again, you prove yourself inept. My point is that a decent conception of coercion isn't available to libertarians because any reasonable conception will introduce consequences they won't like. |
What consequences? Do you understand that an assertion should be followed by proof?
quote:
I gave up in the last argument after spending page after page trying to get a straight answer from you on just what the Libertarian conception of coercion is. |
BS, I gave you the definition of coercion from the dictionary and you ignored it because you want to debate with definitions you get to make up.
quote:
 |
I guess you don't.
quote:
Nope - you are a liar. I've never debated lotteries with you or anyone else. |
Hey Spiffor, what commentary do you have for someone who thinks being wrong = lying? Hell, I didn't even accuse Imran of lying when he falsely claimed I called him a leftist...once in this thread and once in the Santorum thread. In the libertarian debate where you claimed "prisoner's dilemmas" showed libertarianism is contradictory (an assertion you never did prove inspite of 2 lengthy threads, you know, the debate from which I got my sig), I said the only moral method for funding government was thru voluntary means and user fees. I said that included lotteries and repeatedly pointed out the connection between lotteries and the American Revolution. You kept ignoring that argument and focused on donations, so technically, since you kept dodging my argument, you never debated it. But then that's what you did so much of the time, I guess we didn't really debate the "prisoner's dilemmas" you claimed would prove libertarianism contradictory because you kept throwing them out and abandoning them after my rebuttals.
quote:
Give me a break. I'll concede nothing on that one. |
HEY SPIFFOR! We need your commentary.
quote:
The fact of that is that Ming and Rah spent about three pages accusing me of having a view I never had. In a nutshell they accused me of being against differential treatment for any reason, when I only objected to it for racist reasons. Now you are just trying to suck up to the mods. |
I didn't even mention the mods, you did. They were just 2 out of maybe a dozen people arguing against your proposition. As for "differential treatment", racism wasn't even the issue, it was about women not being allowed at Augusta. You kept trying to introduce racism and others kept reminding you it was about women. You argued against Augusta's policy because of "sexism" while dismissing the non-sexist arguments offered in support of banning women as insufficient grounds. But you also argued in favor of all women clubs because "men are pigs", a sexist argument. When we said women on average are slow golfers, you said that only justifies banning slow golfers, not women. But you supported banning men because "men are pigs" even though that too is a generalisation. Your position was inconsistent, of course, that's what's consistent about you. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
MRT -
You admitted you don't debate because losing will only boost my ego (btw, it won't). So why assume you'll lose?
|
because i dont have the will to engage in a long debate with you. and youll never admit if you are wrong. thats why. its like arguing with a brick wall, and im not saying youre dense, no, youre actually very bright, but the way you conduct yourself is aggrivating because youre stubborn, and what you will do is just take quotes out of context and argue the merits of single comments rather than the whole arguement put together.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-04-2003 14:53
ACK!
|