Debating Style

[The Ghost of Bondo]

One thing, in the year (approximately) that Bucc has been posting here, I've not once seen him do anything but be critical of my points.  He may agree on something minor (like saying he agrees that peacekeeping troops should be sent to Iraq prior to a war as long as Saddam lets them in) but on all general issues he has done nothing but attack my points.  Now I admit to being extremely liberal, there is no moderate part of me.  If Bucc is truly the slightly liberal leaning moderate that he claims, I find it quite impossible that he disagrees with me on every issue.  I've never found it necessary to pick out any flaw in the argument and attack it, I find it much more fulfilling and better for general debate when I post my own opinions in reply to others posting their own opinions.  I don't worry about the possibility and in fact the absolute assuredness that they have some logical flaw in their argument...we all do, yes, including you Bucc.  I just don't find attacking those flaws as conductive to debate, I actually find them to counteract healthy debate.  This is what the issue Loud is talking about, it is not about your specific method not being reasonable for challenging arguments in an acedemic sense...but for a casual debate, it is unneccesary and counter-productive.

On another note, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, who to Bucc's credit, we agree is an idiot.  But while listening to him call everyone opposed to the war wrong and picking apart the various arguments, taken out of context, to show it.  I realized that Bucc and Rush have the same exact arrogant, unproductive mannerisms.

[Mr. Lothario]

     I'm gonna try to bust out some mediation here. There may be explosions and flame, so please stand back.

     Bondo and Loudnotes: I see where Bucc is coming from. He and I have discussed this same matter outside of the board. Bucc wants a certain rigor, so that the debate is not clouded by opinion being passed off as fact. I sympathize with that desire, and I think that it is a good standard to attempt to hold a debate to. If facts are accurate and opinions are demarcated as such, the topic under discussion can be discussed more easily, because there's no need to weed out truth from fiction (or opinion), and thus, facts and the conclusions drawn from them, and opinions and the conclusions drawn from them, can be discussed in a straightforward manner.

     As I've said, I like that idea. I attempt to hold myself to that standard, taking a few extra moments of care when I post to make sure that my facts are correct and my opinions are separate in the post. Bucc wants everyone to hold themselves to that standard, which is not unreasonable in and of itself, but it is unreasonable to expect it to happen. Bucc picks on Bondo above all because Bondo argues in so many debates. Someone who posts once or twice in one debate, then drops off the radar, would not incur Bucc's wrath. But Bondo is always in the thick of debates, and Bondo does not worry about making rigorous arguments, so that there is a large amount of effort that must be expended to try to keep incorrect or misapplied facts, and opinions stated as facts, from knocking the debate off-course. I agree, it would be nice if Bondo was a wee bit more careful. Loud, I guess he's just after you because you rub him the wrong way. I really don't know. One last thing: if Bucc considered you both to be wastes of flesh, retarded idiots not worth his time, etc., he would not bother deconstructing your arguments. Agreed, that's rather a backhanded way of showing respect, but Bucc is a stubborn guy. : D By way of example, note how Bucc responds to Rapid's posts: he doesn't.

     Bucc: You're being an asshole. As stated above, I sympathize and agree with your desire for more careful posting, but rather than outline what you want, or give a calm argument as to why Bondo's posts don't live up to the standard you desire, you set in very early on with a highly confrontational style against Bondo's posts, and often against Bondo himself (ad hominem, anyone?). I quite understand your frustration, but being a dick about it not only serves no purpose, it actually works against you in terms of arriving at the end that you want. The deconstructing-the-argument style of replying is incredibly useful in some circumstances, but in the general case Loud is correct: it only serves to slow the debate when you post four replies of word-by-word analysis. Yeah, correct gross errors and fallacies, use quotes to serve as reminders, but there's usually no purpose served by the level of nitpicking that is your wont. If a post is just one big collection of errors (which has happened here), that's one thing, but you jump on pretty much every word of people's posts. It doesn't help the debate.

     Everyone else: Move along, move along, nothing to see here...  

[jn.loudnotes]

At the risk of immediately making your argument unpalatable to the general public, I'll agree with that Loth.  Well said.  That pretty much covers both sides of the issue.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I agree with it generally except for one thing.  Bucc's reasoning for why an point is wrong is just as opinion-based as the argument he is breaking apart.  Also, these are not heavily fact based arguments.  We don't have most of the information that would go into a decision.  Also, just as statistics can be used to support different arguments, so can facts.  Just because he disagrees with my interpretation doesn't mean my interpretation is incorrect and his correct.

[AK_Rap1d]

Loudnotes, Bucc has been a problem since he got here.  He didn't join these forums to share thoughts, he joined to have somebody to talk to and debate with, since he doesn't have real life friends!  I have managed to prove him wrong plenty of times.  From his attacks at Jam Master Jay and his choice of music and my choice of music, to much, much more that I don't care to sit here and waste my time explaining.  While I once started a thread like this, it simply got deleted by the "Forum Inner Circle" that protects the image of their friends, and help attack whoever their aim is at.  Bucc has a superiority complex that pushes him to be such an ass.  If all he did was speak his mind in peace, he would not be being questioned right now.  In fact, I can predict him trying to state that he feels he's peaceful and probably noble.  The guy is a pathetic excuse of a sore loser, that seeks any ways to try and feel above his "targets".  If he needs to insult you in these forums to feel better, you can count on Bucc to do that x10.  If your website/clan insults his under accomplishments, you can count on him to try and attack that, like he did to |?K| in his |MP| site.  Ever since I got here, we been under fire, because we simply look better with our logo, and play better.  Once he figured out he couldn't take us out with his weak skill, he "gave up" RS and "moved on" to GhR.  We can own him anyday at GhR as well, but we love RS too much to waste precious time camping around big maps.  Maybe I'm giving a bit cocky information, but it's the truth.   If we were indeed noobs that couldn't play the game, like half of the clans on GR, he would not be focusing on us.  Since we are the direct threat of being the better clan, we get attacked by this sore loser.  The worst excuse for a gamer that I have ever seen.  Keep it up loudnotes, and you'll probably end up in one of his silly websites spreading hate towards you and maybe even your clan

PS: If you'd like any info posted on his new dedication website, pls email it to me.  He's sat around putting people down too long.  Time for a dose of his own medicine Time to build him the page he wants and deserves.  A community fuck up, that can't stop the nonsense.  Time to hit him with his own bs.

[Jeb]

"pissing contest" is not a debating style rapid

[|MP|Buccaneer]

When I ignore things you say, it's because of the sheer volume of them.  I'll do this once - I'll quote everything you just said that I would have interpreted differently.  I don't have the resources - time or intelligence - to do this all the time.  

You should understand, you don't have to change your style to address my points or questions.  You can use whatever style fits you.  You don't need to quote me, it's up to you how you do it.  The two don't have to be linked.

I don't care how you respond.  I simply state that ignoring some of the points and questions is poor form.  Like math, do you ignore some numbers and only put others in your equations?

You were the one who suggested my age played a role in my arguments.  If you think it does, it's your prerogative not to respect my opinions - but don't tell me I'm wrong because I'm younger than you.

I ask you to find where I've ever told you you were wrong just because of your age.  I know what got you on that bend, and it was me telling you to "grow up".  And, as I've tried to explain, that has nothing to do with your age.  You seem to take criticism of your arguments as a direct and personal attack all too often.  And what I said was you needed to grow up about that.  I don't care if you are 15 or 50.  That's still my opinion on that matter.

Another point I made was that someone your age and education is arrogant as hell to tell someone my age, with a formal degree that was heavy in debate, that I don't do it well, and that my style wasn't valid (which was Bondo's argument).  Well, all my formal training says it is.  And, isn't it presumptuous and arrogant of you to call my style invalid?

There aren't flaws in every sentence Bucc.  A few of them, perhaps even most, do not stand well on their own, but I have argued that they are perfectly sound within the context of a whole argument.  

Yes, you have argued, but not successfully.  All you do is repeat that.  Not explain how or why.

And what I'm telling you is I don't agree.  In logic, it sure as hell doesn't work that way.  You can't build a valid argument on false premises.  So, I've asked this before, explain how that works.  Bondo's analogy about a house doesn't stand up (pun intended).  You can't build anything on a shaky foundation.

Yes they are there, and visible.? However, since you only present your ideas in criticism of anothers', it provokes a response to the criticism, not to the idea.? Which is a clever way to avoid being called on your own ideas, am I wrong?

Problem with that theory Loudnotes is that I keep calling attention to my own ideas.  I keep asking for people to respond to them.  Those are not the actions of someone trying to avoid being called out on them, is it?

But just let me know if something needs changing.  Have I not given you a decent reason for why you might try a different style?  I'm trying yours - give mine a shot.

Here comes the presumption again.  What in the world, after I've told you that my college education was heavy in it, makes you think I haven't tried your style?  I don't like it.  You can use it, go right ahead.  I don't like it myself.

And no, I don't agree that you have given me decent reasons for changing it.  You complain that it's too hard for you to respond to, but I'm telling you I don't agree.  You don't have to respond in like.  You really don't.  If you don't believe me, look it up.  

You have to separate two things.  One, how many points I make, and Two, my style.  If my posts are so encompassing that you can't respond to every point, that is not because of my technique.  That is a different issue.  So please think about that and explain your problem more clearly.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Why shouldn't I include others?  We're all in the same boat. . .others have complained too.  

However, I'm not saying my method is any better than yours, only that yours isn't working for this community.  At least not for me, Bondo, and tasty.  That's why I wanted some more opinion in this thread.

The problem I have with you speaking for others is, there are two of you that are vocalizing the problem, and you are acting as if it's a problem to the whole community.  You and Bondo don't make up the whole community, do you?  My style seems to work for others.  And don't include Tasty in your threesome, because the way I read his post is he doesn't think I should be censored, and he sure doesn't seem to have a problem picking out my points and debating them with me.  Other's in the community don't seem to have the problem either.

So, saying your constant implications that the whole community has a problem with it seems, premature, to say that least, no?

That would be an example of a personal attack.  Have I ever said anything remotely close to that?  What I'm saying is that sometimes I am forced to ignore half the things you say, which is frustrating when parts of them attack me directly.  But I would really rather not.  I never had anything against debating with or against you.

What you seem to overlook Loud is yes, you've had many posts that attack me.  From your snide comments about why a 30 year old cares to debate here, to you coming into threads where your only comments are about my style, not the topic at all.  

So, I'm more direct and honest in my attacks.  If I think someone is being an asshole, I come right out and say it.  

You seem to think if you do it indirectly, it doesn't count.  Or do you still think you haven't attacked me either?  And please don't say you have but differently, because that doesn't really matter, does it?  You attack your way, I attack mine.  Just believe that your way can be as bad as mine to the beholder.

Not arrogant Bucc, just incapable.  Part of that has to do with not having time to respond to all this.  

Again, style or number of points.  They are two very different things.

I'm on spring break right now, so I've got a chance to try out your quotation style.  It's very effective I'm sure - but it takes forever.

Not for me, but that's me.  Like I've repeated.  I don't expect you to follow this technique, unless it fits you.  You can respond to my points any way you wish, your technique isn't as important as the quality of your argument.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You know I am a moderator here and I don't particularly care to read through that crap.  So deal with it.

Normally I would have just ignored this.  Instead, I get to write a paragraph about how you took me out of context.  

Actually, the context was there.  I didn't take it out of context at all.  You may be using that phrase incorrectly.  Context isn't your ideas, or how you meant it.  It's how it was said/written.  In the same area you made that quoted statement, you talked about more then profanity, didn't you?  You talked about attacking someone.  Well, you attack me, or is it still too bad that your judgment is the only one that counts?  

Now, add to this that I questioned it.  Flat out.  That's also not taking something out of context, is it?

I merely said that since I have some responsibility over this message board, whatever that's worth, that it shouldn't be filled with profanity and personal attacks.

Look above, that sure is hell isn't what you "merely said".  Not by a long shot.

I showed you an example of one, and you haven't denied it.  So, we shouldn't have to read any more of that on this board, not I or anyone else.  Bondo should of course live up to the same standards.  

And tell me, where are these standards?  Where are the rules?  Where does it say that profanity is allowed in this case, but not another?  Where does it say that direct attacks are not allowed, but sarcastic ones are?  Tell me, oh wise one, because you do it too.

Nope, I've shown you several places here you misinterpreted me.  

And if I have, it's just as much your fault as mine.  Communication is by two people, for two people, etc etc.  Your writing could be just as much at fault, couldn't it?  In the case of your moderation, it sure as hell was.  If you MEAN you are going to be a more active moderator, and start editing/deleting personal attacks, from everyone, you should SAY that.  Not tell me "too bad" and "deal with it".  You should be able to understand the difference in the two messages you are sending, no?

But on top of that, I flat out don't agree with you on some things, and have asked for you to explain them, not just repeat them.  All you've done is repeat.  Even repeating it in a different style doesn't change it.

A Buccaneer posting in response to a Buccaneer posting.  What's next, an 8-page response to this 4-page one?  It can't keep building up forever.

Nope, seems my reply is only 3 pages.  So much for another theory of yours.

And I've repeated myself quite a few times about you have to be more clear about style versus amount of content.  Is it I have too many points to respond to, or my style?  And if both, you still need to separate them out to talk about them, they are, after all, separate issues.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, you say not responding to every question/point is poor form.  The point is, when you type as much as you are, it isn't reasonable to reply to every question point.  Loud has stated this many times, most of us don't have as much free time as you to be typing.

Anyway Bucc, the reason we can't reply to your style in our own is you provide no general point to reply to.  You just provide tidbits.  The only real way to reply to those tidbits without being seen as ignoring things is to provide tidbit responses.  You can say we are free to post in our own style, but you certainly won't excuse it for not doing what your style does.

[abe]

Wow, somewhat of a retarded thread, dont you think.....?
Bondo: You tend to ignore the main arguements i make and simply pick at one, usually marginal and irrelevant, point and ignore most of what i post. If i make the effort to write a 3 paragraph reply i want you to at least acknowledge all the points i make. You whine about bucc taking your arguements down point-by-point....well at least he does it thouroghly. You just pick out one little scrap and ignore the rest. And yes, looking at each "wall of the house" and proving they are shaky, can prove that the whole has is shit. Other times you have simply stop replying to me, which means that youre either agreeing with me or backing out. I can think of at least 2 threads that have ended like this...
Bucc: Sometimes a two paragraph reply can be just as effective as a three page dissertation.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Bucc and Bondo and Myself...

If we yell at each other and get in each others faces then the debating is pointless. Debates are to pull people onto your side, Or thats how I see it. And if I am yelling at Bucc thats hes wrong hes an idiot what is he thinking then even if I write the finest point ever Buccc wont listen. You have to use empathy, acknowledge each others GOOD points and then say "But the only problem with that" or something along those lines. Because if someone is arguing and gets in my face I am not going to all of a sudden agree with them. If you could just stay calm and realize we all have different visions on a world then more would be accomplished. I think that Bondo does usually answer main points of posts but Bucc if you would like all of your post answered perhaps simple questions with like indentations at each point or slashes would be helpful because I for one wouldnt drool over it time and again scanning for questions. Plus we all miss questions sometimes. Look I have my views and other people have thiers but in a short period of time I have realized that an attitude while arguing works backwardsly....I forgot that word so forgive me....Its like when my "uncle" asked for ice in spain and instead of trying to signal it just kept saying it louder and louder, thats not going to do anything. Just use calm and alternative means to get your point across and THAT is the best way to debate, in my opinion at least.


P.S. cursing does not amplifies your point, it just amplifies the need for an expanded vocabulary

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Abe, I don't think it is my or anyone's obligation to reply to every point of every post.  I'll reply to the points I have something specific to talk about.  The thing I won't do is take the point out of the context of the whole argument, hence why I don't quote in most cases.  You say I don't reply to all your points, I say, sure I don't, nor should I have to for any reason.  Now if only Bucc would feel less obligation to do so.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

    I'm gonna try to bust out some mediation here. There may be explosions and flame, so please stand back.

Ah, that's where it's from.  And I was thinking the Papa John's you ate last night was responsible for it.  

By way of example, note how Bucc responds to Rapid's posts: he doesn't.

I try not to, since it's usually beneath contempt.  But, it's hard to turn the other cheek sometimes, especially when dealing with such a complete flaming cocksucker as Rapid.

Bucc: You're being an asshole.

Sometimes.  I'm no saint, and I admit it openly.  But, I'm also not the only one, especially in this case.

you set in very early on with a highly confrontational style against Bondo's posts, and often against Bondo himself (ad hominem, anyone?). I quite understand your frustration, but being a dick about it not only serves no purpose,

It may not serve a purpose, you are right.  But, I am responding to his posts towards me as well.  Take note that Bondo starts the name calling, and making things personal most of the time, from my point of view.  And while it would be good to stay above it, I don't.  I admit that.   When I feel that Bondo has been slighting me, or attacking me, I attack right back.  When I feel Bondo has been making sound arguments, even ones I don't agree with, I respond in like and kind.  I'm not claiming to be better, you see.

Yeah, correct gross errors and fallacies, use quotes to serve as reminders, but there's usually no purpose served by the level of nitpicking that is your wont.

One thing that is being exagerated and overlooked here is that it's not a word by word analysis.  Like in the case of this post, Loth, I'm using it as much as a reminder, as anything else.  If I were to respond to your points, after this much time had passed, I'd have to paraphrase what you said that I'm responding to to make it clear.  So, I think lumping it in is nitpicking is a bit extreme.

Couple more things.  The point about Bondo mixing opinion and fact being the core issue isn't quite true.  Yes, Bondo's habit of basing opinions on lots of other opinions he's passing off as fact is quite irksome.  But, that's not the part that bugs me so much.  What makes me go after Bondo is his hypocracy, where he attacks, but damns others, where he insults, but blasts others for it.  That's usually the trigger that sets off.  That, and lets not forget how much he's insulted me and my friends.

As for why Loudnotes, simple.  Loudnotes has chosen to target my style.  He's come into four or five threads now, not commenting on the thread topic itself, but just bitching about my style.  Now he's followed Bondo down the ultimate post, making it just about a member (which didn't work out well for Bondo when he did it about me or Ace the first two times).  Why?  If it's him doing his moderator job, it's a piss poor job of it, because he's brining the threads off topic, among other things.  Loud claims he hates the personal attacks, while doing them himself.  Sure, he's indirect about them, but he still does.  That disgusts me.  Be open and honest about them.  Don't lie about it, even to yourself.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc's reasoning for why an point is wrong is just as opinion-based as the argument he is breaking apart.  

Not only don't I agree on that as a whole, I'd repeat what Loth said.  We are careful to make it clear which is which.  You, Bondo, try to pass off opinion as fact all too often.  And I've used quoting in the past to show you where.  If you want examples, I'll be glad to go pull some.

Also, these are not heavily fact based arguments.  We don't have most of the information that would go into a decision.  Also, just as statistics can be used to support different arguments, so can facts.

What do you mean we don't have most of the information?  In the abortion thread, what information don't we have?  In the gun control thread, what information are we lacking?  

And, yes, statistics can be used incorrectly.  It's done all the time.  Go back to the great gun control thread.  You used the fact that there are less homicides per capita in most European countries to show that huge gun restrictions worked.  Problem is, you ignore the whole scientific method in that, along with lots of other facts.  Which was using statistics wrong.  Then, when I bring up the stats about states in the USA with "liberal" CCW policies having much lower homicide rates, or the three university studies on it, you dismiss them out of hand.  Because it doesn't support your conclusion.  

You see Bondo, you sure seem to form your conclusion, then look for evidence to back it.  Like you were righting an english paper.  Problem is, Logic is math and science, not an english paper.  In a debate, you don't get credit for just finding a source that agrees with your position, you have to find both sides of the argument before you ever walk in.  But you honestly seem to judge your work like you would a highschool paper.  Here's my thesis, here's it's support, now, you can't knock it, because it's all there.  Well, if that's the case, save it for english class.

Just because he disagrees with my interpretation doesn't mean my interpretation is incorrect and his correct.

You are right, it's not just because I disagree with it.  Which is why I always support my arguments with more then just "you are wrong", or dismissal.   Which, is why I write like I do.

Bucc, you say not responding to every question/point is poor form.  The point is, when you type as much as you are, it isn't reasonable to reply to every question point.  Loud has stated this many times, most of us don't have as much free time as you to be typing.

A) Yes, I do say it's poor form and disrespectful (as bad as insulting in my opinion).  Notice that you don't disagree with that here.

B) I call bullshit on that second statement.  How many posts do you have in the past two weeks Bondo?  You sure as hell demonstrate that you have the time, or you wouldn't have the post counts that you do, would you?  You may not have the inclination, but implying that you don't have the time is just utter bullshit.  Quit with the bullshit already.

The only real way to reply to those tidbits without being seen as ignoring things is to provide tidbit responses.  You can say we are free to post in our own style, but you certainly won't excuse it for not doing what your style does.

Again, bullshit.  That's your opinion with nothing to back it.  Abe, Tasty, Loth, Cookie have all disagreed with me in the past, and all addressed the points, none of them adopting my style.  

So, what are you basing your opinions on here Bondo?  The fact that YOU can't manage it?

One more note about the amount, notice I'm replying to TWO posts of Bondo, something I often do in one of my responses.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The thing I won't do is take the point out of the context of the whole argument, hence why I don't quote in most cases.  

Bondo, point by point doesn't mean out of context.  Get off that already.  I've asked repeatedly what I'm pulling out of context, and you don't respond to it.  That does nothing but leave me to believe that you can't.  (and why would it make me think anything else).

Quoting the whole thing actually helps to prevent you from taking things out of context, doesn't it?

Sorry if most of your points can't manage to stand on their own, but that's not anyones fault but yours.  Isn't it?  Hell, look how many times I've actually asked you for more context around something, because you just don't supply enough for clear meaning (think abortion thread and how many times I asked you to define an age and WHY).

You say I don't reply to all your points, I say, sure I don't, nor should I have to for any reason.  Now if only Bucc would feel less obligation to do so.

Way to still disagree without any meat behind it Bondo.  You expect me to feel less obligation to do so when all you've done is say "no, I don't agree".  Take that bullshit and sell it, I'm sure it's great for greening up some lawns.  But don't pass it off as reason.  I've given you reasons why you should, you dismissed them again (didn't even address them).  All you've said is NO.  there's no reason, or logic or even explanation.  Just your answer.  Which is so typical of your arguments.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc: Sometimes a two paragraph reply can be just as effective as a three page dissertation.

I agree.

[jn.loudnotes]

Bucc, volume and quality are not the same thing.  

You did not respond to every single point I just made, nor did I expect you to.  But don't criticize neglect of points if you can't cover every one of them yourself.  I don't really see how your arguments are any different from mine in that you repeat yourself as well.  And yes, you've stressed that you have collegiate training in debate.  That's great - and maybe I can even pick up a thing or two from you.  But realize that this isn't a college debating class.  Unless you're just saying things to inform us, debate in a way that encourages response.  And if people whom you previously had no problem debating with, such as myself, recognize some sort of rift in the debates because of your style, and tell you, why are you so defensive?  I'm not saying my way is "better" or even that you're wrong.  Nor have I called you an asshole, or been arrogant other than to say that you could try things differently.  I still don't see why you've refused.

I brought up being a moderator because I don't think you need to call people assholes or tell them to fuck off when they disagree with you.  That's not unreasonable by any standards.  I've tried to be as impersonal about this as possible - this was never about me until you attacked me personally, and directly.  If you consider it an insult, snide and low, whenever I suggest something you do is wrong, how can you accuse me of arrogance?

However, what you haven't done, although you accuse me of the same, is provide a rationale of why it would hurt you to cut back on the quoting - at least avoiding these 3+ post answers to everything.  Of course you don't have to.  But it seems as though the community as a whole would benefit from it.  Again, I speak for the community because I noticed a problem, one that was initially wholly impersonal to me.  It is you that have turned this into a pointless battle of wills.

Furthermore, as I've stated before, I started this thread with the intention that the community itself should make some comment as opposed to our repeating ourselves, or restating ourselves, if you will, for each other constantly.  Now, Mr. Lothario has made some steps toward mediation.  Would it pain you to consider what he's said?  Have I not shown myself to be open to compromise?

{edit - post made while I was replying}
I was already debating in those threads, which were drawn off topic, as you say, but if you make attacks in those threads, I'll respond to them.  And Buccaneer, there's a huge difference between calling someone an asshole and "snidely" saying that they're wrong.  Or saying that their postings are arrogant.  I still have nothing against you as a human being, just your postings.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

B) I call bullshit on that second statement.  How many posts do you have in the past two weeks Bondo?  You sure as hell demonstrate that you have the time, or you wouldn't have the post counts that you do, would you?  You may not have the inclination, but implying that you don't have the time is just utter bullshit.  Quit with the bullshit already.

You are wrong, not all posts are alike.  I don't use an extended method like you so each of my posts takes a minute or two, not thirty.  So my less than 10 posts a day comprises at most an hour of my time.

And Bucc, I love how you say I've dismissed all your reasons for posting about every point, but you ignore that you dismiss all my reasons out of hand.  I say there are time limitations and you spout that it is bullshit.  Well guess what, you don't know my time schedule so you are pulling that out of your ass.  I say that this being a casual debate, not a forensics competition, that I have no duty to reply to all issues, but only the ones I want to, you say that I need to.

You just don't seem to understand....this is a FORUM, not a debate competition or acedemic papers.  You should stop treating it as more than it is.

Also, I maintain, when you say something is wrong with my argument, it is almost always a case in which your subjective view takes something one way and you act as if that is solid proof.  This is especially true when you say I'm a hypocrite for supporting anti-war protesters but not those that boycott the French.  I've stated many times now clearly why I have those views and it is not at all a contradiction.   But you ignore my reasons and make your own reasons for why I think a certain way.  You don't have all the knowldege, you don't know how I mean things so you can't say how I mean things.  I do know how I mean things, so I can say.  And no, we don't have all the information about abortion or guns, when talking about abortion, both pro-life and pro-choice are reasonable sides, but you act like there is a "truth" about things that are purely subjective.

Here is what you should do, argue WHAT an argument says, not HOW it is said.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You did not respond to every single point I just made, nor did I expect you to.

Let me know what I missed.

And yes, you've stressed that you have collegiate training in debate.  That's great - and maybe I can even pick up a thing or two from you.

I've stressed it in response to a couple people here (you and Bondo) making claims such as "it's not a valid style", and "I know just as much about it as you." (one of my past favorites from Bondo, because after I named the sources of my style, he never responded).

I've pointed it out to give example of your own arrogance, and said that many times.  You've not addressed that point, but circled around it, like you don't understand it.  You've called me arrogant many times, I've used this as a prime example of your arrogance and presumption.  Am I wrong?

I'm not saying my way is "better" or even that you're wrong.  Nor have I called you an asshole, or been arrogant other than to say that you could try things differently.  I still don't see why you've refused.

Damn, you are blind then Loud.  You have implied I was wrong often.  Need I go back and show you where?  You have been arrogant about it, as I've pointed out many times.  You haven't refuted any of those either, you just keep denying it.  

It's not that you have complained about my style that pisses me off.  It's that you demand it be changed.  How many times have I said if you don't like it, don't respond at all?  Drop it and leave it be?  But you don't.  You come into other threads, and you make new ones, all about it.  I've told you that you are welcome to your opinion, but I'm not changing anything, because you've given me nothing that outweighs what I've said, but you keep attacking my style, don't you?  So, under that light, why do you think I would be defending?  I can't believe you are so blind to your own style as to not see it, but it's either that or you ignore the fact you are doing it.

I brought up being a moderator because I don't think you need to call people assholes or tell them to fuck off when they disagree with you.  That's not unreasonable by any standards.  

I told you to fuck off, because you were demanding that I change my style.  Not bringing up politely any problems you had, but rudely, over and over.  And, reasonable or not, as I have said, you need to define what's acceptable and not, ahead of time, and apply it all around.  Bet I can go back and count how many times Bondo has called me names and insulted me, and it will be close to equal.  Wanna bet?  So if you are going to act as a moderator, get out of the argument, and moderate across the board.  Don't moderate against the side you don't agree with.  For that is exactly the way it came across.

You once accused me of shouting someone down here.  But that's really what you have been doing with me of late.  Every thread I've been in of late, you come in banging your drum of not liking the way I post.  Not talking about the topic as much as you talk about me.  I've answered you, more then once.  Not only do you not accept my answers, but you continue with your constant drone about not liking my style.