Which Poly poster would you most regret getting in an argument with?

[Ben Kenobi]

Much obliged.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MRT -

Gee, you're such a defeatist the way you just assume you'd lose. You must have plenty of experience at losing. Is that why you troll instead?

i lose by not playing the game. right?

[TCO]

Berzerker, was it a self-parody? Yes or no.

[SpencerH]

Ethelred

He switches subjects slightly with each post so that the topic drifts further and further from the start point, almost NEVER reads your answers to his posts, and doesnt seem to understand concepts or metaphors.

You wanna talk about parsing!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
[blah blah blah - I won't answer this because it would only fuel the fruitless and painful experience I was referring to. Consider yourself a "winner" if it can stroke your ego]

Got any advice on how I can make a debate a pleasurable experience? Should I try to lose? Should I say your right even when I think you're wrong?

To put it simply : don't consider debates to be battles where there has to be a winner and a loser. This is the kind of misconception that makes a debate with you a pain.

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)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Ethelred

He switches subjects slightly with each post so that the topic drifts further and further from the start point, almost NEVER reads your answers to his posts, and doesnt seem to understand concepts or metaphors.

You wanna talk about parsing!

Bezerker = Ethelred.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Agathon -

Where in the libertarian philosophy have you found a right to mug people if the mugger doesn't follow up with the threat of violence? Since libertarianism depends on the meaning of freedom, then the meaning of freedom is paramount to determining the nature of rights. And since freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, how do you conclude libertarians accept a right to coerce others via threats of violence?

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. 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.

Do you have specific examples so I, as a lib, can speak for myself? According to that logic, you're guilty of having Stalin's views since you both claim(ed) to be communists.

Sure we did, you insisted lotteries were insufficient to fund government in our debate about the voluntary funding of government in the very same thread (GP's continuation of Speer's thread) we were debating your alleged proof - prisoner's dilemmas - that libertarianism is contradictory. I believe the title of the thread was "libertarian kvetchfest" or something like that.

Nope - you are a liar. I've never debated lotteries with you or anyone else.

Now that might have some validity since you have ample experience with taking beatings and certainly should know one when you see it, like your Augusta thread.

Give me a break. I'll concede nothing on that one. 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.

[SpencerH]

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?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Ethelred

He switches subjects slightly with each post so that the topic drifts further and further from the start point, almost NEVER reads your answers to his posts, and doesnt seem to understand concepts or metaphors.

That's not my impression of him, although his use of the "lawyer" style is very similar to Berzerker.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I have yet to agrue with anyone....but Tuberski is my antithesis, if that counts.

Just remember, UH and BYU will play again this year, the tables could turn.

But, if you hadn't put that "I hate BYU" thing in your sig, I wouldn't have ever brought it up.



ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by loinburger
I got in an argument with some guy on another forum about the merits of incorporating a Crisco machine with a Fisting machine, and he was a real pain to argue with. "What the hell are you talking about?" "You're ****ing insane!" "Where are you coming up with this ****?" What a broken record. Eventually I (or rather, my alter ego, Fisty McFecal) got banned, which ended the argument with me as the clear victor. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the poster, though.

Just based on this, I would never debate loinburger.

ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I can't stand debating with Asher sometimes, because he often resorts to versions of "can't you see that it is so." which annoys the hell out of me.

Sometimes I forget that there are people out there who often don't see things as they are, but how they want them to be.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Agathon

versions of "can't you see that it is so." which annoys the hell out of me.

That drives me crazy, and its sure to make me ignore any more posts.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Sometimes I forget that there are people out there who often don't see things as they are, but how they want them to be.

Yes I know.

[Berzerker]

MRT -

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 -

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.

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.

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 -

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?

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.

I guess you don't.

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.

Give me a break. I'll concede nothing on that one.

HEY SPIFFOR! We need your commentary.

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.