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

[Agathon]

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

I always manage to offend him when I don't mean to. I feel quite bad about it because I really don't mean to.

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. But he's a pretty decent guy otherwise (except that he likes Microsoft ).

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who gets bored with Berz' endless cut and paste strategy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MRT144
i remember being the first one to blow the whistle on the idiocy of berzerkers debate style. like spiffor said, he just debates to be right, not to enlighten his own perspective. spiffor, eloquently just rephrased what i have said all along.

See there's another one.

[Jon Miller]

I love Berzerkers posts because they are so long

it gives me an excuse not to read them

even though sometimes I do

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I find ramo to be a little twirly if you know what I mean

Jon miller

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Agathon


See there's another one.

dont you realize agathon, everyone who disagrees with him and his so called style in debates is wrong.

so basicly i think he believes that he is the only right person and the world and anyone who questions that and the methods he uses to enforce that idea is wrong.

you could say hes a despot of debating without the means to decapitate the opposition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He once called me a leftist

[Zevico]

I dislike argueing with people who have their facts wrong. They are the worst to argue against.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Berzerker:

Gladly. Remember the wine thread?

Congrats!

Agathon -

Once again you don't know what you're talking about. The only thing they can object to given their principles is the removal of choice. If you start admitting more, they can be mired in inconsistencies.

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?

And it doesn't matter as I pointed out to you.

Someone can say, "Give me all your money, or I'll ask that other guy to beat you up" and he hasn't done anything wrong by Libertarian standards.

That's still coercion. Do I need to provide you with the definition of "coerce" again?

Hell, even some forms of blackmail are OK to Libs, which just shows what a silly philosophy it 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.

And it's a badge of honour to be in your sig saying something that is true. Tolerance is the central value of liberalism, so it's weird that you take some perverse pleasure in quoting it.

Orange's comments provide a very nice contrast to your claim about liberals believing in tolerance.

Bull. I don't ever remember debating lotteries with you. We debated about your ill understood Libertarianism and that's about it.

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.

I remember someone else giving him a beating on that one.

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.

See there's another one.

MRT admitted entering that thread just to troll, so go right ahead and accept him on your side. The boy doesn't debate, so he should be right at home on your side.

MRT -

i remember being the first one to blow the whistle on the idiocy of berzerkers debate style.

You admitted trolling in that thread, so don't flatter yourself. Not once did you offer any proof for your "analysis" because you weren't interested in debating.

like spiffor said, he just debates to be right, not to enlighten his own perspective. spiffor, eloquently just rephrased what i have said all along.

Spiffor admitted he based his opinions on this thread, a thread designed for throwing around insults, not debate.

dont you realize agathon, everyone who disagrees with him and his so called style in debates is wrong.

Really? It's only the people who copy and paste and then whine about me doing the same I find hypocritical, not wrong.

so basicly i think he believes that he is the only right person and the world and anyone who questions that and the methods he uses to enforce that idea is wrong.

People who agree with me are right too.

you could say hes a despot of debating without the means to decapitate the opposition.

It sure is safer to troll than stick your neck out, huh MRT.

Imran -

He once called me a leftist

Ahem, I said you were using a leftist argument/interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Then you expressed your support for much of the New Deal, hardly a right wing political agenda.

Aside from Spiffor, this thread sounds like a meeting of
would-be debaters who've been berzerked. The Apolyton Whiner's Club has had it's first group hug.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

Umm.. I think you mean me.

No need to drag poor GP into the discussion.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Berz:

Umm.. I think you mean me.

In reference to what?

No need to drag poor GP into the discussion.

He dragged me in, I wouldn't even be here if not for these paragons of consistency griping about me copying and pasting, etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

GP - quote:
Berzerker:

Gladly. Remember the wine thread?

That's my quote, and not GP. You wanted me to show that I do change my mind on some debates.

I don't know why you credit my quote to GP.
Tired?

[MRT144]

berzerker, im not here to debate you. as much as youd wet your knickers at a chance to do it, i wont indulge you, and just add fuel to your ego in winning meaningless internet debates that you take so much time and effort to try and win.

[Saras]

LaRusso. After discussing WW2 and whether "Eastern Europeans should than USSR", he said that Germans should have slaughtered our entire nation, or something like that.

It felt like stepping into dogsh!t and getting it all over you new shoes.

P.S. He didn't even get a PCR for this, which imho was deserved.

[Serb]

Big deal.
Floyd said once that he prefer the Germans destroyed the Soviet Union.
No PCR for him too, so what? It's not against the rules of this site, I guess.

[Berzerker]

MRT -

berzerker, im not here to debate you. as much as youd wet your knickers at a chance to do it, i wont indulge you, and just add fuel to your ego in winning meaningless internet debates that you take so much time and effort to try and win.

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?

Obiwan -

That's my quote, and not GP. You wanted me to show that I do change my mind on some debates.

I don't know why you credit my quote to GP.
Tired?

Yes, I'll edit my post to give credit where credit is due.