Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 05 Mar 2024, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:51 pm

Will you be responsible to answer questions?

https://media.tenor.com/zOaIo-zuGMUAAAA ... ing-it.gif
 
 
 

jerrab » 05 Mar 2024, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:53 pm

what do you  want to debate about?

Anything.  I'll even take the other side.

ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:35 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:35 pm

I don't even care if I am banned at this point.  My gut is busting right now!

I know me personally, I am 9-0 with you...wait. Those numbers are familiar. 9-0...9-0....huh. I could have sworn those numbers were familiar. 

Something about Trump....a state....


 

FOS » 05 Mar 2024, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:54 pm

Ad hominem 

Aj is in fact too stupid

Oh, the irony.    
 

RedheadedStranger » 05 Mar 2024, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:51 pm

That particular subforum is the place for serious debate.

This one isn't.

I guess that would confuse an idiot like you.

I just looked over there.  It says, "Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: ActionJackson and 0 guests"

     

ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:56 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:56 pm

Oh, the irony.  

Not ironic at all. You claim you can beat anyone in a debate and my counter argument is that you are too stupid to even form any kind of argument, fallacious or not. That is certainly relevant to your claim, so it is not any sort of fallacy. And you yourself provide the evidence for it...I just point to it.

Vegas » 05 Mar 2024, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:55 pm

I know me personally, 

That's profound.
 

FOS » 05 Mar 2024, 3:59 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:59 pm

Not ironic at all. You claim you can beat anyone in a debate and my counter argument is that you are too stupid to even form any kind of argument, fallacious or not. That is certainly relevant to your claim, so it is not any sort of fallacy. And you yourself provide the evidence for it...I just point to it.

, Britney did it again.    

ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:59 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:59 pm

That's profound.

Veghead can't read past 4 words. Yep, this is definitely Rico.     

ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:55 pm

Anything.  I'll even take the other side.

should biden be the dem candidate? I say no.
-----
btw did you get back on fb?  I am still off.

ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:03 pm

Bring it.

https://media.tenor.com/zOaIo-zuGMUAAAA ... ing-it.gif

 
 
 
 

If a ultraliberals protest in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does he / she / it still make a sound? "

jerrab » 05 Mar 2024, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 4:00 pm

should biden be the dem candidate? I say no.
-----
btw did you get back on fb?  I am still off.

No, I haven't checked back.

So who would your candidate be?

MackTheFingerJR » 05 Mar 2024, 4:02 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 4:02 pm

If a ultraliberals protest in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does he / she / it still make a sound? "

Hmm, interesting.

ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:07 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:07 pm

So far I'm 2-0.

If you think two people rejecting your offer is a "win," go ahead and make that 3-0.

If you have the chops for a serious debate, I will sticky a thread and make it peanut gallery to keep out the peanut gallery. But we need to agree to some ground rules. My lines in the sand are that both must answer questions, and that both must eschew Gish Gallops.This means no sources that are wing nut.

For science, journals of peer review only, and they must have a print version - not just some thrown together online advocacy site masquerading as peer-review. In fact, the journals of peer review have to be older than the internet (pre-2000, let's say) or they do not count. Some advocacy site's CLAIM of what a peer reviewed abstract says is not sourcing. The peer reviewed abstract is sourcing - and the advocacy site will link to that unless it is just throwing chaff. 

For statistics, the source must be the source. For example, the source for an appeal based on statistics from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics must BE the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. This means some agenda group's argument which is PUTATIVELY based on the BOL cannot be sourced to back a position - we have to do our own work using the raw statistics the agenda source used. This way, you KNOW that the math works, rather than TRUSTING that the math works. 

So: No ducking questions and no **** sources. Any rules YOU care to add to your challenge? Or are you blowing smoke?
 

Vegas » 05 Mar 2024, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:55 pm

I know me personally, I am 9-0 with you...wait. Those numbers are familiar. 9-0...9-0....huh. I could have sworn those numbers were familiar. 

Something about Trump....a state....

did you know that trump made jerusalem  the capitol of israel and that really pissed off the people in palestine?

ActionJackson » 05 Mar 2024, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:03 pm

Bring it.

https://media.tenor.com/zOaIo-zuGMUAAAA ... ing-it.gif

Transgenderism is a mental illness.....and was classified as a mental illness until mentally ill  progressives came to power .....



 

Okay, lemme help out you slack jaws.  

I was given a label of "child groomer" in my profile.  I made a thread asking the power tripping mod--or anyone--to find any evidence to support this claim.  So far, nothing.  

Your task is to find that evidence.  I will be back later to have more larphs.  

Good luck!
 

jerrab » 05 Mar 2024, 4:03 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 4:03 pm

did you know that trump made jerusalem  the capitol of israel and that really pissed off the people in palestine?

No. That's wrong. He has no business doing that.  Another example of America sticking out heads where they don't belong. 

FOS » 05 Mar 2024, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 3:54 pm

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that is committed when you say something like 'x is false because you are a bad person'. Aj couldn't even manage that much...he didn't even say that any claim was false. He is in fact too stupid to even make a logical fallacy.

You're right, but its implied. AJ in his OP challenged "anyone" to a debate.  In response, GB stated a concise and debatable premise.  AJ took the GB's bait and (inartfully) attacked the GB with an ad hominim attack.  But, more than that, AJ failed to make any other point whatsoever to discredit GB's premise.  Therefore, GB did win the debate.  He was right to declare himself the winner.

I agree, AJ is too stupid to debate.  But, GB is not. GB accepted the challenge and stated a topic/premise for debate. AJ was set up, and got checkmated on his very first move (which is impossible in chess).  I have to call it the way I see it.