Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Vector]

Ah, now we are getting into my field.

Rhetoric (i.e., the arguments that one supplies in oratory or public argument, such as this "debate") generally operates via three chief devices of persuasion.

1. Ethos, or the "name" of the person involved.  The President has high ethos.  Aqizzar has high ethos in this forum.  This basically means that you've got a good reputation as a trustable sort of dude.  Interestingly enough, Aristotle says (see, I'm dropping the name of someone important, to give my argument ethos) that this is the most important factor in your argumentation.

Being/acting 12 years old confers negative ethos in most places.

2. Pathos, or emotional manipulation.  I'm not feeling anything, possibly because you don't seem to be trying to play on my emotions at all.

3. Logos, or logic.  See, this is your chance to shine!  It's just kind of hard to see you persuading anyone when it's clear that your sources are loads of crock.  Not all evidence is created equal.

[Heliman]

Amazing what you Liberals think, isn't it!

Ad Hominem.

[Bauglir]

Right, and we don't agree with you, have provided sources more authoritative than your own (the laws, as opposed to articles written about the laws, which were, mind, exactly what you asked for), and based counterarguments on them. Your insistence that we're still wrong without any additional evidence amounts to the equivalent of "Nuh-uh!" as far as actual debates are concerned, and it comes off as childish.

Make no mistake, there are 12-year-olds who could win a debate with me. Especially over the internet, I'm not going to do a good job of associating a user with an age; I keep forgetting, for instance, how many users of this forum are in high school or just recently left. I'm not going to name names, but the collective maturity of this board often leads me to expect people in their mid-20s, and it's been proven often that age is not requisite for maturity.

But please, consider it a compliment when we act as if your age might be a cause of your immaturity (which was perceived long before your actual age, in my case, and I'd guess several others). Your age will change - the implication is that you are not inherently immature, and can improve yourself.

Neither do we think you're immature simply because you disagree, but it would be fair to say that we only think you're immature because your disagreement provided an opportunity to display immaturity by a refusal to argue, and a decision to fight instead. I know it's a trolly move to say I respect every opponent except one, but so far in this thread, I have been basically fine with the maturity of everyone else that I've argued with, and I don't even remember the ages of most people here except for one or two.

[Leafsnail]

Amazing what you Liberals think, isn't it!

Ad Hominem.

I don't think it is, actually.  Ad hominem is when you find a genuine flaw in your debating opponent and use that to say that therefore their ideas must be incorrect.  This is just trolling.

[Eagle_eye]

well, in any case, he's clearly run out of arguments, and is resorting to personal insults.

[DeathsDisciple]

Must I say again, I gave you evidence, it may be wrong, you disagree,your right. How is that immature?

[Eagle_eye]

because, insisting that your "evidence" is correct when it itself has no evidence backing it up is immature. One of the universally recognized features of maturity is the ability to recognize and admit when you are wrong. Now, so that we can get some actual interesting discussions going, I propose we simply ignore anything that is trolling/unbacked.

[Heliman]

Amazing what you Liberals think, isn't it!

Ad Hominem.

I don't think it is, actually.  Ad hominem is when you find a genuine flaw in your debating opponent and use that to say that therefore their ideas must be incorrect.  This is just trolling.

It's a subtype, known as a "Circumstantial Ad Hominem," or an attack on the bias of the opponent.

[Aqizzar]

Must I say again, I gave you evidence, it may be wrong, you disagree,your right. How is that immature?

By continuing to insist that your argument is correct, even after you have (finally) acknowledged that your "evidence" was bunk.  When your argument is proven wrong, you admit you were wrong.

[Bauglir]

well, in any case, he's clearly run out of arguments, and is resorting to personal insults.

Well, let's not do the same. Only prove him right in his mind, really.

Must I say again, I gave you evidence, it may be wrong, you disagree,your right. How is that immature?

Well, no, it's not a right. We're arguing about facts here - what is or is not legal. You don't have a right to your own opinion here, because it's not about opinions. It's about facts, and you aren't entitled to your own facts. It's immature to confuse the two - extremely so, in fact, to the point that I consider it one of the hallmarks of general "immature" thinking. You can argue that it's wrong. You can argue that it should be repealed! Those are subjective judgments, and cannot be "proven" wrong, as long as you're willing to accept some necessary implications.

You gave us evidence and asked for counterevidence. Fair enough! We provide that counterevidence, and ask for counterevidence. Fair enough! The process breaks down here, though, because you provide no more authoritative evidence, nor do you provide the evidence specifically asked for (which we provided for you, before you moved the goalposts so far that they don't even resemble your original government).

[Bohandas]

I lean towards some of the third party groups, but I vote for the Democrats (even though I don't particularly like them) because I consider it more important to vote against the Republicans than to vote for my top preference.

[DeathsDisciple]

To get my trolling and everyone elses to stop, I am very sorry. I have apparently lost the IRS Debate. Forgive me for my trolling.

[Eagle_eye]

I have to agree with you Bohandas. lesser of two evils. On the other hand, the two party system is largely enforced by people following that exact mentality, or at least so it seems to me.

[Heliman]

To get my trolling and everyone elses to stop, I am very sorry. I have apparently lost the IRS Debate. Forgive me for my trolling.

^
/debate


MOVING ON

What the hell is up with that global warming thing these days?

[Bohandas]

[Redacted Because DeathsDisciple conceded on IRS debate]