Ok; I'm not trying to launch a personal attack at you at all Michael, so don't worry, but I just have a question: How come, in your OP, you bring evidence from the web, yet when internet evidence is presented to oppose your claim you say,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1111
its the net...youll find evidence to support your side.
|
Your evidence was logically disputed and countered with evidence found in the exact same manner you found yours, with the addition of personal knowledge. It's only fair that you treat their evidence as they treated yours, i.e. coming up with a well-thought argument instead of just writing it off as irrelevant. I don't at all think that you're a stupid guy; this is not a flame. But making really strong statements and then brushing past any dispute is
not promoting Free-thought/speech, which you seem to hold sacred. In fact, it is the antithesis;
Definition of Freespeech:The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.
Suppressor: One that suppresses: a suppressor of free speech.
By blowing off a well-thought response you are leaning much more towards the second definition then the first.
I know you have ideas and thoughts about this subject; I know you can do better than:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael
you can debate that all you want, but i wont ever agree with you...im a humanist.
|
This implies that the people debating you are in fact not humanist-which essentially means someone who is concerned with the plight and well-being of humanity. However, in most of your 'opponent's' posts, they too gave the impression of concern with society's welfare; how is this not humanistic? How is it apathetic?
I'd like to know, since it's extremely easy to come up with an OP such as you did, but it's more tricky to actually defend it, which I have not really seen happen.
For instance, I could easily find a link like this one:
Bush Vs. Clinton (Bush Lies)
Or this:
Deficit
Or countless other sites that support Clinton over Bush; but so what?
Granted these don't relate to the murder issue per se, but this is just what came up right on the top of the google list. It wouldn't be hard to spend two more seconds coming up with different sites that directly counter yours.
If I don't come up with any supporting statements for these links, they mean nothing in a reasonable and logical debate. Debate means to logically dispute an issue; to argue a point formally, etc... I've seen you support "DEBATE" over and over, yet you aren't actually living up to the very ideal you speak so highly of.
Yes, both parties have blood on their hands.
Yes, thousands have died in both administrations; I'm not disputing that claim at all.
But 'Debate' is not what you are doing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1111
Really? and what right does a woman really have when our jobs are killing the planet and voting really doesnt matter? who gives a shit? its all just good cop/bad cop. republicans may be looking pretty shitty right now, but back in the 80s they were giving most of america a great big boner. rights? laughable...its all smoke and mirrors. if you need to be given rights, you dont have any. they are all the same.
|
Rhetoric, propaganda, etc. Lack of factual claims; plethora of emotional appeals, no appeal to logic/rationale.
No?