America's descent into authoritarianism, and it's titular head is a mad man

In fact by voting against Kackles Mckneepads we probably avoided authoritarianism.

 

Thanks for the photos of the Capitol police defending themselves and the congress inside the Capitol.

Trump on Jan 6:
"I know your pain. I know you're hurt [TRUE].
We had an election that was stolen from us [LIE].
It was a landslide election [LIE],
and everyone knows it [LIE],
especially the other side [LIE].
But you have to go home now [TRUE].
We have to have peace [TRUE].
We have to have law and order [TRUE].
We have to respect our great people in law and order [LIE].
We don't want anybody hurt [LIE].
It's a very tough period of time [TRUE].
There’s never been a time like this [TRUE],
where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us [LIE]
— from me, from you, from our country [LIE, LIE, LIE].
This was a fraudulent election [LIE],
but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace [TRUE - but only after 3 HOURS OF BEATING the police].
So go home. We love you [LIE].
You’re very special [TRUE].
You’ve seen what happens [TRUE].
You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil *[??????!!!].
I know how you feel [TRUE].
But go home and go home in peace. [TRUE]"

* WHO exactly are "so bad and so evil"? His mob? No, they were simply protesting. It can only mean the Capitol police who DARED TO RESIST THE WILL OF TRUMP, and the congress Dems & RINOs inside the Capitol. Trump enjoyed the battle for over three hours!

 

Not on this conversation, you haven't.

No it doesn't, quit making sh*t up.

Either you can substantiate your claims, or you cannot.

You're just making excuses.

The OP is well substantiated, either you can refute them, with substantiation of some kind (just don't use Gatewaypundit or Infowars), and I'll accept whatever you post. I may disagree with your source, same as you may disagree with mine, but that is what debating it all about. Debate, capiche?

All you are doing is offering excuses, AKA 'cop outs'

If you can't offer a valid counter argument, then my OP stands, unrefuted by you.

 

Substantiation means it is sourced.

If you disagree with the source, then explain why the source is wrong, countered with your source.

It's called debate.

shooting-the-messenger(or source) is not debating, it's offering cop outs, this is not moving the debate forward.

either you are willing to debate, or you are not.

Here's the thing:

Substantiation is better than a vacuous claim. Anyone can say anything and a vacuous claim is a weak argument.

substantiation doesn't mean it's proven correct, I'm not saying that, but it's a better argument than a vacuous claim.

The whole point is to move the debate forward, to debate.

There are four exceptions that I know of to the shoot-the-messenger fallacy:

On the right:
1. Gatewaypundit.
2. Infowars.
On the left:
3. The Wonkette
4. Occupy Democrats

Those messengers/sources you can shoot, they are wrong just about all of the time or the spin so egregious one shouldn't bother with them as a source.

I call these exceptions because their 'factual' rating is next to the bottom or the bottom on the MBFC rating chart.

All the rest,. vary from so-so (such as Huffpo, Cnn, NYPost, Breitbart) to very good (WSJ, The Hill, etc).

One source is better than a vacuous claim.

2 or three sources are better than one source, as, in journalism, it means the original source was fact checked. Secondary sources, wiith reputable sources, always verify that the original source has verified the story from three credible sources.

For example:

Say, CNN gets a story by X reporter. Y news source sees it being reported calls up the reporter, and asks her if she has confirmed her story with three credible sources, and may (or may not) tell the Y source who the confirmations came from. There are reputations at stake, so if X reporter, whose reputation is at stake, says 'I got three confirmations', Y source runs the story because he knows that X wouldn't have given him a bogus confirmation, for if she did, her name amongs journalists would be in the dog house.

So, 2 or more sources is much better than one, but no one is saying any story is gospel, you are free, still, to debate the story with your own counter arguments and counter sources.

so, if you disagree with the source, then offer your counter argument with a counter source.

As for sources that are editorials, it depends on the credibility of the author of the article, but, as always, they are not immune to being debated, as they are just another opinion. Data/hard factual documentation is always better than an opinion.

This is how we move the debate forward, which is the objective -- to debate

Now, if you are a cynic who believes no one is to be trusted, all news sources are fake, then there is no point in debating with you, just inform me of this and I will put you on ignore. Let me know. Thank you.

 

I won't be broken hearted if you new respond to another post from me. Your AI puffery and pretentiousness is not an inviting prospect. Once again for possible comprehension: YOU don't make the rules nor dictate the form or content of posts or threads.

Oh, and editors may be quasi-factual, including those that support their editorial's point. Selective sourcing is well known, and probably expected by the author's chain of command.

 

"Sources" are mostly opinion. Debating opinions is silly. After all, they are just opinions. I realize you think your opinions are fact but if there is an opposing opinion then it can't be fact. Facts are what they are. They immutable and not debatable. Opinions are just opinions. Stating opinions is fine. Asking for a debate isn't very useful.

 

No one is making rules, i'm merely indicating that I'm here to debate and offering my take on good debating.

If you are not into debating, just let me know.

 

No they aren't. some are, some aren't, some are confirmation of factual claims via hard data, testimonies, etc.

You are harping on a minor point of my comment.

Please address the other points given.

I would appreciate it, thank you.

Debate is the whole point. What other reason is there to be on a forum such as this?

SOmeone says something, someone disagrees, and counter argues. Isn't that the mainstay of this forum?

 

@Outsidethebox
Why are you trying exclude all that went on.... why just this clip?

 

Oh, baloney - you constantly comment on the form of a post and try to dictate the rules for interaction. I see no requirements in forum rules that formal rules of debate must be followed.

 

Facts are indisputable. If they aren't then they aren't facts. They are opinion. We only debate opinions. There is no point in debating facts. They are what they are.

Entertainment

If there is disagreement then the subject is opinion rather than fact. Yes opinions are worth debating. I debate them when I consider it important and entertaining.

 

I suppose you can substantiate those vacuous allegations?

Ahh, I didn't think so.

 

And you constantly comment on the quality of my posts (with false accusations) rather than debate the message. This is not debating, not by any reasonable standard. You do this all the time, which are, in essence, cop outs to avoid the harder work of actually debating the message.

In the meantime....

I cannot dictate, I can only indicate, learn the difference.

If you don't like it, don't respond.

 

If you do not consider a point given as 'unimportant', then don't comment. If you do comment, that is the same thing as saying you are willing to debate the point. Don't just interject a disagreement and assume everyone has to accept your comment as gospel, either be willing to argue your point, or, in my case, I'll just accept the fact that you cannot substantiate your assertion, and thus, whatever the original point was made, that one stands, unrefuted. I run into this very phenomenon all the time, on this forum -- someone makes a vacuous claim, they disagree, and refuse to engage. What's the point? I don't find that particularly entertaining, I find the debate entertaining.

AS to 'facts v opinions', note that EVERYTHING is subject to debate, even so-called 'facts' you claim are 'indisputable'.

You make a claim of fact, the onus is on you to state your case -- to convince the audience. Some facts are clear, others, less so, which is where debate is warranted.

No one is under any obligation to take your word for what a fact is, or isn't, what is 'indisputable' and what isn't.

You do have to engage in debate.

Of course it's 'entertainment', but 'debate' is entertainment, so it's really a meaningless point to raise. It's like, so?

 

I suggest YOU do that - you are far more judgmental and pompous on posting than I.

. why don't you show us all how to do that?

 

Well this was the post (not yours) that I was responding to:

So it kind of makes my point.

 

No, it absolutely does not make your point, which is WHY I asked you to substantiate it. I read the post to which you responded and there is nothing inherently incoherent, untrue, in @Lee Atwater 's comment.

 

Either you can substantively refute the argument presented, or you can't.

vacuous declarations are not substantive counter arguments.

Now, do you have a substantive counter argument to the OP, or not?

Any comment that doesn't rise above 'you are wrong', does not refute, on any level or degree, the OP.

 

Not your call

Once more I have to remind you, you have no authority or power to tell other posters what to do.

 

The Trump victory is making the crazies easy to identify.

 

"America's descent into authoritarianism, and it's titular head is a mad man"

I find this ironic coming from the side that thinks its perfectly OK to get people fired for speech that they disagree with.

 

I do things by my rules, not your rules. Sorry. Facts are indisputable. They are never debatable. The analysis of those facts is opinion and those analyses are debatable. Example. On Jan. 6 2021 there was a riot at the capitol. Indisputable. On Jan 6 there was an insurrection. That is opinion because the fact is that there was a riot and the opinion is that it was motivated by a desire to overthrow the government. That opinion has been debated to death. The fact is not disputed by anyone. Clear enough?

 

The reality is that America has been descending into wokeism and nobody knows who heads it. There hasn't been a whisper of authoritarianism. Nobody has taken control lawlessly and made personal pronouncements that went around the law and remained in force.

 

That is real fascism.

 

But the Berian approach to justice taken by whoever is actually running the Biden administration is assuredly a step in that direction.