See. You immediately assume that the right and left wing political parties in another country equate exactly to American ideologies.lowing wrote:
No not really, just replace liberal with labor in all of my posts and the problem will be solved.
Poll
A real time debate ...
| Like it | 72% | 72% - 39 | ||||
| Hate it | 27% | 27% - 15 | ||||
| Total: 54 | ||||||
I dunno, I was just following suit.jord wrote:
Why
Are
We
Yelling?
Ok well then lets find out.TheAussieReaper wrote:
See. You immediately assume that the right and left wing political parties in another country equate exactly to American ideologies.lowing wrote:
No not really, just replace liberal with labor in all of my posts and the problem will be solved.
Does you labor party support taxing the rich ot death to pay for everyone elses social issues? Does your labor party support govt. controlled everything for its citizens?
I tried to get members over in http://www.convinceme.net/ . I think we had like four try it..lol.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I prefer my debates in slow internet motion. If there were willing candidates it would be quite interesting however.
I've always thought we should do something more competitive on the forums. I would be all for an "arena" style debate, I think it would be quite amusing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No and no.lowing wrote:
Does you labor party support taxing the rich ot death to pay for everyone elses social issues? Does your labor party support govt. controlled everything for its citizens?
The labor party represents for the majority, trade Unions. Don't hit the panic button just yet. Labour Unions are completely different to the American Unions, which imo fuck up occasionally.
And no party wants to tax the rich to death. What an absurd statement. That's an over exaggeration and also a generalization. Something you also harp on about never doing. lol
If you want some background, the Labor party ratified the Kyoto protocol, apologised to Indigenous Aboriginals and removed many unfair laws against blue collar workers.
Fair enough, maybe I won't have a problem with them. Unfortunately I do not live in anywhere except the US and have to deal with US liberal idiology. They also proudly call themselves liberal democrats. SO when I speak of liberals, you ca nassume I am speaking of AMERICAN liberal democrats, and rest assured, they d owant to tax the rich to death.TheAussieReaper wrote:
No and no.lowing wrote:
Does you labor party support taxing the rich ot death to pay for everyone elses social issues? Does your labor party support govt. controlled everything for its citizens?
The labor party represents for the majority, trade Unions. Don't hit the panic button just yet. Labour Unions are completely different to the American Unions, which imo fuck up occasionally.
And no party wants to tax the rich to death. What an absurd statement. That's an over exaggeration and also a generalization. Something you also harp on about never doing. lol
If you want some background, the Labor party ratified the Kyoto protocol, apologised to Indigenous Aboriginals and removed many unfair laws against blue collar workers.
Settle Down Kids or Else I'll send you to your rooms.
lowing, very few Democrats are liberal
All these labels! Brain... Freezing up... Can't.... Breath.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
That's the thing - lowing has his own definition of the word liberal, and any policy platform or action taken that fits that view defines that person as a liberal. Even actions that could be shades of his own definition could warrant being called a liberal, plain as. This is a large reason why simple labels don't work, are somewhat antagonistic, and are hardly conducive to debate.Spearhead wrote:
lowing, very few Democrats are liberal
Now, if lowing wanted to actually debate policy action it would be a different story. He simply wants to label people how he sees fit, most of the time without looking at the big picture (for example, calling a politician a liberal for enacting policy that has very little to do with the politician's stated ideology and much to do with enriching himself and campaign contributors).
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-08-25 18:18:17)
lowing's called me a liberal before and I support Israel and the Death Penalty (among other conservative tendencies).KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's the thing - lowing has his own definition of the word liberal, and any policy platform or action taken that fits that view defines that person as a liberal. Even actions that could be shades of his own definition could warrant being called a liberal, plain as. This is a large reason why simple labels don't work, are somewhat antagonistic, and are hardly conducive to debate.Spearhead wrote:
lowing, very few Democrats are liberal
Now, if lowing wanted to actually debate policy action it would be a different story. He simply wants to label people how he sees fit, most of the time without looking at the big picture (for example, calling a politician a liberal for enacting policy that has very little to do with the politician's stated ideology and much to do with enriching himself and campaign contributors).
You're on!Parker wrote:
if someone wants to throw down about firearms, i would be game though
Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is a wise decision! HA!
Joey S. wrote:
it takes most D&ST'ers a while to accumulate a proper response.
Last edited by `MetaL* (2008-08-25 21:06:04)
Hence the idea I guess - this way we can see how the responses on DAST members may differ when they don't have much time to respond!`MetaL* wrote:
Joey S. wrote:
it takes most D&ST'ers a while to accumulate a proper response.
Fair enough, OK, lets debate the American democrats postion on the military, taxes, education, wealth distribution, medical insurance. Now which democrats supports me keeping my money, supports keeping a strong defense budget, supports non-govt. education, supports lowering taxes to stimulate growth?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's the thing - lowing has his own definition of the word liberal, and any policy platform or action taken that fits that view defines that person as a liberal. Even actions that could be shades of his own definition could warrant being called a liberal, plain as. This is a large reason why simple labels don't work, are somewhat antagonistic, and are hardly conducive to debate.Spearhead wrote:
lowing, very few Democrats are liberal
Now, if lowing wanted to actually debate policy action it would be a different story. He simply wants to label people how he sees fit, most of the time without looking at the big picture (for example, calling a politician a liberal for enacting policy that has very little to do with the politician's stated ideology and much to do with enriching himself and campaign contributors).
those bastard democrats and their legislation that expanded my veterans benefits
Liebermen.lowing wrote:
Fair enough, OK, lets debate the American democrats postion on the military, taxes, education, wealth distribution, medical insurance. Now which democrats supports me keeping my money, supports keeping a strong defense budget, supports non-govt. education, supports lowering taxes to stimulate growth?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's the thing - lowing has his own definition of the word liberal, and any policy platform or action taken that fits that view defines that person as a liberal. Even actions that could be shades of his own definition could warrant being called a liberal, plain as. This is a large reason why simple labels don't work, are somewhat antagonistic, and are hardly conducive to debate.Spearhead wrote:
lowing, very few Democrats are liberal
Now, if lowing wanted to actually debate policy action it would be a different story. He simply wants to label people how he sees fit, most of the time without looking at the big picture (for example, calling a politician a liberal for enacting policy that has very little to do with the politician's stated ideology and much to do with enriching himself and campaign contributors).
That's pretty much the antithesis of debate - it's not to see which person randomly knows more about a subject, it's about using two people as a vehicle for intellectual discussion about two conflicting views of a certain subject. The object of a debate-type forum is to create a more stimulating conversation regarding the conflicting views of a particualr platform that what usually goes on here. Imagine a thread in this section with no smarmy remarks, no flaming, just two people presenting information to reiterate their position on a certain subject in a simple-to-follow format - that is what a debate should be about.kylef wrote:
Hence the idea I guess - this way we can see how the responses on DAST members may differ when they don't have much time to respond!`MetaL* wrote:
Joey S. wrote:
it takes most D&ST'ers a while to accumulate a proper response.
I propose a simple structure:
An agreed time frame for candidates to prepare their debate (perhaps a week?).
Introduction (overview of the subject being debated, perhaps by moderator).
Opening arguments by each side following agreed upon format.
Each side is allotted time to address the other's argument following agreed upon format.
Closing Arguments by each side following agreed upon format.
Of which I was one, but I didn't see much opportunity to continue talking with the same people...it was more akin to trying to shout something really loud that a lot of people agreed with. Making a convincing argument was not so important as making a popular argument.Kmarion wrote:
I tried to get members over in http://www.convinceme.net/ . I think we had like four try it..lol.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I prefer my debates in slow internet motion. If there were willing candidates it would be quite interesting however.
I've always thought we should do something more competitive on the forums. I would be all for an "arena" style debate, I think it would be quite amusing.
Even democrats hardly recognize Liebermen as a democrat because of his views. Hell even Neal Boortz likes Liebermen, so what does that tell ya?ATG wrote:
Liebermen.lowing wrote:
Fair enough, OK, lets debate the American democrats postion on the military, taxes, education, wealth distribution, medical insurance. Now which democrats supports me keeping my money, supports keeping a strong defense budget, supports non-govt. education, supports lowering taxes to stimulate growth?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's the thing - lowing has his own definition of the word liberal, and any policy platform or action taken that fits that view defines that person as a liberal. Even actions that could be shades of his own definition could warrant being called a liberal, plain as. This is a large reason why simple labels don't work, are somewhat antagonistic, and are hardly conducive to debate.
Now, if lowing wanted to actually debate policy action it would be a different story. He simply wants to label people how he sees fit, most of the time without looking at the big picture (for example, calling a politician a liberal for enacting policy that has very little to do with the politician's stated ideology and much to do with enriching himself and campaign contributors).
That he's a republican of a different name.lowing wrote:
Even democrats hardly recognize Liebermen as a democrat because of his views. Hell even Neal Boortz likes Liebermen, so what does that tell ya?ATG wrote:
Liebermen.lowing wrote:
Fair enough, OK, lets debate the American democrats postion on the military, taxes, education, wealth distribution, medical insurance. Now which democrats supports me keeping my money, supports keeping a strong defense budget, supports non-govt. education, supports lowering taxes to stimulate growth?
bingooooooo, so back to my previous question that is now being ignored by everyone that is ass deep in this thread defending liberals.ATG wrote:
That he's a republican of a different name.lowing wrote:
Even democrats hardly recognize Liebermen as a democrat because of his views. Hell even Neal Boortz likes Liebermen, so what does that tell ya?ATG wrote:
Liebermen.
Last edited by lowing (2008-08-28 07:18:02)
You nailed that one. Accuracy isn't always entertaining.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of which I was one, but I didn't see much opportunity to continue talking with the same people...it was more akin to trying to shout something really loud that a lot of people agreed with. Making a convincing argument was not so important as making a popular argument.Kmarion wrote:
I tried to get members over in http://www.convinceme.net/ . I think we had like four try it..lol.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I prefer my debates in slow internet motion. If there were willing candidates it would be quite interesting however.
I've always thought we should do something more competitive on the forums. I would be all for an "arena" style debate, I think it would be quite amusing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I want this to happen, somone make it happen.
I'll debate.
I like pie.