Sectionals 2009

[fatfencer]

Do I?
So basically I just say something intelligent sounding and POSE as a debater but I never claimed to be one so its your fault that you assumed I wanted to be one and I dont care what you think and I really cant understand that arguing, frankly, makes one a debater regardless of how good or bad I am and if you want me to be a good one well thats a burden I dont except and you say your a debater but you dont prove it and I don't care what you think despite the fact that I remember you saying you coached college and HS debate as well as judged it and well I'll just gliss over that fact too and the fact that I'll just deny that you ever even participated in either Lincoln Douglas or Policy or CEDA debate and even if you did you still have to prove that you know more than me about arguing because I can just lean on misrepresenting fallacy all day and the people here will buy it and you have to be willing to do research into my background to prove that I didnt do any of the above so that you can say that you are better than me at debate and because he who asserts must prove well because you have to prove all the latter I can just blithely and obliquely assert stuff without sounding like Im asserting anything so that when you call me on it I can say you are forcing me to assert a burden that I never said i'd assume.....so basically since I never really assert anything I can argue a pure negative stance without any merit and you have to buy it unless you want to rehash the above.

There Inq, I fixed it for you. You'd actually be a fencer if you'd stop smoking so much intellectual pole. When did you sleep with Buckley?

FF

PS: Er... I meant 'you'd actually be a DEBATER' i.e. effective and non-armchairishly amateur... but in this case, 'fencer' works too.

[Inquartata]

So...that's more of the great technique they taught you in debate school, or whatever imaginary place you became this master of the art you are always telling us you are?

That is supposed to impress people that you are somehow the superior arguer?

Like I said before: Legend in your own mind...

Now I begin to wonder what else you have imagined you are or have accomplished. Do you really know anything about martial arts, for example? Or are you just a voracious reader of Paladin Press texts?

[Jay Young]

Hmm...my post got deleted. Wish someone would tell me. Posts like the above stay, though...

So, I guess I'm not going to get an answer. That's fine...

[Inquartata]

Which question? Whether it's possible to take rep away?

[Inquartata]

Meh, not enough sense in there to bother with a reply. Just more of your usual bluster...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

[Jay Young]

Inq, I asked earlier why a post of mine had been deleted but others had not. I suppose the posting Gods do not care.

[fatfencer]

Meh, not enough sense in there to bother with a reply. Just more of your usual bluster...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

So rather than answer you just gliss on by... is there one word for lazy poor mis and disuse of intellect?

Shameful.

Fatfencer

PS: Oh... yeah I remember now. the word is 'useless' lol

[tdwg83]

91 Entries/ 62 people. Confirmed entries as of 4-27
Number of Entries by division:
25 Colorado
40 Kansas
11 South Dakota/Nebraska
9 Arizona
6 Plains Texas

[Inquartata]

Inq, I asked earlier why a post of mine had been deleted but others had not. I suppose the posting Gods do not care.

Oh, ok.

I dunno, Gav is...inscrutable sometimes. Threads get closed that I honestly can see no reason to close, while others go on and and on with no apparent reason ( *cough* David X Beast *cough* ).

You just have to roll with the punches where active mods are concerned.

So rather than answer you just gliss on by... is there one word for lazy poor mis and disuse of intellect?

Shameful.

Fatfencer

PS: Oh... yeah I remember now. the word is 'useless' lol

Still don't care what you think of me, dude.

By the way: "gliss" is not a word, and no one is going to make it one because the mighty FF uses it as one. Sorry about that, too.

[hpfencing]

I think Kansas is probably the only place WORSE than Amarillo.

THANKS!

[fatfencer]

By the way: "gliss" is not a word, and no one is going to make it one because the mighty FF uses it as one. Sorry about that, too.

Gliss is short for glissando and is an apt description of something that slips on by as opposed to making detailed and correct responses.

To gliss is to merely make a related-SOUNDING non sequitur that really isn't the point for point refutation it must be.

Of course, you'd know this if...but you are an armchair quarterback who never read a rhetoric text ever....


FF

[fatfencer]

THANKS!

Hey Matt,

Don't be toooo offended. The last time I was there there were NO hot women in Amarillo. Not even at the Hooters. There was one CUTE one... but she was visiting and decided to pick up a few shifts...

FF

[hpfencing]

LOL you need to goto the clubs downtown in Amarillo, LOL.
Second weekend in June we have the Crown of Texas. FF you should come back and give it a try. I bet you could pick someone up there.

I just picked up a car in Kasas City last weekend... I hope to NEVER hve to make that drive alone, again....

[hpfencing]

So, I guess I'm not going to get an answer. That's fine...

You can send a msg to GAV and he can tell you which moderater deleted your post and why....

[Inquartata]

Gliss is short for glissando

So, you mean "a continuous sliding from one pitch to another (a true glissando), or an incidental scale executed while moving from one melodic note to another (an effective glissando)"?

Don't be so aga. It'll only get you rit. Ser.

See how ridiculous that sounds? You're not talking about music, and it seldom pays to drag specialized vocabularies into other fields. Still worse abbreviations of them...

and is an apt description of something that slips on by as opposed to making detailed and correct responses.

You are a consensus of one on that point. Congratulations!

To gliss is to merely make a related-SOUNDING non sequitur that really isn't the point for point refutation it must be.

Eh...no, Humpty, it isn't. And while I realize that it is one of your fondest beliefs that if you say a thing it must be so...again, you are a consensus of one.

Really, THIS is your vaunted debating technique? Trying to twist and redefine terms so that they "prove" your theses?!

[fatfencer]

Eh...no, Humpty, it isn't. And while I realize that it is one of your fondest beliefs that if you say a thing it must be so...again, you are a consensus of one.

Really, THIS is your vaunted debating technique? Trying to twist and redefine terms so that they "prove" your theses?!

Glissing is a very common term in Midwest debate circles. That you dont accept it is not my problem.

The purpose of debate is for there two be two sides. Not a side affirming something and you, for example, offering nothing but mere negation based on incomplete fallacy arguments.

If you say something is slippery slope, you are encumbered with the burden of showing directly how the person is guilty of slippery slope. Moreover, you have to quantify whether or not SS negates the whole of the argument or merely partially, as is often the case.

If there is a fallacy it does not, I repeat NOT negate the whole of any argument in its entirety. At least, it does not ALWAYS negate the whole of an argument. Usually only a specific part.

You on the other hand consistently write that it does. You'll merely say, "SS" and you're done.

You make an implicit assumption that merely stating that you think a fallacy exists is enough and that its MY burden to prove otherwise. No sir it isnt. If you make any statement at all. YOU must prove. By the way this is why I say you must have slept with Buckley. This is what he is MOST known for. This style of rhetoric is, well popular, with the masses because it is so matter of fact sounding. When, frankly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Poor argumentation.

And yes, glissing is a common word to describe what you do regularly. Even if it is jargon and not common parlance for you, try and keep up?

Fatfencer

[SabreReedfrost]

What events can expect to see you in, FF? (or anyone else who's going) Anyone in Saber?

[Inquartata]

Glissing is a very common term in Midwest debate circles.

And your evidence, aside from your declaration that it is so, would be...?

Or are declarations without evidence also common in Midwest debate circles?

If there is a fallacy it does not, I repeat NOT negate the whole of any argument in its entirety. At least, it does not ALWAYS negate the whole of an argument. Usually only a specific part.

And this would be, what, red herring? I mean, inasmuch as I haven't said anything at all about it doing so, and you appear to be attacking an argument that not only have I not made but that is irrelevant to the present matter...

this is why I say you must have slept with Buckley.

I don't even know Sean.

Anyone in Saber?

Well, I am entered, but could not get my boss to approve time off to go, so I won't be there. But you have to enter and pay fees in order to appeal ( weird ), so...

[SabreReedfrost]

Yeah, they set the whole thing up kind of odd... but at least it's before our Divisionals

[fatfencer]

[QUOTE=Inquartata;794770]

And your evidence, aside from your declaration that it is so, would be...?

Or are declarations without evidence also common in Midwest debate circles?

You have no reason to disbelieve that this wasnt common jargon in the Midwest.

I don't need the OED to prove usage of a term because you deny it. Your denial doesnt weigh any more than my usage.

If you wish to assert that this word is not so used then you must prove it. Otherwise you must accept and move on. The way you word things places the burden on others when it is YOU doing the asserting.

And this would be, what, red herring? I mean, inasmuch as I haven't said anything at all about it doing so, and you appear to be attacking an argument that not only have I not made but that is irrelevant to the present matter...

It's not irrelevant. It goes to show you consistently misuse the concept of using fallacy to negate arguments. You present no arguments of your own. The best you do is obliquely assert something small isnt true but offer no proof that it is not true.

Then you assert that I am the one to go chase it down.

If you assert something you must prove it. Not I. You were the first to call into question my usage of the term and offered NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that in debate circles it is not used as I describe.

You do this on nearly every single topic.

Your method of argumentation is like throwing caltrops at a tank. The purpose isnt to get a substantive or meaningful conclusion. You are merely negating which, really isnt arguing at all, its a stance without any foundational merit.

I'm just going to continue to call you on it.

From now on on every thread you do it I will post an highlight it in RED.

I suspect you are going to get very annoyed with me destroying your smoke in mirrors method of arguing.

Everytime you assert fallacy I'm going to highlight in red when you dont show the necessary followup argumentation. When you dont do so your own arguent is considered false until you prove it to be true. When you assert an argument has a fallacy it is you who are encumbered with burden of proof.

If it is found that the fallacy exists then you have to determine the extent that the fallacy corrupts the argument and what impact that it has.

That is argumentation.

What you do is glib shucking and jiving for the laity.

Fatfencer