A lucid explanation of an earlier thread...

[TrainingDummy]

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/04/...dgar-j-steele/

Discuss.

FF

Do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqxo1SKB0z8

[fatfencer]

I hated to do this, but I reported this thread as being a hate thread. Hiding behind the American flag to disguise your inability to live in a community with other people is cowardly. You shouldn't bother fencing in that case; you'll never make it, there are so many people on the strip who come from other nations. How would you expect to ever fence in nationals, how could you ever imagine to fence internationally?

This is hardly a hate thread, merely a continuation of why Jewish Lobby has such a powerful sway over US foreign policy. To be clear, ANY lobby, like the UAW for instance, holding that much sway, is not necessarily beneficial to US interests.

My exploration of that topic, if you go back to the original thread was first corrupted by Jeff, and Hauptman by their knee jerk reaction to said exploration. They felt it was anti-Jew just because I was asking the question. Even saying that a Jewish lobby exists, with a decided agenda, is anti-Semitic, in their opinion. It is NOT. They and others who agree with them don't even want the topic to be broached because that would cause too much painful regression into the immediate past.

Admittedly, when accused of being racist, especially by white people or any subsect(Jews) I happily return fire. I find that to be so offensive, due to the history of caucasians in the US, and the world in general. To allow Caucasians to even dream of thinking about using 'you're racist' as a weapon is sooooo wrong on so many levels.

Maybe I was naive in thinking that a discussion of Jewish concerns in US foreign policy wasn't going to degenerate into a racist thread but I certainly didnt start the thread with that intention. But when I get called an anti-Semite, i.e. racist by a white person, because I didn't capitalize the J in Jew, well, that's just going to set me off.

Now I just don't give a toss. Everything is fair game.

Fatfencer

[thereom4]

[QUOTE=fatfencer;795029]

Maybe youre black, maybe you aint. You still sound white. Maybe you're Alfonso Ribeiro. Or Alvin Poussaint.

at

The only thing worth responding to is the Alfonso thing. Everything else was defecation covered in frosting. I'm guessing the experiences you've had with African Americans are few and far between. So I'll speak to you in a language you might could understand fool. Dawg you drawin' yo, you straight trippin yo!

[fatfencer]

[QUOTE=thereom4;795109]

at

The only thing worth responding to is the Alfonso thing. Everything else was defecation covered in frosting. I'm guessing the experiences you've had with African Americans are few and far between. So I'll speak to you in a language you might could understand fool. Dawg you drawin' yo, you straight trippin yo!

I can tell that you arent a U proff in any subject... you were bullshipping.

FF

[thereom4]

[QUOTE=fatfencer;795146]

I can tell that you arent a U proff in any subject... you were bullshipping.

FF

Should I respond? *sighs* I never said I was a professor. I said I wanted to retire as a professor. I also said it was never early to start living the dream. Meaning that although I have yet to achieve this goal I was going to start by taking you to school because you are a who clearly received no formal education that or the system sadly has failed you. So sorry.

[DavidX]

yeah i was wondering why you kept calling her a fake professor - she never said that lolz

ff - baby you've been out of inquartats hairy, loving arms for far too long

[Inquartata]

Hey its not my burden. You asserted. YOU prove and do the homework you so readily push on others. Th irony is most of the time it is YOU doign the asserting.

Don't make me think for you. Try to find a culture that is topical and start there...

Fatfencer

Oh, who knows, I might...right after you get around to taking your own advice on the "gliss is a common term in Midwest debate circles" assertion.

But then, I suspect that you've already tried...and failed...since I Googled up a couple of glossaries of debating terms and it was notably absent from all of them. ( Naturally, I did not check the Universal Compendium of All Things Known To or Imagined By Fatfencer. Oddly, my library could not locate a copy. )

Yeah, believe me, I know, it's easier to stonewall than to admit failure.

[DavidX]

this is a good post.

[fatfencer]

Oh, who knows, I might...right after you get around to taking your own advice on the "gliss is a common term in Midwest debate circles" assertion.

But then, I suspect that you've already tried...and failed...since I Googled up a couple of glossaries of debating terms and it was notably absent from all of them. ( Naturally, I did not check the Universal Compendium of All Things Known To or Imagined By Fatfencer. Oddly, my library could not locate a copy. )

Yeah, believe me, I know, it's easier to stonewall than to admit failure.

Yes glissing is a term that was common. I have no idea if it still is now. Nor do I have any copies handy of quarterly journals that may have borne out my usage of the term. Jargon is that way... comes and goes.

However, that doesn't mean you don't GLISS. It just means you have a problem with my usage of the term. Tough. Glissing was used, borrowed likely from music meaning to slide around.

Glissing is quite simply a back handed turn of phrase rather than a meaningful argument.

For example, when you've attempted to negate something in the past you've rarely brought any evidence of any kind, merely that YOU, resident 'curmudgeon' say that you challenge it. This is ineffective, poor debate regardless of method. In every style of debate I've encountered when someone attempts to question or change the status quo, eveidence must be brought B THE NEGATER as to the reason the negative is correct.

You routinely put the burden back on others with some backhanded quip to do your research for you. You sidestep it rather than come back with any sort of argument text from scholarly sources that you need only question something without providing evidence that something is false. This is glissing. You do it in other ways too. This is merely one example.


Fatfencer

[Inquartata]

Yes glissing is a term that was common.

So you keep saying. Argumentum ad nauseam?

I have no idea if it still is now. Nor do I have any copies handy of quarterly journals that may have borne out my usage of the term. Jargon is that way... comes and goes.

How convenient.

For example, when you've attempted to negate something in the past you've rarely brought any evidence of any kind, merely that YOU, resident 'curmudgeon' say that you challenge it.

Sigh...

I tire of beating my head against your impenetrability.

For the last time: He who doubts or questions has no "responsibility" to rush out and disprove an interlocutor's assertions. He has only to question them, and he has done all that is required of him unless he advances a thesis of his own.

This is ineffective, poor debate regardless of method.

And no one is going to take your word for that, either...

In every style of debate I've encountered

But which no doubt you also cannot actually support with anything other than your insistence that it is so?


Unless you can come up with some of that, I'm done with this. It's boring to listen to you lecture us on "principles" which exist only in your ego-supportive imagination...

[thereom4]

Jargon is that way... comes and goes.

Fatfencer

Not necessarily interested in the other stuff but this....

Jargon as defined by Merriam-Webster is the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group. Because of the exclusionary nature of certain terminology, jargon tends not to come and go as you say. I think the word you were looking for is 'slang' which is defined by Merriam-Webster an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech. Please note the difference. Thank you.

[academe]

Not necessarily interested in the other stuff but this....

Jargon as defined by Merriam-Webster is the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group. Because of the exclusionary nature of certain terminology, jargon tends not to come and go as you say. I think the word you were looking for is 'slang' which is defined by Merriam-Webster an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech. Please note the difference. Thank you.

Fershizzle, my nizzle.

[fatfencer]

Sigh...

I tire of beating my head against your impenetrability.

For the last time: He who doubts or questions has no "responsibility" to rush out and disprove an interlocutor's assertions. He has only to question them, and he has done all that is required of him unless he advances a thesis of his own.

...

Ok so now that you have finally advanced this as a thesis... turnabout is fair play. I cant find this idea in any commonly used textbook on rhetoric, argumentation.

Please do supply us with some kind of evidentiary proof to this, which, IMHO, is complete utter bull****.

Fatfencer

PS: This is the substance of our argument. If you cannot provide even rudimentary proof to affirm what you just posited then you are at fault.

PPS: If you look up Policy debate on wikipedia you will see that the negater has the burden to provide evidence to show why some such proposal, idea, etc. is either wrong or illogical or both. BOTH sides have burdens... not just someone advancing... this is also true of Lincoln Douglas, CEDA etc. Again Wikipedia but these are far too long to merely link.

PPPS: And FINALLY, most importantly and most of all. The notion that you do little work and provide a pithy and often incorrect response and thats ok is just bull**** too. Thats not argument or rhetoric, thats just you assuming an unassailable position via FIAT and not due to any real intellectual merit.

[fatfencer]

Not necessarily interested in the other stuff but this....

Jargon as defined by Merriam-Webster is the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group. Because of the exclusionary nature of certain terminology, jargon tends not to come and go as you say. I think the word you were looking for is 'slang' which is defined by Merriam-Webster an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech. Please note the difference. Thank you.

I claim a reasonable amount of non absolute synonymy. e.g. highly relative synonyms.

Fatfencer

PS: But in either case, that the slang existed isnt the issue, but what it means and what Inq does IS the issue. How was public school.... rough I spose... no textbooks, shootings in the hallways.

[fatfencer]

Here's an excerpt on from . Edward Damer's Attacking Faulty Reasoning specifically his requirements for claiming and using fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacking_Faulty_Reasoning

Fallacies that violate the structural criterion. The structural criterion requires that one who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument, using premises that are compatible with one another, that do not contradict the conclusion, that do not assume the truth of the conclusion, and that are not involved in any faulty deductive inference. Fallacies such as begging the question, denying the antecedent, or undistributed middle violate this criterion.

He later defines a well formed argument as:

Fallacies that violate the sufficiency criterion. The sufficiency criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion. Fallacies such as argument from ignorance, special pleading, and the post hoc fallacy violate this criterion because they are arguments that are missing importance evidence or make causal assumptions based on insufficient evidence.

And finally: http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us/de...gnegative.html

Debating Negative in Lincoln-Douglas
What Does the Negative Do? It is up to the negative to convince the judge that the resolution is the NOT correct course of action, better idea, or proper value.

Creating a Negative Case - Overall, a Negative case is similar to an Affirmative case; they're both basically argumentative essay. Whereas the objective of the Affirmative is to offer a thesis (the resolution), it is up to the negative to argue that the thesis/resolution being presented is a bad idea. This can take a couple of different directions.

1. If the Affirmative is arguing for some sort of change, the Negative position will be that the change is unnecessary, will cause problems, or will not solve a problem. This is called "maintaining the status quo".

2. Often, the Negative will offer an alternative plan to oppose the Affirmative's. In these cases, the Negative must prove their case is better.

3. For many debates, the Negative must prove why the values presented by the Affirmative are not values shared by Americans or run contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of the direction the Negative takes, this side must prepare a case to present their point of view. Negative debaters must provide evidence to support their position. Your argument will be framed with specific reasons why your argument is correct and true and you will provide evidence to support your position. When writing your argument, be sure to keep your argument focused with specific, well researched arguments. When presenting your case, imagine the judge and your opponent have no idea what the topic is about. You will need to hold their hand (figuratively, not literally) and guide them step-by-step how the thesis/resolution presented by the Affirmative is incorrect.


SO now I have done your homework for you despite the fact that a few posts ago YOU posited that you neednt do more than merely question in negation. Irresponsible though surprisingly effective here on F-net. Even if you assert that you need only do the minimal and that your conception of 'merely questioning' is enough... is that all you are capable of?

Shame on you Inq. I know you dont care what I think of you. I dont ask you to when I say that. It's accusative and, yes, 'rhetorical'.

Fatfencer

PS: Now go find SOME evidence PLEASE? You spend so much time on the internet that you even leave TOURNAMENTS to post here. Surely you can find something?

PPS: Negation is its own thesis... its an ANTI-thesis... but a type of thesis nonetheless. So in negating you have advanced a thesis of your own, your own case. Proof is required to tip the balance in your favor,, eespecially since I have provided so much to your contrary...

PPPS: If you claim a fallacy, see Damer above, you must provide a well reasoned applique' of it. Merely naming it is a proposition ALONE and, as such faulty prima facie. To apply a fallacy arg you need a proposition, substance including evidence, i.e. an example of the absurd in 'reductio', and a conclusion. Citing a link to wiki is not argumentation.

[thereom4]

I claim a reasonable amount of non absolute synonymy. e.g. highly relative synonyms.

Fatfencer

PS: But in either case, that the slang existed isnt the issue, but what it means and what Inq does IS the issue. How was public school.... rough I spose... no textbooks, shootings in the hallways.

The first sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. You do know that right? Right? You and I both know that most of what you write is incoherent. You can fool some of the people some of the time.....

As per my education it was fine. Thanks for asking. No shootings in the hallways, enough books for all the students. So if you're attempting to debase me try again. I actually did exceptionally well in public school. Putting down public school education is stupid, because guess what most kids go to public school and do well. A $24,000/yr private school education just doesn't seem that appealing to most parents. Private schools do have their advantages. But essentially it's willingness and effort of the child, support of the parents and good teachers that win out.

[thereom4]

*sighs* You know what FF I've had a sudden change of heart. I've tried hard to fight it, but I can't any longer. Pseudo intelligence has always driven me wild. So wild in fact, I find it difficult to function. It's pathological, a quagmire even.

Three words now separate me from my destiny. So here it goes.............

I love you. There now the whole world knows I love a FF. Now that I've told you, we're officially in a relationship. Before you go running to tell your Mom and your BFFs the good news and to announce our pending nuptials.........

I have to tell you something. I'm now going to...........
a. Start stalking you, or
b. Send intermittent reminders via F.net posts of how stupid you actually are.

Call me. (555) U-R-HOT

P.S. The wedding's in June. I don't believe in long engagements.

[fatfencer]

The first sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. You do know that right? Right? You and I both know that most of what you write is incoherent. You can fool some of the people some of the time.....

Yes actually it does. There are absolute synonyms and relative ones. Use a Thesaurus sometimes. It helps.

As per my education it was fine. Thanks for asking. No shootings in the hallways, enough books for all the students. So if you're attempting to debase me try again. I actually did exceptionally well in public school. Putting down public school education is stupid, because guess what most kids go to public school and do well. A $24,000/yr private school education just doesn't seem that appealing to most parents. Private schools do have their advantages. But essentially it's willingness and effort of the child, support of the parents and good teachers that win out

.

Why werent you shot at Columbine?.... and you were poor. I've seen the PJ's.....

Fatfencer

[Shi no Tenshi]

A $24,000/yr private school education just doesn't seem that appealing to most parents. Private schools do have their advantages.

Ooh, his education was only $24k a year? Does that mean my opinion is more valid since my school cost more? Sweet!

[thereom4]

Why werent you shot at Columbine?.... and you were poor. I've seen the PJ's.....

Fatfencer

You wanna know why nothing you say bothers me.......

.......because I'm quite positive you are mentally challenged. So I'll entertain you for just a while longer.