A lucid explanation of an earlier thread...

[Rockstar44]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

ME: Perhaps an asshole....

No, really?

Originally Posted by fatfencer

So, in short, I treat people exactly as they treat me.

Wow, when did that happen?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Rockstar44

No, it's not his butt.

Wut wut?

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

I heard Jeff kicked your ass in the parking lot and you cried for mercy like a little girl as he stood over you.

Now now, we don't have a separate forum for FICTION here. Oh, and you are, at anytime welcome to take me up on my $1k challenge.

Id be VERY happy to see what the Armed Forces is teaching these days for unarmed combat.

Put up or shut up?


And no, don't be silly I didn't lose to our clubs version of Elie Wiesel.

FF

[fatfencer]

[quote=Inquartata;801721][quote=fatfencer;801642]

Everyone else is arguing. You seem to think that you're debating. I am still, shall we say, dubious.

Oh, so everyone else, including YOU despite your glib pseudo-curmudgeonly highmindedness, which is bull**** by the way, is doing a crude uneducated form of discourse while I am doing something high minded and effectual. Thanks. Appreciate that. :-)

People play to their strengths. Those two are about all you really seem capable of doing, so---carry on!

No no, this by the way is adhominem, you know that right? but hey turnabout IS fair play so if you gliss away from an argument I'll just continue doing the adhominem as it too is effective in discourse with commoners.

Generally I find that it's the sign of a low mind and a crude character. Well, the sort you try to do, anyway...

You work for DPS....you are just surrounded with the highminded...christ. I am overwhelmed by the unmajesty of your glib sayings which only pass for arguing where you work.... and here, the forum dominated by the simple.

Not as far as I know. But I wouldn't care if it was. That's your hang-up, not mine. ( Well, one of your hang-ups, anyway. The list does not appear to be brief. )

I noticed that it is the internet that gives you power and voice you cannot afford to have in public. You are as shy and quiet in person as a newborn fawn. Here, you are "Inq---ubercurmudgeon--master of Google--lowskilled but verbose arguing king"

I'd call THAT a hang up. At least I am consistently me. You have your own version of internet macho....


FF

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

Now now, we don't have a separate forum for FICTION here. Oh, and you are, at anytime welcome to take me up on my $1k challenge.

Id be VERY happy to see what the Armed Forces is teaching these days for unarmed combat.

Put up or shut up?


And no, don't be silly I didn't lose to our clubs version of Elie Wiesel.

FF

Methinks he doth protest too much.

You have, in your impossible request, given only evidence that you clearly lost a fight in a parking lot, are a very poor martial artist, and exude only the poorest debatesmanship.

I ask only the burden of proof for your denial that you would impose upon Inquartata.

[fatfencer]

There was a point that Inq made that was a good one, but I cannot answer it at the moment. I will be out for a few days. When I return I will start a new thread with his last post in re argumentation.

But as for ground rules I want it to be a thread for just He and I. I'm happy to let others read it, but I want him to respond and be free to do so without having to wade thru all the other posts.

I really am happy to trade insults with any of you at any time, but please lets keep that thread clean of anything but what he and I post. That way we can avoid all the clutter.

But briefly let me just state that Inq's notion of 'querying' is very dubious. To me it is a method of creating arguments by inference that you can abandon quickly. In informal argumentation to create arguments by that method and I submit that this is exactly what Inq does and what I find so disingenuous.

It also puts him out ther as a 'judge' of sorts in position to make 'queries' that we MUST answer... that would be what he is inferring, whether he admits it or not.

What I am suggesting is that I wont allow him to 'query' me unless he has a legitimate argument he'd care to share with all of us.

What usually happens is that rather than accepting the evidence I offer on face as proof, he merely continues querying. Adnauseam. So the purpose of a query is to merely clarify the position or to ask for a citation, etc. It is not a substitution for argumentation. Moreover there is a stage for querying. It cannot continue as a substitute for true negative arguments.

He is in no position to do so, query indefinitely, and there is no reason any of us should answer him but in the good faith that we had proposed an argument we believed in in the first place. However that good faith is quickly exhausted when it is clear that thru his querying he has a line of thinking but wont admit it. That isnt even argumentation because its all smoke and mirrors. "It was just a query"

Negation requires said good faith as well otherwise what makes us continue 'arguing' unless we are merely trying to one up one another? I submit that that has happened alot lately and is NOT real, substantive, meaty argumentation trying to get to an effective answer.

Inq I also did include a quote in an earlier post about informal argumentation and good faith. Maybe you missed it. As such I propose a new thread that you actually participate in.

Also please PM me the ink that you keep saying doesnt work. I'll PM you what it says.

In the spirit of reaching some form of solvency I have proposed the above.

In your court,

FF

[Rockstar44]

Good Lord, man, get some medication!

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

Methinks he doth protest too much.

You have, in your impossible request, given only evidence that you clearly lost a fight in a parking lot, are a very poor martial artist, and exude only the poorest debatesmanship.

I ask only the burden of proof for your denial that you would impose upon Inquartata.

1) not the same burden of proof. Our arguments are rarely so absolute. And btw: you clearly have no understanding of burden of proof. My problem with him is that he thinks he is in a position to query me. He isn't. If he wishes to debate me then he must form a cogent argument in response to any proposition I have advanced. He must have SOME evidence to support at least some aspect of his claim. Some sign that he isnt arguentatively jerking my chain.

2) I have never given evidence that I've lost a fight to anyone. this is a lie.

3) debatesmanship isnt a word.

4) I noticed you didnt take me up on my offer.

You are a coward and not a worthy representative of our country. I hope they **** with your VA benefits in perpetuity....

Fatfencer

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

1) not the same burden of proof. Our arguments are rarely so absolute. And btw: you clearly have no understanding of burden of proof. My problem with him is that he thinks he is in a position to query me. He isn't. If he wishes to debate me then he must form a cogent argument in response to any proposition I have advanced. He must have SOME evidence to support at least some aspect of his claim. Some sign that he isnt arguentatively jerking my chain.

2) I have never given evidence that I've lost a fight to anyone. this is a lie.

3) debatesmanship isnt a word.

4) I noticed you didnt take me up on my offer.

You are a coward and not a worthy representative of our country. I hope they **** with your VA benefits in perpetuity....

Fatfencer

1. You have not satisfied the burden of proof.
2. Yes you did.
3. Yes it is.
4. What offer?

[DavidX]

dude where does ff live - when I get some time I'll go beat the **** out of him - in a fight or a duel or whatever and tape it and post it here and we shall laugh at it in perpetuity.

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

1. You have not satisfied the burden of proof.
2. Yes you did.
3. Yes it is.
4. What offer?

1)yes
2)No i DIDNT and since you asserted I did you have the BOF...
3)no it ISNT
4) My 1k vs your $100.00 to fight in a NHB cage match....its open to you if you want it. Make sure your VA benefits are in order. It's going to be a major asswhipping.

FF

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by DavidX

dude where does ff live - when I get some time I'll go beat the **** out of him - in a fight or a duel or whatever and tape it and post it here and we shall laugh at it in perpetuity.

Not likely.

FF

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

1)yes
2)No i DIDNT and since you asserted I did you have the BOF...
3)no it ISNT
4) My 1k vs your $100.00 to fight in a NHB cage match....its open to you if you want it. Make sure your VA benefits are in order. It's going to be a major asswhipping.

FF

1. The burden of the argument is upon you. You can't simply query and pretend that it's argumentation.
2. You're the one arguing that you didn't, and I see no proof from you, just an obviously false denial. Perhaps if your denials were not so transparently untrue, you would persuade someone.
3. What proof have you? Only your insistence that it's not. How very curmudgeonly of you, Fatquartata. Try bringing facts and logic into this.
4. When was this offer made?

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

1. The burden of the argument is upon you. You can't simply query and pretend that it's argumentation.
2. You're the one arguing that you didn't, and I see no proof from you, just an obviously false denial. Perhaps if your denials were not so transparently untrue, you would persuade someone.
3. What proof have you? Only your insistence that it's not. How very curmudgeonly of you, Fatquartata. Try bringing facts and logic into this.
4. When was this offer made?

1) Im NOT querying. Im simply telling you it isnt true.

2) you argued that it did and when I affirm I most always offer evidence to support my BOP burden. You have done nothing but lie about the matter.

3) all I need do is insist. when you bring an argument. a cogent one, ill respond. otherwise its just this. what always happens when inq and I get into it because he never brings evidence to support his underhanded 'queries'.

4) It's been a standing offer but I extended it to you PERSONALLY a few posts ago. go back and read. I have always in the 6 years or so that I've been here, not thought too much of you. and fighting? hell no you couldnt fight your way out of a wet paper bag with a razor.

So happily I'll take your hundred bucks if you are man enough to step into a cage with me.

Fatfencer

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

1) Im NOT querying. Im simply telling you it isnt true.

2) you argued that it did and when I affirm I most always offer evidence to support my BOP burden. You have done nothing but lie about the matter.

3) all I need do is insist. when you bring an argument. a cogent one, ill respond. otherwise its just this. what always happens when inq and I get into it because he never brings evidence to support his underhanded 'queries'.

4) It's been a standing offer but I extended it to you PERSONALLY a few posts ago. go back and read. I have always in the 6 years or so that I've been here, not thought too much of you. and fighting? hell no you couldnt fight your way out of a wet paper bag with a razor.

So happily I'll take your hundred bucks if you are man enough to step into a cage with me.

Fatfencer

1. First it was a burden of proof, now you're just querying. Which is it?
2. Your inability to provide evidence is proof enough for me.
3. What query? You insisted debatemanship isn't a word, but it is.
4. Ok, sounds fun. I just hope your ability isn't on par with your logic or rhetoric, or I'm really in trouble.

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

1. First it was a burden of proof, now you're just querying. Which is it?
2. Your inability to provide evidence is proof enough for me.
3. What query? You insisted debatemanship isn't a word, but it is.
4. Ok, sounds fun. I just hope your ability isn't on par with your logic or rhetoric, or I'm really in trouble.

1) neither. You are confused.

2) your standards are as low as our Army's apparently...

3) no it isnt. not in any dictionary. not even the dictionary of your mind

4) oh goody a taker!!! When next I see you at an event well drive out to a local MMA school and do this. But, its probably going to end your fencing/coaching career. But those are the risks you take to earn $1000.00 in a full on cage match.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

1) neither. You are confused.

2) your standards are as low as our Army's apparently...

3) no it isnt. not in any dictionary. not even the dictionary of your mind

4) oh goody a taker!!! When next I see you at an event well drive out to a local MMA school and do this. But, its probably going to end your fencing/coaching career. But those are the risks you take to earn $1000.00 in a full on cage match.

1. Perhaps if your rhetoric was clear I would not be.
2. Your departure from the argument at hand shows the weakness of your position and only proves my point further.
3. It 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.
4. Yeah, next.

I think it is safe to take a page from your book and declare myself the winner. What a brilliant debate it was, you probably don't even realize I've won yet.

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

1. Perhaps if your rhetoric was clear I would not be.
2. Your departure from the argument at hand shows the weakness of your position and only proves my point further.
3. It 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.
4. Yeah, next.

I think it is safe to take a page from your book and declare myself the winner. What a brilliant debate it was, you probably don't even realize I've won yet.

1) It was clear... it is clear, you have difficulty reading

2) It was you who first lied then departed

3) Trite, but ineffectual. You were never a debater. I am pretty sure you were drummed out of the Army with a Dishonorable Discharge though.

4) Pussy.

I win.

Fatfencer

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

There was a point that Inq made that was a good one, but I cannot answer it at the moment. I will be out for a few days. When I return I will start a new thread with his last post in re argumentation.

This is definitely not the first time you've suddenly had to disappear for days, and it always just so happens to be at a time when you are at a loss for a reply to a valid point. But I guess you're just that lucky. Ah well... take all the time you need to construct another hateful, weak argument.

But as for ground rules I want it to be a thread for just He and I. I'm happy to let others read it, but I want him to respond and be free to do so without having to wade thru all the other posts.

So you want to use a public forum designed for constructive debate and discussion amongst it's visitors as a place for you to conduct two-way public debates?

Yeah... that's probably not going to happen.

It also puts him out ther as a 'judge' of sorts in position to make 'queries' that we MUST answer... that would be what he is inferring, whether he admits it or not.

You seem to be the only one not getting this. This is a public forum, not a professional debate. As such, there is no formal judge, but rather the "judge" is in this the onlookers (unless you have another judge in mind?).

You made a statement without evidence, or with evidence that onlookers nearly (if not completely) unanimously decided was not credible. Note that in this situation I'm not referring to the base argument which was should we or should we not be giving money to Israel... this was an honest argument. I'm talking about the argument it evolved into and all the other tangent points you subsequently made.

Now, you made an argument (actually multiple arguments) without providing any proof deemed admissible or credible by the "judges" (i.e. just about everyone said your sources were BS). As such, since no real proof has been put forth, Inq has every right to question your statements and ask that you do provide proof before he must put forth proof countering your own. This is because YOU are the one challenging the de facto... the true negater. Your proposition was that we change a policy, not that we continue with one. The de facto has already been accepted, yours has not, hence you have to convince why yours should be accepted rather than what we've been doing all this time. Had you been arguing FOR the case of the de facto, since it is already acepted, you would be right and you would not need to put forth evidence until he did. However, this is not the case here.

Now, once you HAVE put forth evidence, THEN the burden of proof is on the him. We're waiting on the edges of our seats...

Whether or not this is done in formal debate is not really relevant anyway, since this is not a formal debate nor do we have a formal judge. This is NOT a formal debate. This is an open discussion with multiple parties involved.

What usually happens is that rather than accepting the evidence I offer on face as proof, he merely continues querying.

But the point is, no one has accepted this. The people who are acting as judges in this, i.e. the people you are trying to supposedly sway, find your sourced to not be credible hence not truly admissible or true evidence. Had the proof been acceptable, you would again be correct that it would then be his burden to DISprove you. However, this is again not the case.

I can say that we all come from aliens, but if I post quotes and articles from weird cults or an alien abduction support group, it's not likely to be accepted as credible evidence and doesn't "count" as if I had put forth credible evidence. I'd need to seek out and post scientific evidence from someone who isn't considered a loony.

Now, you can say "well the judges are stupid, the evidence is fine"... but that doesn't win you the argument (since you've swayed no one hence have not convinced the "judges"), regardless of whether you are right or not.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

1) It was clear... it is clear, you have difficulty reading

2) It was you who first lied then departed

3) Trite, but ineffectual. You were never a debater. I am pretty sure you were drummed out of the Army with a Dishonorable Discharge though.

4) Pussy.

I win.

Fatfencer

1. It was clear that you have not made an argument in response to any proposition I have advanced..
2. It was you who first got beat up in a parking lot.
3. I just copied and pasted your text about glissing.
4. You don't seem so keen about it now that you have a taker.