farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore)

Didn't mean to get off topic, but it is an important note relative to debate in general.Corrected "NED"...no need to get "snooty" about it.This message has been edited by Rocket, 07-25-2004 05:22 PM

I need some clarification. While I can remove any "tone" from my posts, and so make my future posts less nasty sounding, are you also saying I should not (or will not be allowed to) ask for a wager?I'd be willing to make it an official "great debate" challenge, though this is such a specific issue and not related to EvC issues, so I didn't consider suggesting it.Along those lines though, I wanted to add some weight to whatever debate was to follow should I reveal my critique of his argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is the tone and unnecessary remarks that I think we should avoid.I'm not about to pick sides on this but both of you have contributed something to it (not equally perhaps).

Thanks... heheheh, you can say I was being nasty and mean and downright surly. I don't take offense when my... uhmmmm... "passionate" language gets called out for being less than useful.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I was suggesting you WOULD be a coward if you weren't willing to stand behind your statement and take on a wager.

---

(*chuckle*)Yeah, that's right. You make a childish request and when I refuse to sink to that level, that makes me a coward. If that's the way you want it, then so be it.Now, answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?We're waiting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

A slight correction.1) The request itself was not childish, though the manner in which it was presented certainly was.2) You did sink to that level. We've both been scraping the bottom of the barrel for some time, as the admin's notice shows.3) IMO, a person that makes a strong statement and then is unwilling to put some risk behind their statement is a coward. It certainly exhibits a lack of confidence in one's position. I mean this isn't a call to gamble on the throw of the dice, we are talking about a self-assessment of our own skills in logic and debate. You have asserted superiority, and I want to make any contest a bit more interesting.Even the Admin okayed wagering so it doesn't seem beneath EvC policy (and like I said I'd be willing to do a great debate... if it was worthy of a thread in it).So let's get this very clear. You say you want an answer. I say I have an answer. IMO I don't owe you an answer and I'd be one for just letting you think your argument is "valid", because I KNOW it isn't and am reasonably certain others reading this thread KNOW it is not. And as you said I could just let you stew in your juices like Syamsu.With that in mind, I am saying that IF you want to see my answer, THEN I want a wager to make it worth my giving that answer.All you have to do is tell me if you are willing to accept a wager, and we can proceed. Forget my attempts to push you into it through calling you a coward. Just know that it is the CONDITION for my further discussion of the argument.No amount of repeating the question is going to get me to answer.(Note: I suppose I might be more inclined to answer without a wager if I really believed there was a "we" out there and not just you).It does seem odd for you to be suggesting that I am trying to avoid revealing an empty hand, when I am the one wanting to raise the stakes. If you are right, what can you lose?So just let me know if/when you care to wager.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

With that in mind, I am saying that IF you want to see my answer, THEN I want a wager to make it worth my giving that answer.

---

Is this a debate or a pissing contest?

You're jumping in very late in the game. But let me summarize. Rrhain and I have a terrible history together. We seem to bring out the worst in each other, and interestingly enough it is always on the minutiae of topics.In this thread, the same was occuring when he said he had a valid argument, and I said he didn't. Indeed IMO it was so bad I didn't want to validate it with a real response, and instead wanted to use his own correction of it to prove to me he was serious about continuing debate.He maintains he doesn't have to correct it (which he doesn't), and that I must give an answer (but I don't).Since he insinuated that I really don't have a critique to give, I said that I would be willing to lay it out if there was something more interesting involved than just the usual I correct him, and then we go on fighting forever.I want to make a wager on this argument. I have yet to state the terms of the wager, but it may be easy to guess. In any case, that is all I am waiting for.If he is willing to take a wager I am willing to show my hand.Our language probably made it sound like a pissing contest, but it isn't.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I finally saw F-911 (it opened last weekend in the Netherlands). Although I would hope there were better movies than this at Cannes, I still thought it was a very good movie and one of Moore's better works.While I don't like seeing people crying in docs, the scenes in which this occured were well set up and had a direct reason (to the "plot") for being there.I think Conservatives ought to go and see this and not just guffaw with assumptions they don't have to answer for what we see on the screen. They might like to poke holes in Moore's account... and to be fair, even I spotted some overstatements... that is REALLY to miss the humongous holes in their own side's account.He did a great job of letting Bush and Co work THEMSELVES over and I am at a loss how anyone (even conservatives) can walk away from it thinking these guys were in any way shape or form being honest with the American public.There were several instances where I thought segments were unnecessary, only to have him tie them in later on. In this regard it was a much tighter film than Bowling was.I just wish there was a similar doc for the dutch to realize their own culpability in this farce. The theatre was not quite laughing like it was in other parts when their own country got named as part of the coalition of the willing. And I found it ironic to see scenes talking about the invasiveness of the Patriot Act, when the laws here are already worse. But they seem to be escaping into the safety of watching an american protest another american and laughing, then walk home and say nothing about their own role supporting that same "bad" american and his war.Anyhow, I liked the film and thing everyone ought to see it with an open mind. And while it may not all be "true", the stuff which is undeniable should be damning to any self-respecting american.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You make a childish request and when I refuse to sink to that level, that makes me a coward.

---

​

1) The request itself was not childish

---

A bet? When in a debate, you make a bet? And that isn't childish?Please.

quote:

---

IMO, a person that makes a strong statement and then is unwilling to put some risk behind their statement is a coward.

---

There is risk, holmes. It's called "being shown wrong." Anything beyond that is simply childish, akin to riVeRraT's "bet" that if he did something, I would leave the forum.Grow up, holmes, and simply spit it out. Show me wrong. That's all you need to do. No bets, no games, no beating around the bush. Out with it already.

quote:

---

Even the Admin okayed wagering so it doesn't seem beneath EvC policy

---

Who said anything about policy? Have you seen me whine to the admins about this? It is simply childish. You need to grow up.

quote:

---

All you have to do is tell me if you are willing to accept a wager

---

No.I am an adult.Now, answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?We're waiting.

quote:

---

No amount of repeating the question is going to get me to answer.

---

Then why do you continue?

quote:

---

It does seem odd for you to be suggesting that I am trying to avoid revealing an empty hand, when I am the one wanting to raise the stakes.

---

Not at all. You play off my integrity knowing that I'm not going to do something as assinine as "bet." All it takes is for you to simply come out with it, show me where I'm wrong, and I'll admit it. But instead, you want to play childish little games.Grow up.

quote:

---

If you are right, what can you lose?

---

My self-respect.Grow up.Now, answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?We're waiting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Oy... having read a few of them, I have to wonder how it is that you two continue to get into debates with each other... ? The trend I've noticed is that one of you finds a trivial detail to debate and incorporates it into your response, and before you know it, the original topic is miles behind (just look at the last several posts and note how much is spent on the actual topic, and how much of the post is about the opponent himself) and you're arguing against each other's form of arguing, rather than the actual argument. Insert misquote accusations, those "Dude, I'm sorry..." comments that one of you seems so fond of (bad memory for names, not sure who but I remember a lot of it on one of the marriage amendment threads), quotes that take up the majority of the message instead of responses, and ad hominem somewhere arong the way.Seconding Nosy's comment, I think that both of you are good, respectable debaters, but somehow when you're in the same thread your forms degrade considerably.Either one of you have the, uh, guts to move back to what you were debating about before all the irrelevant flak started showing up, without resorting to insults or the "bring it on"-type requests that have recently been favored (shouldn't that level of maturity be reserved for the president, anyway? )? Where you debate your opponent's points and not his spelling/improper use of a word/posting format?***On topic (somewhat), I believe I read around 9/11 that when Bush was told of the first plane it was presented as an accident, not an attack, and only when the second plane hit was he informed of it as an attack (if I understand, it is the seven minutes after the second that you are referencing, though. Sorry, it's been a week or two since I read the earlier pages of this thread). Don't know how accurate this is, but I recall it being described as such in the San Antonio Express-News. I haven't looked into it at all, so feel free to correct if this is false.

Hey, I'm on your side. I've been trying to reach a truce for some time where we both agree not to reply to one another's post (at the very least just not hitting the button so it comes up as a reply I need to answer), but Rrhain refuses.I have no idea why communication is impossible between us, but evidence is that it is. Yeah. Actually I thought the whole thing had ended and my last post (before this one) was totally on topic. I just (finally) saw F911, and gave my comments. From what I understand, but am open to new information as well, the report of the first crash was NOT that it was an accident. It was an UNKNOWN. A plane had crashed into the WTC and the reason was open.But that seems a little odd to me, since they had been tracking the flight going off course, and if I remember right had some inkling it was hijacked.And wouldn't the second plane have deviated from its path at that point already?I suppose their might not have been good enough communication to allow for word to spread that fast, but in any case the first crash was not considered an accident. Well, Bush kept saying he was picturing a small plane accidentally crashing into the WTC. But if that is the case he ought to have fired his entire staff, or himself. I am unsure how anyone gets that info so screwed up.And you are right that the bigger problem, is the time he was wasting after getting official notice we were at war with somebody. Having just watched F911, my hackles are up again about that. I still do not see how anyone can defend that as being the actions of a man anyone would want as a leader. Yeah it was human, but unless he had telepathy and was guiding everything via esp, he was clearly neglecting his REAL priorities.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First of all the debate had ended. I said (given our history and the lameness of your claim) I had no interest in further debate, unless you could show you were capable of correcting errors in an obviously flawed claim*.It is a difference in opinion whether I can do that or not. Apparently you don't think so, but I do. There's no debating that.Then I said I could be tempted to reenter debate (and thus end my criteria) if you were willing to make it worth my while by making a wager on the outcome of future debate.Maybe where you come from making a wager when a strong claim has been made, or when it is the only thing making it worthwhile for a person to do something, is childish. Where I come from it isn't.Again this is just an opinion. You have every right to yours and I to mine.If personally you think it's too childish then fine. No one's forcing you to accept someone else's culture.But the end result is that the debate HAS ended until one of my two criteria are met. Childish or not, that's the way it is.*- You continually reassert your claim is valid because I have not revealed my issues in detail. However, in addition to my general pointers, your claim has also been challenged by someone else. In fact it is challenged in one of the ways I was going to mention. So why not start there? If you think I am too childish, but are rearing to continue, why not talk to that other guy who also challenged your claim?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

However, in addition to my general pointers, your claim has also been challenged by someone else. In fact it is challenged in one of the ways I was going to mention. So why not start there?

---

Because I'm talking to you. You challenged the claim, I saw it, and responded. If the other person wants me to respond, he'll make his wishes known. You're the only one who seems to be making an issue of it, so therefore you're the one that gets a response.Squeaky wheel and all that.Now, answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?We're waiting.And if you truly think the debate is over, don't reply. You once said you would never respond to me again. Why did you break your word? Surely you aren't saying that because I refuse to accept your puerile demand of never responding to you that you are therefore compelled to respond to me, are you? Nobody is holding a gun to your head. I cannot force you to respond. Since you know that you tend to get worked up when responding to me and don't want that to happen, why don't you take responsibility for your own actions and simply forget I exist?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I do think debate is over and I haven't debated your claim since the post ending the debate. I gave some hints and successfully called your bluff on the "we" issue, but I have never debated your claim any further, even stating that you can claim "victory" if you want. That's hardly the sign of someone continuing debate.However you seem to want to debate anything and everything I say, including apparently whether my terms of renewing debate are childish, and whether I've been debating your claim all along. I'm not making an issue of anything except your unwillingness to accept the fact that I am retiring from debate.On our current issue it is just this simple: It ended with you making an argument and I said it was obviously flawed so I'm not going any further until you meet two criteria (actually I added a third if you could show me anyone else who believed you were right... no takers).So this is how it ends. People can see your argument and..,1) believe it is valid and agree that my nonfurthering of the debate is a sign that I do not have a clue as to any faults and so believe that you have won the debate, or...2) believe it is valid and agree that my nonfurthering of the debate is a sign I may not have a clue as to any faults but are curious and/or want to verbally stand behind you and so call me on it (still looking for that "we"), or...3) believe it is invalid and silently side with me, or...4) believe it is invalid and side with me and state their arguments, which you can rebut.That is exactly where it stands.Oh yeah, or5) People are so sick of us debating minutiae no one dares step into the fray or wind up getting sucked into the same debate.So it stands this way... ended (with one of the 5 options)... unless you feel like tempting me back by meeting one of my three criteria. Great, and you can go a long ways in helping me forget you exist, by not responding to my posts. That just kind of makes sense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)