• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney: Obama Should Be Debriefing, Not Investigating

Redress said:
And I was right, again.

It's a flawed premise since it requires EIT's to be more effective than conventional interrogation techniques, which is, at best, far from certain.
Click to expand...

I suggest you'd have better results trying to engage a flat iron in logical debate than you will with Gobbldeegookman but......knock yourself out!;)
 
Redress said:
Hey look, Goobie is asking loaded questions again.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you dont like the question, one where you'd have to admit that you would criticize The Obama - fortunately for you, you may one again exercise your opition to hide from the question if you want, as no one can make you answer.

Once again, the premise of your question is flawed.
Click to expand...
Once again, you will not be able to show how this is true.
 
PogueMoran said:
Did you blame Bush Jr for creating conditions for allowing 9/11 to happen?
Click to expand...
Red herring, misdirection.
Dont try to change the subject, answer the question.
 
Goobieman said:
No, its not, for the reasons I explained. Your argument is only sound (and my premise is only flawed) if there is NO chance that the elimination of thse policies would allow an attack -- and there's NO way you can argue that.

So, one more time -- please stop questioning the given and answer the question.
Click to expand...

Yet we still come back to how traditional interrogation methods have been proven to be more effective then enhanced methods. By using EIM, we would be letting valuable information that could have been obtained by traditional methods through our fingers. Using EIM makes our country know less, and it also makes the world hate us more for it. It's a lose-lose.
 
PogueMoran said:
So when our embassy in Iraq was attacked was it because Bush stopped using those methods or because he was using them?
Click to expand...
Red herring, misdirection.
Dont try to change the subject, answer the question.
 
ScottD said:
Yet we still come back to how traditional interrogation methods...
Click to expand...
No, what we come back to is you trying to avoid answering the question by questioning the given.

Its called a "given" for a reason.
 
Devil505 said:
I suggest you'd have better results trying to engage a flat iron in logical debate than you will with Gobbldeegookman but......knock yourself out!;)
Click to expand...
If there's a better example of the desert speaking to the grain of sand, I'm not aware of it...
 
Goobieman said:
Red herring, misdirection.
Dont try to change the subject, answer the question.
Click to expand...

Not misdirection or a red herring. This is related to your question. Do you feel Bush was responsible for 9/11 because he stopped clinton's counterterrorism programs?
 
PogueMoran said:
Not misdirection or a red herring. This is related to your question. Do you feel Bush was responsible for 9/11 because he stopped clinton's counterterrorism programs?
Click to expand...
Lets see...
I ask a question about The Obama
You respond by asking a question about Bush.
Yep -- Red herring, Misdirection.

Stop dodging and answer the question I asked.
 
Goobieman said:
Red herring, misdirection.
Dont try to change the subject, answer the question.
Click to expand...

Oh whats the matter you can't answer the question can you? So we had another attack and you didn't blame bush for it did you? So again how does your question have any relation if you can't look at the historical facts with two attacks happening on his watch plus attacks on our soldiers as well as the attack on our embassy.

So is it because he stopped using the tactics or because of them?
 
PogueMoran said:
Oh whats the matter you can't answer the question can you? So we had another attack and you didn't blame bush for it did you? So again how does your question have any relation if you can't look at the historical facts with two attacks happening on his watch plus attacks on our soldiers as well as the attack on our embassy.

So is it because he stopped using the tactics or because of them?
Click to expand...

I ask a question about The Obama

You respond by asking a question about Bush.
Thus: Red herring, Misdirection.

Stop dodging and answer the question I asked.
 
Goobieman said:
Lets see...
I ask a question about The Obama
You respond by asking a question about Bush.
Yep -- Red herring, Misdirection.

Stop dodging and answer the question I asked.
Click to expand...

I did answer your question you're making a logical fallacy. I think you misunderstand what a red herring is. I'm not misdirecting this has everything to do with your question. You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
 
PogueMoran said:
I did answer your question you're making a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I explained how your argument to that effect -- that is, your dodge -- was unsound.

So, we're back to the question that you haven't answered.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes, and I explained how your argument to that effect -- that is, your dodge -- was unsound.

So, we're back to the question that you haven't answered.
Click to expand...

That's not a dodge. You're making an unsound logical fallacy. Just because one thing happens doesn't mean its related. Correlation does not equal causation.

Another attack happened on Bush's watch and you ignored it. So no matter what you'd still claim Bush made us safe and because another attack is bound to happen eventually you'll conventiently blame it on the democrat. Again you fail to look at this logically.

Which plots were stopped because of torture. You've still failed to answer this since the first time I openly asked this.
 
Last edited:
PogueMoran said:
That's not a dodge.
Click to expand...
Arguing the givens is most certainly a dodge.

You're making an unsound logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, I am not. See below.

Just because one thing happens doesn't mean its related. Correlation does not equal causation.
Click to expand...
The point you miss is that the given ASSUMES that it DOES happen -- that the attack WOULD have been stopped had the Buch policies been in place. I'm not arguing that it WILL happen, I am asking what if it DOES happen. Thus, your post hoc complaint argument holds to water.

Another attack happened on Bush's watch and you ignored it.
Click to expand...
Not sure hoe many more times I need to say this:
You're trying to change the subject in an attemt to avoid the issue -- red herring.

So, answer the question.
 
Goobieman said:
Arguing the givens is most certainly a dodge.


No, I am not. See below.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are. You're trying to argue that because B happens then it must be related to A and caused by it. But thus far you haven't proven that A actually worked.


Goobieman said:
The point you miss is that the given ASSUMES that it DOES happen -- that the attack WOULD have been stopped had the Buch policies been in place. I'm not arguing that it WILL happen, I am asking what if it DOES happen. Thus, your post hoc complaint argument holds to water.
Click to expand...
You're making the bad assumption considering that the embassy attack did happen when Bush policies were in place. That's why I'm asking you if they happened because or inspite of it. Again you're assuming B happens because of A.



Goobieman said:
Not sure hoe many more times I need to say this:
You're trying to change the subject in an attemt to avoid the issue -- red herring.
Click to expand...

No, we're talking about whether his torture policy was effective because your whole premise is based on the torture policies being stopped somehow would be responsible for an attack when you have no proof of efficacy that they stopped any actual plots from happening.

So again you're committing a logical fallacy. That's why I asked you the other question.

How about the inverse if a 9/11 attack doesn't happen on Obama's watch would it because he stopped the torture?
 
PogueMoran said:
Yeah you are. You're trying to argue that because B happens then it must be related to A and caused by it. But thus far you haven't proven that A actually worked.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing anything -- I'm setting up a hypothetical, with givens and then asking a question regarding that hypotherical.

One of the givens is that the hypothetical attack WOULD have been stoipped by the policies in question, and was allowed to happen BECAUSE the policies did not stop them. Since there's no way for you to argue that such a thing is impossible, there's no falacy in that given.

So, stop dodging the question.
 
Goobieman said:
No, its not, for the reasons I explained. Your argument is only sound (and my premise is only flawed) if there is NO chance that the elimination of thse policies would allow an attack -- and there's NO way you can argue that.

So, one more time -- please stop questioning the given and answer the question.
Click to expand...

OO, and it's Goobie tactic number 2, the cutting out of all the relevant information from a quote, hoping no one will notice.
 
Redress said:
OO, and it's Goobie tactic number 2, the cutting out of all the relevant information from a quote, hoping no one will notice.
Click to expand...
redress fallacy #6968:
Assuming that just because I cut it, it was relevant.

If you were paying any attention at all, you'd see that the part I cut was relevant in no way shape or form --either that, or you arent familiar with the definition of the term.
 
Goobieman said:
redress fallacy #6968:
Assuming that just because I cut it, it was relevant.

If you were paying any attention at all, you'd see that the part I cut was relevant in no way shape or form --either that, or you arent familiar with the definition of the term.
Click to expand...

Sure it was, it explained why your premise is flawed. Your whole question relies on something unprovable being proven.
 
Redress said:
Sure it was, it explained why your premise is flawed. Your whole question relies on something unprovable being proven.
Click to expand...
Further evidence that you arent paying attention.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm not arguing anything -- I'm setting up a hypothetical, with givens and then asking a question regarding that hypotherical.

One of the givens is that the hypothetical attack WOULD have been stoipped by the policies in question, and was allowed to happen BECAUSE the policies did not stop them. Since there's no way for you to argue that such a thing is impossible, there's no falacy in that given.

So, stop dodging the question.
Click to expand...

I'm not dodging the question anymore than you're dodging my questions and my initial question. Oh so now you're setting up a hypothetical. So since we're dealing in hypotethicals. Would you care to rephrase your question?

Okay so not only are you giving a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy but now you're asserting me to prove a negative. You're trying now to get me to prove something is impossible before you prove something to be possible. Again your whole hypotethical is reliant upon B being caused by A. A given is something established as proven. Your whole argument is filled with logical fallacies
 
PogueMoran said:
I'm not dodging the question anymore than you're dodging my questions and my initial question.
Click to expand...
You are, You're simply trying to come up with a way to not have to answer it, by arguing the givens and putting up her herrings.
Those, most assuredly, are dodges.

Oh so now you're setting up a hypothetical.
Click to expand...
Now?
Its -always- been that way.

If The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention, and a there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those efforts, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?
Click to expand...

So, stop dodging and answer the the question.

Okay so not only are you giving a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy but now you're asserting me to prove a negative. You're trying now to get me to prove something is impossible before you prove something to be possible. Again your whole hypotethical is reliant upon B being caused by A. A given is something established as proven. Your whole argument is filled with logical fallacies
Click to expand...
You either dont know what these things are or you arent paying attentiuon -- as NONE of them apply.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
You are, You're simply trying to come up with a way to not have to answer it, by arguing the givens and putting up her herrings.
Those, most assuredly, are dodges.
Click to expand...

I'm not dodging you're asking an illogical question. You're asking me to prove something impossible without you proving it possible yourself. I'm not coming up with ways not to answer I've left that to you. You're not "giving" any givens. Givens can be proven thus far you've failed to prove your givens.


Goobieman said:
Now?
Its -always- been that way.
Click to expand...

Yes now you're trying to back away from your illogical question.

Goobieman said:
So, stop dodging and answer the the question.
Click to expand...

Ask a question that's based in some form of logic.

Goobieman said:
If The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention, and a there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those efforts, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?
Click to expand...

There is your post hoc ergo propter hoc right there. You're making an assumption right there by your own personal opinion that attacks have been or would be stopped through the continued use of torture but have not proved that any attacks have been stopped through such means. Again you're using a logical fallacy. It's not my fault if you don't understand how they apply. I've made it pretty damned clear already.
 
Last edited:
PogueMoran said:
I'm not dodging...
Click to expand...
That's ALL you have done, as anyone that reads the thread with any degree of interest or comprehnesion of the english language will conclude.

And, as this is all you will continue to do, there's no point in continuing.

If you didnt want to answer the question, all you had to do was not reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom