• 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

Truth Detector said:
I am going to back down my comments and temper my opinion about you and take you for your word.

I respect Kucinich because at least he is honest about his beliefs and doesn't try to pretend to be anything he isn't; although sometimes he is a raving loon as he was in his efforts to impeach for going to war.

I will extend you the same courtesy and respect of your views regardless of my disagreement with them.
Click to expand...

I would put my views in the same column as Kucinich. However, sometimes he is to the right of me.;)
 
The_Limt said:
I am familiar with that crude form of debate.

It is not serious, not beneficial, and more often than not, obstructs austere discourse.

You deal in fantasies.

I prefer reality.
Click to expand...
Suuuure you do.
:roll:
 
disneydude said:
But don't take it personally G-man....I enjoy finding people who are being hypocritcal and/or intellectually dishonest and pointing it out....just a hobby.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, you must spend a LOT of time pointing at yourself...
 
PogueMoran said:
What would you do for a klondike bar? Create a hypothetical based on a logical fallacy...
Click to expand...
You've been shown how you are wrong.
If you dont want to admit it to us, that's fine, but you shoudl at least admit it to yourself.

A fact isn't open to intepretation like your personal interjection is. Thus far it cannot be proven that Bush's torture program stopped any plots and thus far failed to stop the embassy bombing in Iraq. So again if it was a fact it wouldn't be so easy to disprove.
Click to expand...
What you fail to recognize (or refuse to admit) is that in a hypothetical, NONE of the ASSUMED facts in the given have to be proven.

The question itself is based on failed logic.
Click to expand...
You've been shown how you are wrong. Again.
If you dont want to admit it to us, that's fine, but you shoudl at least admit it to yourself.
 
PogueMoran said:
Haughty terms?
Click to expand...
Yes ... terms that, at this point, you clearly dont understand.

Now, man up, admit you've been trying to dodge the question, and then answer that question.
 
disneydude said:
I may be a lot of things....but one thing I am not is hypocritical and/or intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
:rofl
I blew my pepsi out my nose when I read this
 
PogueMoran said:
That's not what I said. Goober is posing a logical fallacy based on his own opinion there's nothing valid about a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Click to expand...
Here's Pogue illustrating that he doesn't understand that when dealing with a hypothetical situation, the given, by defintion, cannot be post hoc ergo propter hoc.
 
EgoffTib said:
Seems like a waste of time. Discussing hypotheticals hardly accomplishes anything.
Click to expand...
Happens all the time, and if you REALLY thought so, you would not have wated the time to post what you posted.
 
Goobieman said:
You've been shown how you are wrong.
If you dont want to admit it to us, that's fine, but you shoudl at least admit it to yourself.
Click to expand...

Are you stuart smalley now? You were shown to be wrong you then shifted your rationale calling it a given when that failed you claimed it was an assumed facts. FACTs are not assumptions that can waiver facts are true statements with no give or take.

Goobieman said:
What you fail to recognize (or refuse to admit) is that in a hypothetical, NONE of the ASSUMED facts in the given have to be proven.
Click to expand...
Facts are not assumed facts have no give or take. Facts are provable, your original "hypothetical" meet neither of these. If your "assumed facts" can't be proven then they are not facts. You're just putting yourself into a maze of words that you have no idea what they mean.

Goobieman said:
You've been shown how you are wrong. Again.
If you dont want to admit it to us, that's fine, but you shoudl at least admit it to yourself.
Click to expand...

"You're wrong because I say you're wrong even though I keep twisting the meaning of what I said and now am on my third iterance of what I meant by claiming its an "assumed fact"
 
Goobieman said:
Here's Pogue illustrating that he doesn't understand that when dealing with a hypothetical situation, the given, by defintion, cannot be post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Click to expand...

It's not the question that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc goobie again you fail to understand that. Its the interjection you made saying that if it is shown to have been prevented by bush's torture tactics. That's the logical fallacy. This happened because of this is the rough translation of the latin ad hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not make causation. I know this is a tough subject for you to comprehend and you keep twisting what you meant by calling something a given, when its not, then claiming its an assumed fact, when facts aren't assumptions
 
Goobieman said:
Yes ... terms that, at this point, you clearly dont understand.

Now, man up, admit you've been trying to dodge the question, and then answer that question.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one having problems with terms like say a given which isn't open to interpretation but a set fact. Or assumed facts a phrase that makes no sense as facts are not assumptions. So now what are you going to claim it is next? If you really want to make that phrase that would mean your statement is not true but an assumption on your part. So that makes it you interjecting your own opinion into your hypothetical
 
Last edited:
PogueMoran said:
It's not the question that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc goobie again you fail to understand that.
Click to expand...
This is you yet again illustrating you dont understand what;s going on.
I -know- you arent claiming the question is a fallacy, but the givens.

You -continue- to fail to understand that the givens -cannot- be falacies.

Its the interjection you made saying that if it is shown to have been prevented by bush's torture tactics. That's the logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
That's also -not- the given.

The given:
1: The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention
2: there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those efforts,

See? You've been wrong all this time. Just like I said.

Correlation does not make causation. I know this is a tough subject for you to comprehend and you keep twisting what you meant by calling something a given, when its not, then claiming its an assumed fact, when facts aren't assumptions
Click to expand...
Says the guy that apparently didnt actually read the post he's been going on and on and on about.
Wow. Thats gotta hurt.
 
Goobieman said:
This is you yet again illustrating you dont understand what;s going on.
I -know- you arent claiming the question is a fallacy, but the givens.

You -continue- to fail to understand that the givens -cannot- be falacies.


That's also -not- the given.

The given:
1: The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention
2: there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those efforts,
Click to expand...

Givens aren't open to interpretation. The 2nd line is where you commit your logical fallacy and are interjecting your own opinion. The givens cannot be fallacies and that's why the second statement is not a given and why your hypothetical is based on your own personal interjection. That's what you keep failing to understand.

Goobieman said:
See? You've been wrong all this time. Just like I said.
Click to expand...

No as pointed out Givens are set in stone they're not open to interpretation so you seem to have a misunderstanding of how wrong your question is. That's why people have been calling it a loaded question because its based on your own personal opinion and a fallacy.

Goobieman said:
Says the guy that apparently didnt actually read the post he's been going on and on and on about.
Wow. Thats gotta hurt.
Click to expand...

I read the post I commented on it you then did a little dance and shifted from a given, to an assumed fact and you still failed to meet any of those definitions. You created a logical fallacy own up to it
 
PogueMoran said:
Givens aren't open to interpretation. The 2nd line is where you commit your logical fallacy and are interjecting your own opinion.
Click to expand...
The part you refuse to understand is that I am doing no such thing.
I am stating that, for the purposes of this discussion, this is a fact.
A fact, not an opinion.

Thus, you're wrong.

I read the post I commented on it you then did a little dance and shifted from a given, to an assumed fact
Click to expand...
:rofl

Givens ARE assumed facts.

:rofl
 
Goobieman said:
The part you refuse to understand is that I am doing no such thing.
I am stating that, for the purposes of this discussion, this is a fact.
A fact, not an opinion.
Click to expand...
It is not a fact. A fact is not open to interpretation unlike your so-called givens.

Goobieman said:
Thus, you're wrong.
Click to expand...
Translation:
"You're wrong because I say you're wrong not based on reality"

Goobieman said:
:rofl

Givens ARE assumed facts.

:rofl
Click to expand...

Which is not what statement 2 is. Again you seem to be missing the point. Assumption number 2 is not a given or an "assumed fact". It is an assumption based on speculation not on concrete evidence. So therein lies your problem. You keep not understanding how certain words do not apply to your statements. Assumption 2 is not a given or an "assumed fact" it is an assumption and your own personal interjection. Thus the fallacy.
 
PogueMoran said:
It is not a fact. A fact is not open to interpretation unlike your so-called givens.
Click to expand...
Its a GIVEN in a HYPOTHETICAL.
So, for the purposes of that hypothetical, it IS a fact.

This is what you fail to understand, and why your argument fails.

Really, it doesnt get any more plain than that; at this point, your failure to understand MUST be willful, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
 
disneydude said:
I would put my views in the same column as Kucinich. However, sometimes he is to the right of me.;)
Click to expand...

That is a scary thing.

That is the ODD thing about Kucinich where some things I am agreement with him; he was actually against all the stimulus spending and deficits. That is why it is hard for me to not respect the guy even though he can be a whack job on some issues.
 
Goobieman said:
Its a GIVEN in a HYPOTHETICAL.
So, for the purposes of that hypothetical, it IS a fact.

This is what you fail to understand, and why your argument fails.

Really, it doesnt get any more plain than that; at this point, your failure to understand MUST be willful, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
Click to expand...
Once again a given is set in stone its not open to interpretation as I have stated repeatedly. An "assumed fact" as you call it is not open to interpretation. Assumption #2 is open to interpretation making it neither a given or a fact. A fact doesn't change based on an argument you're trying to make. A fact is a fact. Now you're trying to redefine facts according to your own personal opinion. This is what apbst got nailed for in another topic, stating an opinion and claiming it as FACT.

Again you're claiming things that are not to be factual when they're not. At least be honest with yourself and admit your hypothetical was based on your own personal opinion and not on fact.
 
PogueMoran said:
Once again a given is set in stone its not open to interpretation as I have stated repeatedly.
Click to expand...
Yes. And yet you continue to try to interpret the given.

Your failure to understand is clearly willfull, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. And yet you continue to try to interpret the given.

Your failure to understand is clearly willfull, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
Click to expand...

If it was a given it wouldn't be open to interpretation. Once again a given is not variable in its interpretation that would make it a variable. A given is set in stone and is a fact.

There's nothing to understand you're trying to claim your personal interjection in your hypothetical is a given when it is not. There's no sense in going further because you don't understand how to make a hypothetical.
 
PogueMoran said:
If it was a given it wouldn't be open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Your failure to understand is clearly willfull, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
 
Goobieman said:
Your failure to understand is clearly willfull, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
Click to expand...

And its abundantly clear when you state the preceeding you are entirely talking about yourself and your failure to even know how to hypothecize. Calling things that are givens that are not, calling something a fact when its debateable. Its obvious you were trying to bring partisan hackery into this and couldn't even cover your tracks correctly
 
PogueMoran said:
And its abundantly clear when you state the preceeding you are entirely talking about yourself and your failure to even know how to hypothecize. Calling things that are givens that are not, calling something a fact when its debateable. Its obvious you were trying to bring partisan hackery into this and couldn't even cover your tracks correctly
Click to expand...
Your failure to understand is clearly willfull, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
 
Goobieman said:
Your failure to understand is clearly willfull, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
Click to expand...

Your repeating of the same line doesn't make your position anymore valid than the first time you posted it
 
PogueMoran said:
Your repeating of the same line doesn't make your position anymore valid than the first time you posted it
Click to expand...

Your failure to understand is clearly willfull, and as such, there's no sense in going further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom