tecoyah

Had it not been for the reactions in this thread....I would have pushed for ToT in the final descision. I dont think I can do so anymore.

Just Sayin'

cherokee

Just wanted to ask some thing

Will this poll decide who wins?
If so is that really fair?
I mean if one person has more friends here then the other...

__________________
We must never forget.
On October 23, 1983 at 6:22 a.m., a large delivery truck drove to the Beirut International Airport where the Marine Barracks was located.
The driver detonated explosives with the power equal to more than 12,000 pounds of TNT. The explosion crumbled the four-story building, crushing service members to death while they were sleeping.
The terrorist attack killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members who were stationed there to help keep the peace.

jallman

I think at this stage it comes down to a question of sportsmanship. Even had indy done poorly, ToT's belligerence in trying to badger everyone outside the debate is deserving of a loss by default. In any event, indy presented flawless arguments that were thoughtful and precise in their assertion. All I am seeing from ToT is anger and desperation...such ugly characteristics and not ones I attribute to winners.

__________________
McCain / Palin 08

tecoyah

This poll counts for 1/3 of the total.

1/3 goes to the monitor
1/3 goes to the Mods

Trajan Octavian Titus

I withdraw my concession based on voter irregularities in Florida, god damn handing chads.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Sportsmanship? This is power politics buddy, haven't you heard of 527's? I'm Karl Rove. I'm not a dick in real life I just play one on the internet.

Ever hear the story about LBJ's first election run to the Senate? Well LBJ wanted to put out the story that his opponent (who happened to be a farmer) had carnal relations with his pigs. When told by one of his staffers that there was absolutely no truth to the story LBJ said: "I know but let's make the bastard deny it." This is politics there's no such thing as paranoia.

FYI he went negative first when he called into question of my respect for the integrity of the debate I felt compelled to respond.

ngdawg

Uh...it's a forum...no one's running for office.
I have to admit, although I agreed with Indy's POV, your opening and follow-up were direct, textbook following debate styles. I think you both started to falter a bit. Perhaps over-anxious to get your points across, I don't know.
But, had this thread and your posts been available as the debate continued, you would not have gotten one single vote.
Just a little advice, ToT: temper tantrums are bad enough when you're 2. When you're 20, they're extremely unbecoming. "He did it first" belongs on the playground. Taking the high road will get you where you want to go and much quicker. Just sayin...

__________________
http://www.patriotguard.org
We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security.

Trajan Octavian Titus

That wasn't me it was my Karl Rove alter ego brought on by a heavy night of binge drinking and a couple of vikadin (or was it zannex?) to be honest it's all somewhat of a blurr.

But if you like that you're going to love this:

After reading this for context I think you are now prepared for this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/hole/7181-letter-all-forum-members.html

ngdawg

Eh....seen better, done better....
Language is tricky. One can be creative enough to insult without insulting, spread knowledge when they know nothing and teach to those who think they know it all. Debate is the culmination of language trickery coupled with knowledge.
Too many here think they have debating skills, but go no further than declaring opposition 'wrong'. It is not enough to declare it. It is not enough to back up your declaration. What works is the use of language in such a compelling way as to convince the opposition that they have much to learn and, ideally, see they are wrong.
Admittedly, the 'debating' on the majority of threads is more of discussion of views. Views are not, in themselves wrong, until or unless they are backed up with agenda-riddled essays that the user considers 'facts'. They can be and are, too many times, misguided and erroneous in expression, ie; someone can say I'm stupid, but officially they'd be wrong. But that's their view. The onus is then on me to prove otherwise, should I wish to.(but sometimes I enjoy playing dumb just to watch them go crazy )
Such as it is with 'True Debates'. While your view may be that humans do not contribute to global warming trends and the opposition's view is that it is, until unbiased proof is proffered to back up either view, it is not necessarily wrong. And even then, both may have truths in what they present. That is where language art comes in. Once you go to the level of 'he said/did it first', you have lost the art and it is no longer debate, it's an argument.
Spin doctors know this, politicians know this. As laypeople, we need to be savvy to it and these true debate threads afford an opportunity to hone the skill. Yes, politicians (specially here in NJ), sling mud like no other. But like the LBJ anecdote, it's the 'spin' that makes or breaks. There's a old story about a politician so savvy about language that he won his sought-after office by using such phrases as 'My opponent's daughter is a notorious thespian'.
Eh, it's late....better luck next time, ToT. If you came away from the debate with more knowledge than when you went in, you didn't 'lose'.

hipsterdufus

No, I voted on who presented the truth.

__________________

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? - John Kerry
If I hear - "Just give us 6 more months in Iraq" one more time, I'm going to puke!