• 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!

Shining some light on Hillary

Thoreau72

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,644
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Source:

It maintains websites in several languages, including English, which are critical of United States foreign policy and NATO as well as the official explanation of the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the war on terror...

In 2005, The Jewish Tribune criticized the Centre for Research on Globalization's website for being "rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial." Chossudovsky responded that he is of Jewish heritage and would be one of the last people to condone antisemitic views.[16]...
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

Might as well cite Alex Jones.
 
NoLeftNoRight said:
Citing Alex Jones would likely still be far more accurate and informative (if truth matters) than ANY of the ultra left wing MSM outlets.

But then anyone knows that.
Click to expand...

Whatever. My point is that the OP cites fringy Truthy BS and provides no original material in the OP except a dark and mysterious... "They did/did not support X, and we know why..."

It's stupid crap.
 
Did she burn when the light touched her?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Way better than citing NYT or CNN, eh? :mrgreen:

You conveniently dodged the substance, and I think I know why. :lol: Too much an 'inconvenient truth'?
Click to expand...

In a debate, when the presumed opponent cites the likes of Alex Jones, I think a criticism of source is paramount. We can consider the weakness of an argument that requires such a source.

If you'd like to move past a discussion of your source and the implications therein, perhaps you can state, succinctly, your claim, position and/or argument. Vague and mysterious accusations against me (or something else) do not move the debate forward.
 
ecofarm said:
In a debate, when the presumed opponent cites the likes of Alex Jones, I think a criticism of source is paramount. We can consider the weakness of an argument that requires such a source.

If you'd like to move past a discussion of your source and the implications therein, perhaps you can state, succinctly, your claim, position and/or argument. Vague and mysterious accusations against me (or something else) do not move the debate forward.
Click to expand...
Does that not seem a little like hypocrisy to you? Your vague and mysterious accusations against the sources, would that not go under the classification of your "(or something else)"?
 
ecofarm said:
In a debate, when the presumed opponent cites the likes of Alex Jones, I think a criticism of source is paramount. We can consider the weakness of an argument that requires such a source.

If you'd like to move past a discussion of your source and the implications therein, perhaps you can state, succinctly, your claim, position and/or argument. Vague and mysterious accusations against me (or something else) do not move the debate forward.
Click to expand...

Who cited Alex Jones? In this thread, it was you, not I.

I cited Global Research, not Infowars. If you see them as the same in any regard, have at it old buddy.

Is this really a debate, or just sniping? I'll take Chossudovsky any day over NYT, CNN or Infowars. My bet is you never have read any of his work because it's too "controversial" and not mainstream enough.
 
ecofarm said:
In a debate, when the presumed opponent cites the likes of Alex Jones, I think a criticism of source is paramount. We can consider the weakness of an argument that requires such a source.

If you'd like to move past a discussion of your source and the implications therein, perhaps you can state, succinctly, your claim, position and/or argument. Vague and mysterious accusations against me (or something else) do not move the debate forward.
Click to expand...

I find almost exclusively, attacking the source out of hand rather than the content is a liberal "debate" strategy. IMO it just means you lost the debate.
 
blaxshep said:
I find almost exclusively, attacking the source out of hand rather than the content is a liberal "debate" strategy. IMO it just means you lost the debate.
Click to expand...

If it were a horse race, it means his horse never left the gate. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom