• 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!

Who's packing ERs? Not the uninsured

phattonez said:
SCOTUS = infallible. Must be nice to live in bizarro world where logical fallacies don't exist.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say infallible, but often the final word.
 
So what? That doesn't make their decision the correct one.
 
No whining? Shut up and accept authority? That's not exactly the view that liberals are supposed to hold.
 
phattonez said:
No whining? Shut up and accept authority? That's not exactly the view that liberals are supposed to hold.
Click to expand...

Read again. I said no whinning, make a better argument next time. That means go back to work and actually do something. It's how it works.
 
What was wrong with my argument?
 
phattonez said:
What was wrong with my argument?
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused:

We're talking about the role of the court. if the court rules contrary to you, you lost the argument. So, the next step is not to whine, but to make a better argument next time.
 
That's just an appeal to authority. Because the court agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You don't think OJ is innocent do you? It's the same concept.
 
phattonez said:
That's just an appeal to authority. Because the court agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You don't think OJ is innocent do you? It's the same concept.
Click to expand...

You're not listening. It has nothing to do with right and wrong, as you are defining it. It has to do with our system. This is how it works. Being upset over it doesn't change the process.

BTW, it doesn't mean they are wrong either. They have a good shot of being right. I'd say a better shot than you or I have. And not because of their authoritative position, but because they know something about the law, the constitution, and everything involved in making this ruling.

This is not say they are never wrong. Just more likely to be right.
 
So you're basically saying I should stop talking about it on a debate site because it doesn't matter what I think? If that's the case, then why are any of us here?
 
phattonez said:
So you're basically saying I should stop talking about it on a debate site because it doesn't matter what I think? If that's the case, then why are any of us here?
Click to expand...

I never said any such thing. Again, I'm speaking to the role of the court. That's the debate we're having and what I'm disagreeing with you on.
 
I was never arguing the role of the court, which is why I think we got confused. I was merely saying that just becuase the Supreme Court agrees means that it is constitutional. Of course if they agree then it is is law, we can all agree on that. I was just arguing their infallability.
 
phattonez said:
I was never arguing the role of the court, which is why I think we got confused. I was merely saying that just becuase the Supreme Court agrees means that it is constitutional. Of course if they agree then it is is law, we can all agree on that. I was just arguing their infallability.
Click to expand...

Struck me as otherwise. If we agree this is the system, and that the proper response is to go back to work creating a better argument, then we have no disagreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom