• 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!

Debating politics at Debate Politics

Is it possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?

  • Yes, it's done often. (please provide examples)

    Votes: 6 40.0%

  • I'll start when the other side starts.

    Votes: 4 26.7%

  • No, it's not possibl in today's environment.

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • I don't know what you're talking about. I am a virtue of open-mindedness.

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
I not so humbly chose the "virtue" option, because there was no choice of "this does not occur always".

I'll let others decide if my posting history displays adequate examples.

It's really not so hard to try to not do this comparison behaviour though, but there may be a self-serving interest in my case. When I believe I'm right, I hope to convince my debate opponent of that. To do that, I need to debate him properly. Zoning-in on the direct topic at hand is debating 101. And it's how you win debates.

But referring to a previous negative political incidences as justification for a current negative instance, is a logical fallacy. So why waste my time, and my opponent's? I'd rather get straight to his argument's defect, and hopefully have him concede and learn something.

And even better, by trying to debate properly, I sometimes learn something.
 
Verax said:
To expand on the problem you've highlighted, it's almost impossible to have a good debate unless you find at least one of person in the thread you can civilly and honestly debate with while completing ignoring the assassins of decency.

Really the only way to "fix" debate here would be to have very specific and fair rules beyond "don't insult posters". It would also require a paid mod team which is obviously beyond scope so not really realistic. People just sidestep the current rules and be as awful as they can mostly without breaking them. They also do stuff like completely ignore what you're saying while saying the same thing you've addressed a dozen times while ignoring your counterpoint so it's just a competition of who keeps replying. I've lost that war 999/1000 times because it's just stupid.

This is why I tend to just skim through and read the first couple pages of each thread to get up to date on the news and what a few people think about it and don't bother posting too often, it seems mostly pointless. Also I don't have the patience or attitude to be decent for extended periods of time, lol.
Click to expand...

It's funny to watch Liberals beg for decency. :lamo

To the Left, "deceny" means "agree with me and if you don't you're a racist/liar/homophobe/liar/partisan hack".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is arguing for equal protection/application of the law, using/citing precedent or pointing out obvious hypocrisy now considered to be "cheating" or "wrong"? The poll seems to imply that these (or similar) debate techniques are somehow less than honorable - is that not so?

Personally, I see no harm in the use of analogies that *gasp* might include "the other side". What poll option choice represents that idea?
Click to expand...

It's almost impossible not to.
 
radcen said:
:lol: I coined it "Look, a squirrel-ism!", but yeah, same thing.

I'll have to remember that link. Thanks.
Click to expand...
"Look, squirrel - ism" strikes me as even a more appropriate a term for what Trump does in his Tweets to completely change the media cycle topic.

Ex:

Media: Russia Investigation

Media: Russia Investigation

Media: Russian Investigation


Trump: "Obama tapped my wires!"
 
Other.


It's done, but not often.
 
Chomsky said:
"Look, squirrel - ism" strikes me as even a more appropriate a term for what Trump does in his Tweets to completely change the media cycle topic.

Ex:

Media: Russia Investigation

Media: Russia Investigation

Media: Russian Investigation


Trump: "Obama tapped my wires!"
Click to expand...

Kinda like:

Conservatives: "Obamacare won't work."

Leftists: "Racist!"
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is arguing for equal protection/application of the law, using/citing precedent or pointing out obvious hypocrisy now considered to be "cheating" or "wrong"? The poll seems to imply that these (or similar) debate techniques are somehow less than honorable - is that not so?

Personally, I see no harm in the use of analogies that *gasp* might include "the other side". What poll option choice represents that idea?
Click to expand...
You're missing the nuance. Comparisons *can be* valid, when used properly and with supporting information, but they have devolved to become not much more than an, "Oh yeah? Says you!"

Example: "Trump has accomplished nothing in his first 100 days."
Response: "Obama had fewer accomplishments in 8 years."

Ok, how does that answer the point regarding Trump? It does not. It doesn't even try. If Trump has indeed accomplished something, then point it out. Sorry, but this type of response IS less than honorable. It's empty.

This type of response is also a backhanded way of acknowledging that the original point was correct... Trump has accomplished little or nothing, and the responder has nowhere to go, hence, "Look, a squirrel."

To be a valid tactic, the response should be something like, "Trump has had <X x 10> accomplishments in his first 100 days, while Obama had only <X x 2> in his first 100 days." Naming a few of the accomplishments would also be helpful, maybe even necessary.

Disclaimer: Trump is just the current example. Same holds true in reverse, though I'm sure the blind will not see it.
 
Chomsky said:
"Look, squirrel - ism" strikes me as even a more appropriate a term for what Trump does in his Tweets to completely change the media cycle topic.

Ex:

Media: Russia Investigation

Media: Russia Investigation

Media: Russian Investigation


Trump: "Obama tapped my wires!"
Click to expand...

And his Suckers say, "Ooooh, a squirrel."
 
Chomsky said:
I not so humbly chose the "virtue" option, because there was no choice of "this does not occur always".

I'll let others decide if my posting history displays adequate examples.

It's really not so hard to try to not do this comparison behaviour though, but there may be a self-serving interest in my case. When I believe I'm right, I hope to convince my debate opponent of that. To do that, I need to debate him properly. Zoning-in on the direct topic at hand is debating 101. And it's how you win debates.

But referring to a previous negative political incidences as justification for a current negative instance, is a logical fallacy. So why waste my time, and my opponent's? I'd rather get straight to his argument's defect, and hopefully have him concede and learn something.

And even better, by trying to debate properly, I sometimes learn something.
Click to expand...

If the topic is the "Bush" federal income tax rates and the assertion that they remain a problem to this day then I see absolutely no harm in pointing out that as of 2013 those rates became the "Obama" federal income tax rates since he kept 98.6% of them - raising the marginal bracket rate for only the top 1.4% of tax payers. Folks may not like that idea but stating a fact is not wrong.

As far as the two wrongs (negatives?) idea it is more of a "when did X become wrong to you point?" that I will raise. If X was not wrong (or even newsworthy) when A was doing it then why (when?) did it become wrong (or newsworthy) for B to to the same? There seems to be a tremendous amount attention (generating many DP threads) given to Trump's "non-presidential" remarks (those that do not refer to any federal policy at all) yet it was seen as proper (or at least not improper) for past presidents to have commented on pending state court cases, corporate employee pay decisions or even local school board decisions without getting hammered for it by the MSM.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If the topic is the "Bush" federal income tax rates and the assertion that they remain a problem to this day then I see absolutely no harm in pointing out that as of 2013 those rates became the "Obama" federal income tax rates since he kept 98.6% of them - raising the marginal bracket rate for only the top 1.4% of tax payers. Folks may not like that idea but stating a fact is not wrong.

As far as the two wrongs (negatives?) idea it is more of a "when did X become wrong to you point?" that I will raise. If X was not wrong (or even newsworthy) when A was doing it then why (when?) did it become wrong (or newsworthy) for B to to the same? There seems to be a tremendous amount attention (generating many DP threads) given to Trump's "non-presidential" remarks (those that do not refer to any federal policy at all) yet it was seen as proper (or at least not improper) for past presidents to have commented on pending state court cases, corporate employee pay decisions or even local school board decisions without getting hammered for it by the MSM.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right.
 
radcen said:
You're missing the nuance. Comparisons *can be* valid, when used properly and with supporting information, but they have devolved to become not much more than an, "Oh yeah? Says you!"

Example: "Trump has accomplished nothing in his first 100 days."
Response: "Obama had fewer accomplishments in 8 years."

Ok, how does that answer the point regarding Trump? It does not. It doesn't even try. If Trump has indeed accomplished something, then point it out. Sorry, but this type of response IS less than honorable. It's empty.

This type of response is also a backhanded way of acknowledging that the original point was correct... Trump has accomplished little or nothing, and the responder has nowhere to go, hence, "Look, a squirrel."

To be a valid tactic, the response should be something like, "Trump has had <X x 10> accomplishments in his first 100 days, while Obama had only <X x 2> in his first 100 days." Naming a few of the accomplishments would also be helpful, maybe even necessary.

Disclaimer: Trump is just the current example. Same holds true in reverse, though I'm sure the blind will not see it.
Click to expand...

In your example the initial post (bolded above) virtually invites a comparison - since it is rare for a POTUS (especially via congress) to accomplish a major policy goal in that amount of time. Popping up with "Trump did X" will obviously be met with "X is trivial, every POTUS does X or X was done by congress". The best reply to that post, IMHO, is none at all.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If the topic is the "Bush" federal income tax rates and the assertion that they remain a problem to this day then I see absolutely no harm in pointing out that as of 2013 those rates became the "Obama" federal income tax rates since he kept 98.6% of them - raising the marginal bracket rate for only the top 1.4% of tax payers. Folks may not like that idea but stating a fact is not wrong.

As far as the two wrongs (negatives?) idea it is more of a "when did X become wrong to you point?" that I will raise. If X was not wrong (or even newsworthy) when A was doing it then why (when?) did it become wrong (or newsworthy) for B to to the same? There seems to be a tremendous amount attention (generating many DP threads) given to Trump's "non-presidential" remarks (those that do not refer to any federal policy at all) yet it was seen as proper (or at least not improper) for past presidents to have commented on pending state court cases, corporate employee pay decisions or even local school board decisions without getting hammered for it by the MSM.
Click to expand...
I have a real-life friend who, during Hillary's email scandal investigation(s), kept saying, "But Colin Powell did it, too.", as a defense of Hillary.

Ok, yeah so?

Many years ago I was in traffic court waiting my turn. In front of the judge was an older lady, perfectly dressed, looked like she stepped out of the Sears catalog from 1956. She was crying and saying that she didn't think it was fair that she got a speeding ticket while others around here were speeding too and didn't get tickets. The judge calmly and politely informed her that it didn't work that way. Just because not everybody is caught doesn't mean what she did was somehow ok.

This relates to the Hillary/Powell comparison. If your defense of Hillary was that Colin Powell did it too, what you're really saying is that Colin Powell was guilty of breaking the law, and hence so was Hillary, and by proper logical extension that Hillary should indeed be prosecuted. Just because Colin Powell wasn't* doesn't absolve Hillary from legal wrongdoing. It's not only not a defense, it's an acknowledgement that what Hillary did was indeed illegal.

*-There has been some say that it wasn't illegal when Powell did it, but that's not the point she was making, nor the overall point here.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In your example the initial post (bolded above) virtually invites a comparison - since it is rare for a POTUS (especially via congress) to accomplish a major policy goal in that amount of time. Popping up with "Trump did X" will obviously be met with "X is trivial, every POTUS does X or X was done by congress". The best reply to that post, IMHO, is none at all.
Click to expand...

It is baiting, sure. And die-hard supporters on either side will reflexively dismiss what they don't want to hear. A more valid comparison would be after a first full term, or something like that.
 
It's a common tool in argumentative essay or making any point to acknowledge the counterarguments and then deal with those. But of course the form it takes on DP is just school bus kiddie level "Oh yeah well your dad didn't even ----"

It's just opinionated hackery defensiveness not even worth responding

Hence why i've stayed away mostly of late even in the greatest political scandal since watergate (and IMO ever). It's very likely to me that Trump made a deal with Putin to sabotage the election. And yet i go into a thread and the Trumpites "Oh yeah well Obama ----" All i can do with that is :lamo
 
radcen said:
I have a real-life friend who, during Hillary's email scandal investigation(s), kept saying, "But Colin Powell did it, too.", as a defense of Hillary.

Ok, yeah so?

Many years ago I was in traffic court waiting my turn. In front of the judge was an older lady, perfectly dressed, looked like she stepped out of the Sears catalog from 1956. She was crying and saying that she didn't think it was fair that she got a speeding ticket while others around here were speeding too and didn't get tickets. The judge calmly and politely informed her that it didn't work that way. Just because not everybody is caught doesn't mean what she did was somehow ok.

This relates to the Hillary/Powell comparison. If your defense of Hillary was that Colin Powell did it too, what you're really saying is that Colin Powell was guilty of breaking the law, and hence so was Hillary, and by proper logical extension that Hillary should indeed be prosecuted. Just because Colin Powell wasn't* doesn't absolve Hillary from legal wrongdoing. It's not only not a defense, it's an acknowledgement that what Hillary did was indeed illegal.

*-There has been some say that it wasn't illegal when Powell did it, but that's not the point she was making, nor the overall point here.
Click to expand...

All I can say about that (lame?) example is that I have yet to see any evidence that Powell placed classified data in his home, shared it with many uncleared folks or sent it to the homes of his staff. Hillary's private email use was not the issue - her handling of classified data was the issue.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
All I can say about that (lame?) example is that I have yet to see any evidence that Powell placed classified data in his home, shared it with many uncleared folks or sent it to the homes of his staff. Hillary's private email use was not the issue - her handling of classified data was the issue.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind I was being somewhat generic and to the topic of type of response. I didn't want to rehash all the technicalities as the thread isn't about those.
 
radcen said:
Keep in mind I was being somewhat generic and to the topic of type of response. I didn't want to rehash all the technicalities as the thread isn't about those.
Click to expand...

The thread is about valid debate tactics - is it not? ;)
 
radcen said:
Debating politics at Debate Politics

In today's political climate, is it even possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?

If so, I'm not seeing it. Threads can start out straight forward enough (in their own partisan way, sure), but they all quickly turn to variations of, "You didn't say that about <insert other perceived pariah here>." Or, is tactic this confirmation that neither side has any defense?

If someone says, "Trump/Hillary/Obama did X.", I see it as a backhanded acknowledgment of the accusation when the defensive response is something like , "Oh yeah, well, Obama/Hillary/Trump did it, too." What the hell is that? You can't actually defend your person's actions?

:peace
Click to expand...

Sure it's possible.

When somebody makes a statement about X and another person's only response is "Yeah, well, what about Y," that's a red herring. Stick to the X!
 
radcen said:
Debating politics at Debate Politics

In today's political climate, is it even possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?

If so, I'm not seeing it. Threads can start out straight forward enough (in their own partisan way, sure), but they all quickly turn to variations of, "You didn't say that about <insert other perceived pariah here>." Or, is tactic this confirmation that neither side has any defense?

If someone says, "Trump/Hillary/Obama did X.", I see it as a backhanded acknowledgment of the accusation when the defensive response is something like , "Oh yeah, well, Obama/Hillary/Trump did it, too." What the hell is that? You can't actually defend your person's actions?

:peace
Click to expand...

It's dishonest of a debater to want to tear one person down and let someone from their own side go scott free. Their hypocrisy should be pointed out.
 
Last edited:
They actually used to have "True Debates" I'm not sure if they do anymore, but still..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom