• 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!

Will you take a pledge to avoid "whataboutism" arguments?

Will you take a pledge to avoid "whataboutism" arguments?


  • Total voters
    29
IOW, nothing I can say will change you mind. So, what's the point?

You might have been better off pledging to cease the personal attacks when you run out of something intelligent to say.

Huh. I expected a stupid answer, and instead you provided one that would have made the expected answer look downright intelligent by comparison.
 
Huh. I expected a stupid answer, and instead you provided one that would have made the expected answer look downright intelligent by comparison.

See what I mean? :lamo
 
Only if it's used to prove an argument.

Because, most of the time whataboutism is used in a very political argument, there is a heavy suggestion that If :peace is true, than Republicans/Obama/New Zealand/whatever are bad and people in my position, world view, political party are good. It is not a simple argument of if :peace is true, than this argument is a bad argument.

Whataboutism become relevant in this partisan environment. Because politics is a partisan environment. You can look at the argument in a completely closed system and a whataboutism is completely irrelevent, but as soon as it is brought into the political landscape EVERYTHING in the open system becomes relevant as well.

Because as a debater you can dishonestly look at the system as a closed system in order to make an open system argument... and if you do that in a biased way, a whataboutism is completely relevant.

:bs:bs:bs
 
Wouldn’t the best counter to “whataboutism” actually be consistency?
Yes, but that's impossible. The sad fact is that when the power in the country switches parties, what was okay yesterday is now bad according to the partisans on both sides.
 
I have taken to making whataboutist arguments fairly regularly in response to what I perceive as what has come to be a standard debate tactic from the Right. It was pointed out to me in another thread just now that I made a whataboutist post (which was, to be fair, in response to a whataboutist post). Regardless, there is no doubting that anybody who uses whataboutism is just part of an ongoing problem that effectively breaks debate. I would stop using it, except for the feeling that if everybody on the left were to stop using whataboutism, it would really just be the Right who engages in the tactic (the "prisoner's dilemma").

Therefore I came up with the idea of a pledge to avoid using whataboutism arguments. But in order to avoid a prisoner's dilemma situation, the pledge would only apply within the group of people who also make the pledge. In other words, for every person who takes the pledge, I agree never to use whataboutism in response to their posts (until or unless, of course, they break that pledge). It's just a rough idea at the moment, but it seems okay on the surface of it.

What say ye?

For those who may be compelled to say, "How about you just don't use whataboutism?" I'll say in response, "You know who you are, and you know if this applies to you." Also, that "prisoner's dilemma" thing.

Nice try but since it is Trump who is president, you want to be able to take clear shots at him with the other side not being able to counter your nonsense. If we make this pledge, how about starting it with the next president? Don't want to do that, do you?
 
Nice try but since it is Trump who is president, you want to be able to take clear shots at him with the other side not being able to counter your nonsense. If we make this pledge, how about starting it with the next president? Don't want to do that, do you?

The pact doesn't have a time limit. If enough people who've already voted decide to change their minds and want to join it, I will start a new poll.
 
in British accent:

"I think this thread went well. What do you think?"

I think as well as could be expected, lol. I do anticipate it being used as a routine "gotcha" by those who prefer ambush to discussion, however. :lol:
 
But, what about all the people that have been banned? They surely do more whataboutism than I!
 
I think as well as could be expected, lol. I do anticipate it being used as a routine "gotcha" by those who prefer ambush to discussion, however. :lol:

Me too. But the agreement is a pact. It's specifically constructed to avoid a prisoners dilemma-type situation.
 
It's clear that you've staked out your position on this matter. Thank you for your contribution.

Well now, that's a kind of dismissive attitude ya' got there..... ironic when your stated aim is to improve the quality of debates.
 
The pact doesn't have a time limit. If enough people who've already voted decide to change their minds and want to join it, I will start a new poll.

LOL. Translation: I am right, you just want the opportunity to take clear shots at Trump now. You are soooooooooooo transparent. Only the simplest minds would fall for your BS.
 
LOL. Translation: I am right, you just want the opportunity to take clear shots at Trump now. You are soooooooooooo transparent. Only the simplest minds would fall for your BS.

Keep in mind, I’m free to use whataboutism with anybody who didn’t take the pledge, so your post is meaningless.
 
LOL. Translation: I am right, you just want the opportunity to take clear shots at Trump now. You are soooooooooooo transparent. Only the simplest minds would fall for your BS.

Why wasn't this policy in place during the Obama administration when whataboutism blamed everything on Bush? Invoking it now is clearly an attempt to make potshots at Trump without the chance of being called out on it. I don't favor limits to free speech.
 
Keep in mind, I’m free to use whataboutism with anybody who didn’t take the pledge, so your post is meaningless.

LOL. You're pathetic attempt at trickery fell flat on it's face. The only people voting yes in your stupid poll are the rabid lefties who only want to level criticisms at Trump for everything under the sun without having to hear any of the very same criticisms about Obama, et al, such as criticisms of Trump and Putin and election meddling when Obama was the one who gave the order to stand down, not doing a damn thing about it.
 
good luck getting many right wingers to agree, whataboutisms and other deflections is all they have. They certainly don't have facts, logic and reasoning
 
good luck getting many right wingers to agree, whataboutisms and other deflections is all they have. They certainly don't have facts, logic and reasoning

Ironically enough, this thread was made as a response to a republican who complained about my use of whataboutism (which was, to be fair, in response to his own whataboutist post).
 
good luck getting many right wingers to agree, whataboutisms and other deflections is all they have. They certainly don't have facts, logic and reasoning

The fact that there are whataboutisms proves that they are worthy of being talked about. Want to attack Trump for how he handles Russian election meddling? What about Obama, who actually ordered his people to stand down and let it happen? But, no, you just want to attack Trump and leave Obama out of it. If Obama had done something about Russian election meddling while it was going on and while he had the chance, we wouldn't be in a situation where we would have to be talking about it now.
 
The fact that there are whataboutisms proves that they are worthy of being talked about. Want to attack Trump for how he handles Russian election meddling? What about Obama, who actually ordered his people to stand down and let it happen? But, no, you just want to attack Trump and leave Obama out of it. If Obama had done something about Russian election meddling while it was going on and while he had the chance, we wouldn't be in a situation where we would have to be talking about it now.

So you accept that Russians interfered in our election then?
 
So you accept that Russians interfered in our election then?

I always did. Both of our countries have been interfering in other countries' elections for decades, if not centuries. It didn't just start in 2016 so I don't really understand why the left is all up in arms about it now, other than needing an excuse as to why Hillary lost. But, there was no collusion between Russia and Trump or his campaign to do it and there isn't one shred of evidence that anything Russia did changed the election results, just as there is no evidence that voting from illegals changes election results. And, when our intelligence informed the president that it was happening, Obama didn't do anything and told them to stand down and let it happen.
 
I always did. Both of our countries have been interfering in other countries' elections for decades, if not centuries. It didn't just start in 2016 so I don't really understand why the left is all up in arms about it now, other than needing an excuse as to why Hillary lost. But, there was no collusion between Russia and Trump or his campaign to do it and there isn't one shred of evidence that anything Russia did changed the election results, just as there is no evidence that voting from illegals changes election results. And, when our intelligence informed the president that it was happening, Obama didn't do anything and told them to stand down and let it happen.

So you accept that Russians hacked the DNC's server as well?
 
Probably not.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Probably not.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

I'm (mildly) curious how many people voted "no" before fully reading the OP.

That said, I could understand the mindset of just not wanting a spreadsheet to refer to.
 
So you accept that Russians hacked the DNC's server as well?

Who do you think I am, Trump? Yes. I accept that, just as I accept that Russia also tried hacking Republicans and that the US has hacked others, most famously Iran's nuclear program. But, If you are going down the road that Russia hacked the DNC at the request of Trump you need to post further on down in the conspiracy theory forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom