Debating People using links and videos... your evidence.. both sides have to take a look debate

[Fiddytree]

Then lets talk some and share our evidence that both have to take a look at.
Pm me or soemthing.

Aw damn. It's turned into a link battle, son! Nobody rolls off the http's like the f-i-double d.

 

[TobyMeyers]

Aw damn. It's turned into a link battle, son! Nobody rolls off the http's like the f-i-double d.

Your scared to debate just like the rest.

 

[Mach]

I am just showing people why I belive the way I do from the info that i've collected about politics.

That's not debate. That's not a claim that can be debated, argued, etc., based on the facts.

The truth is many people have never seen many famous political speakers out there.

So you're here to do marketing for those speakers? Isn't that soliciting?

For example do you know who Stefan Moly is? He's the most viewed poltiical talker on yotube, look it up, yet the media hides him from the public because they do not like the things he says. But he is the most popular and successful poltiical personality in the world of social media!! think about this if it was a Left Wing person that had achieved this type of success he would get tons of interviews on Cnn etc

For example, porn and pure clickbait generate 10000x the viewers of Stefan Moly, do you want that prime time on all news networks?

Maybe you should stop listening to youtube videos and start thinking critically. Just a thought.

No one cares why you believe the stuff you believe in debate. You just debate. If you can only appeal to links/authority, then it's fallacy, and it's not debate-worthy.
If you can debate it on it's merits, with reason/logic, or bleh, persuasive language/trickery, than do so. If you just want to show people your long history of confirmation bias, don't bother.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

I think using evidence to support an argument is important, but one thing that irritates me is when people try to link a 200 page report and declare "LOOK!" expecting others to read the entire thing. Then they say "You're just lazy/refuse to see the evidence!" when in reality most of us do not have time to read 200 pages to possibly not even find the evidence the person said was there.

Those people are either 1. trolls or 2. have absolutely no idea what they are talking and have no arguments

 

[Casper]

One thing i notice about debating is that the other side is not willing to look at my links or videos.
I"d like to do debates with people where they have to watch and take a look at my side of the story and why I feel the way I do.
In return I will watch their evidence, etc to see why they feel the way they do.

And also do this via verbal debate somehow .. and be fun to start a youtube channel doing debates like this.

Anybody else think this a cool idea?

If anybody wants to do a debate pm me maybe. Can do via skype.

Depends on those sources, some "sources" are known outlets for lies and propaganda and All videos are suspect since any idiot with a phone can make and post one. Oh and no you cannot require others view your sources. Try arguing you POV yourself, include your links and videos if you wish but they cannot argue your Opinion for you.

 

[HonestJoe]

One thing i notice about debating is that the other side is not willing to look at my links or videos.

I’ll always look at links but I don’t like videos of speeches or presentations very much in this context. They make it too easy for the presenter to skip over holes in their arguments or the need to provide evidence and references for their assertions without it being noticed and can often use dramatic words, flashy graphics and the like to oversell their point. Written prose can be read at your own pace, easily checked and cross referenced on the fly and is also much simpler to refer to in the resultant discussion. I’m probably slightly biased being old, set in my ways and a better writer than public speaker.

I"d like to do debates with people where they have to watch and take a look at my side of the story and why I feel the way I do.

I could see scope for people having formal debates via video in place of face-to-face ones but I don’t see that format as being any better than remote debates in writing. I think the main point of verbal debates (long before internet video was an option) is to better open it up to audiences than to improve the actual quality of debate.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

"If you only read this book you'd agree with me."

I'm not doing your homework for you, that's lazy debating. Make your own case.

 

[TheGoverness]

"If you only read this book you'd agree with me."

I'm not doing your homework for you, that's lazy debating. Make your own case.

Well, you won't get the chance anymore if you wanted to.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Well, you won't get the chance anymore if you wanted to.

That was fast. Oh well, there's always /r/iamverysmart for guys like him.

 

[OlNate]

I am just showing people why I belive the way I do from the info that i've collected about politics.
The truth is many people have never seen many famous political speakers out there.
For example do you know who Stefan Moly is? He's the most viewed poltiical talker on yotube, look it up, yet the media hides him from the public because they do not like the things he says. But he is the most popular and successful poltiical personality in the world of social media!! think about this if it was a Left Wing person that had achieved this type of success he would get tons of interviews on Cnn etc

I think you've kind of shown your problem here (haven't read the whole thread yet, so I apologize if this has already been addressed). Citing sources and posting links on a debate forum is about backing up your own opinion with fact, not just copying and pasting someone else's opinion...that's what Facebook is for...

It would be interesting to see what people on here generally define as a valid link, I'm sure it will vary...but for me, I'm only interested in news (not opinion, unless it is the opinion specifically that is being discussed) that comes from venues that don't stray too far from center, in terms of political bias, and have high ratings for accuracy. And, I probably won't spend more than 5 minutes watching a video, unless I know and trust the poster not to waste my time with garbage.

Of course, if you're putting forth an unpalatable point of view, chances are people won't take it seriously, no matter how disciplined you are with your sources...but at least if you are disciplined, there's a higher chance people will take you seriously and check them out.

Just my two cents...good luck.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

"If you only read this book you'd agree with me."

I'm not doing your homework for you, that's lazy debating. Make your own case.

And another classic: "I already made the argument, go find it"

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Aw damn. It's turned into a link battle, son! Nobody rolls off the http's like the f-i-double d.

Yours seem the here missing links. A rather evolutionary dilemma... walking talking catfish, pigs flying perhaps? And what do your MIA links usually link to? Anything real worldish by slimmest of chance?




Catfish---Someone who pretends to be something they are not, especially on the internet. Often a synonym for this in some situations may be "troll" because the majority of catfish out there are simply out to troll others.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Depends on those sources, some "sources" are known outlets for lies and propaganda and All videos are suspect since any idiot with a phone can make and post one. Oh and no you cannot require others view your sources. Try arguing you POV yourself, include your links and videos if you wish but they cannot argue your Opinion for you.

Besides the various dictionaries and CSPAN, which sources are not known for their lies and propaganda ...in your estimation?

 

[Grim17]

One thing i notice about debating is that the other side is not willing to look at my links or videos.
I"d like to do debates with people where they have to watch and take a look at my side of the story and why I feel the way I do.
In return I will watch their evidence, etc to see why they feel the way they do.

And also do this via verbal debate somehow .. and be fun to start a youtube channel doing debates like this.

Anybody else think this a cool idea?

If anybody wants to do a debate pm me maybe. Can do via skype.

Conservatives like to post videos that lay out the facts, which I've found many on the left are simply not interested in.

It seems the videos they are more interested in, are the ones from comedy shows where they lampoon the right using statements they made taken out of context. Maybe if you add a laugh track to the videos you post, you might get more leftists to watch them.

:lamo

.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes most people are not smart.
only 5% of people have iq over 120

The average is 100.

Which means half the population is lower than that.

Which explains our current political situation.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Conservatives like to post videos that lay out the facts, which I've found many on the left are simply not interested in.

It seems the videos they are more interested in, are the ones from comedy shows where they lampoon the right using statements they made taken out of context. Maybe if you add a laugh track to the videos you post, you might get more leftists to watch them.

:lamo

.

Yeah, sure, they like videos because they are lazy and don't have any thoughts of their own. They just regurgitate things spoon fed to them.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Conservatives like to post videos that lay out the facts, which I've found many on the left are simply not interested in.

It seems the videos they are more interested in, are the ones from comedy shows where they lampoon the right using statements they made taken out of context. Maybe if you add a laugh track to the videos you post, you might get more leftists to watch them.

:lamo

.

Conservatives suck. Here's a link to prove it.

See? I've provided a link. End of conversation, as I've been proven correct.

 

[Finch]

toby, you've got 15 posts and have posted one link, a 17 minute video. So "links or videos" doesn't really apply. Also, you need to make a clear point and back it up. If your point is "hey the guy in this video says things I believe" few people will listen.

I was about to comment saying the exact same thing...I have seen multiple threads and several posts from this guy and never seen a link...Actually it may have been from the DailyCaller or some fringe right wing source. Plus his "debating" consists of repetitive argument...Thats not debating.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

One thing i notice about debating is that the other side is not willing to look at my links or videos.
I"d like to do debates with people where they have to watch and take a look at my side of the story and why I feel the way I do.
In return I will watch their evidence, etc to see why they feel the way they do.

And also do this via verbal debate somehow .. and be fun to start a youtube channel doing debates like this.

Anybody else think this a cool idea?

If anybody wants to do a debate pm me maybe. Can do via skype.

Most of us don't do assigned video watching. If you can digest a point being made in a video and you want to present it here, do it in text and add your video or link as supporting material.

There are videos on yt "proving" that the moon landing was faked, and any other nonsense you can think of. YT is worthless for political stuff - it's generally just someone providing weak confirmation bias. Learn to present your own thoughts. JMHO...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Yeah, sure, they like videos because they are lazy and don't have any thoughts of their own. They just regurgitate things spoon fed to them.

No, they can't even do that. They expect the video to do it for them.

 

[Irwin Corey]

I'm not sure "Debate" should can be used to describe what goes on here.

I've decided not to respond to the obvious trolls anymore. I'll post my comments and leave it at that; I'll try to post what I sincerely believe in a thoughtful way, I'm not going to try to defend that; I'll just let my posts stand for themselves. If "I" feel someone has made a legitimate counter point and "WE" have something to discuss that would be a different situation. Most often it's the same people that say the same thing everyday, day in day out: maybe I'm guilty too, so why beat my head against that same wall?

 

[Casper]

Besides the various dictionaries and CSPAN, which sources are not known for their lies and propaganda ...in your estimation?

So sorry but we are not talking about those sources, and you know it.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

So sorry but we are not talking about those sources, and you know it.

To hell we arent...

Which of YOUR sources are sacrosanct...and why? With few exceptions the MSM lost its feasible credibility cherry with the undeniably biased election coverage. Since then its gone out of its way to screw every ball into sockets meant for light bulbs. Insanely slanted, Harvard study documented 90% negative...this with perhaps the most sucessful, get the positives going tailored for the entire nation president since ...long before we were even a twinkle in our mothers eyes.

You tell me then, just which sources were we talking about?