Thread: Who will you vote for?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

But you do insult people when it suits you...

See you also did a "hominem".

You obviously did not read my response very carefully. Ad homienem involves an insult in place of an argument in response to an argument. Got it this time?

And it's not a "hominem". It's ad hominem.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Ofcourse your not a republican no-one even said that you are entirely republican only that your statements are categorizing as such. Second he did not attack your pretend social issues and views on religion. Finally your twisting his logic to suggest he is against an ally involvement in world war 2. This to me is a straw man argument. Argue with what he does say. Not what he does not say.

I didn't say he did say that.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I think discussing how to stop Nazis. Is out of the scope of this thread. I like it how you act ignorant so you don't get asked the same thing.

Huh? He said the ends "never" justify the means, so I brought up a situation where they clearly did. Get it?

Dont think that people don't realize your fake. We know your fake.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Dont think that people don't realize your fake. We know your fake.

Whose payroll am I on, and who am I really?

Vote Ron Paul 2008

Um, please, you replace real argument with fallacy whenever you can, you think just because you know what fallacies are you are impervious to using them or something. All I ever see you post are fallacies.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Um, please, you replace real argument with fallacy whenever you can, you think just because you know what fallacies are you are impervious to using them or something. All I ever see you post are fallacies.

Prove that false assertion. Your (yet again) ad hominem attack does not answer my question that you keep dodging. I know you are aware of your evasiveness on this. The ad hominem fallacy is in fact a fallacy, and you keep committing it. You insult me instead of countering my points and answering my questions. That is in fact a fallacy. What specific fallacies did I supposedly use? Explain. Assertions do not qualify as arguments. Did you know that?

Okay we need to change subjects, I'm tired of your bs for now and this is getting really petty. You claim I'm dodging a question I answered and you keep talking about fallacies, why can't you just admit you use fallacies just as much as I do? Neither of us are perfect at debating yet, and fallacies will come up.

Anyway, so here's something. If you (anyone) read my thread on economic design, it's obviously the most important issue that faces our nation today. Ron Paul is the only person that stands up for a healthy United States economy. He is the only choice for any real US patriot that doesn't want to see their nation go through a recession even worse than we're facing now.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Okay we need to change subjects, I'm tired of your bs for now and this is getting really petty. You claim I'm dodging a question I answered and you keep talking about fallacies, why can't you just admit you use fallacies just as much as I do? Neither of us are perfect at debating yet, and fallacies will come up.

Anyway, so here's something. If you (anyone) read my thread on economic design, it's obviously the most important issue that faces our nation today. Ron Paul is the only person that stands up for a healthy United States economy. He is the only choice for any real US patriot that doesn't want to see their nation go through a recession even worse than we're facing now.

My BS? More intitiations of hostility. Nice. LOVE LOVE LOVE

You have accused me of committing fallacies before, yet you never tell me what those fallacies are. Show me an example of where I committed one, if not the other ones you have in mind. While you are at it, name the fallacy committed and illustrate how I committed it according to the format of the fallacy. All you are doing is asserting. That is not effective arguing.

I agree with Ron Paul on economics, aside from our disagreement about use of tax money for the current wars.

Look, bottom line is I acknowledge my fallacies, and am aware of them. In five years, I'll use virtually none because I have improved myself so much by realizing my weaknesses in debate. You're what, 40? You continue to use strawmen (example, I said love conquers hate instead of more hate, not that I'm Gandhi and can let hostilities against me just bounce off. i was making a general statement about life, not myself), slippery slopes (You claim Sandino was in bed with the USSR because of a gesture of approval), ad hominems (Do I even need to list an example?), burden of proof (you're refusal to refute inside job claims because no one can come up with a story for you), guilt by association (quote liberal cess pool), poisoning the well (Well, I do that a lot, too).

You can have the last word if you'd like, arguing over who uses what fallacies is a waste of a thread, if anyone wants to discuss the candidates though, that'd be awesome.

And in case you forgot he also schooled this poll.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And in case you forgot he also schooled this poll.

That is because of the political climate of this forum. Have there been more than five people in the history of this forum who have conservative foreign policy views? So don't use this forum as an index of how Ron Paul is doing. That would be fallacious.

I didn't ever see your post from 10/14. You really raised some interesting issues there.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Look, bottom line is I acknowledge my fallacies, and am aware of them.

Really? When did you ever do that? Tell me about some of them.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

In five years, I'll use virtually none because I have improved myself so much by realizing my weaknesses in debate. You're what, 40?

35, and you have a few light years to travel in your development before you stop using fallacies.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You continue to use strawmen (example, I said love conquers hate instead of more hate, not that I'm Gandhi and can let hostilities against me just bounce off. i was making a general statement about life, not myself).

I didn't say you were saying that, so you used a strawman. I was saying that your behavior proves that you do not value love and do not truly believe that love conquers all. I was illustrating your hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

slippery slopes (You claim Sandino was in bed with the USSR because of a gesture of approval).

Among many other things, which I linked you to an entire Google entry to illustrate.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

ad hominems (Do I even need to list an example?)

The difference between me and you is that I don't initiate them, but you are obsessed with initiating them.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

burden of proof (you're refusal to refute inside job claims because no one can come up with a story for you)

Strawman again. I did address the claims, more than once. However, when Mystic started posting them again and again, I started challenging him to explain how they prove that 9/11 was an inside job. That was a pretty relevant question, wouldn't you say (in a moment of intellectual honesty, if you ever have one)? You were welcome to answer that too. Did you?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

guilt by association (quote liberal cess pool), poisoning the well (Well, I do that a lot, too).

Strawman again. The point had nothing to do with guilt by association or even guilt at all. It had to do with the unrepresentative nature of political opinion in this forum.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

poisoning the well (Well, I do that a lot, too).

I can handle having a debate with somebody and keeping it a debate on the issues. I don't get personal until the other person does. Do you think you can ever learn to handle a debate that way?

Obama For President 2008!!!

lol no

Kucinich all the way, baby! He was the only one save Paul who voted against Iraq, and if elected prez he will pull us out of NAFTA and the WTO.