From Rosie to Ann

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Finally, liftus wouldn’t make it past the first round with her.

He routinely gets pasted by a bunch of amateurs.

She’d destroy him.

He’d be on his way to his basement in under a minute.

JeffR

You assume I take only a “left” stance in real world situations. I am smarter than her (and most people) in that I know how to argue “objectively”.

Coulter…? Give me a break. She loses because she is a partisan hack and I…well, I know better. She pretends to be in the know about any issue while pushing a strictly conservative POV.

How does one “win” in a debate if one doesn’t know how not to be partisan? Not only that she’s too over the top which is a no-no in debate. The majority of people are independent on most issues and relate better to well thought out reasonable responses…even if they disagree with them.

I take very weird stances on many issues (in yours and other’s opinions) but I can back them up both philosophically and with a modicum of “evidence”.

One can argue issues without taking one side of the spectrum over the other and be both logical and coherent. You disagree with my opinions that doesn’t make me an ineffective arguer–it just means you have a different perspective.[/quote]

??? How do you win a debate without NOT being partisan? Huh? You win a debate by taking stance on an issue and proving your point without backing down. Being partisan is simply compromise. Ann would eat your lunch, pull your underwear over your head and shove you into the girls locker room.

62

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Picking Coulter’s arguments apart both on a factual AND a rethorical basis isn’t very hard. I’m a third year law student, and I think she is an amateur most of the time. She appeals to an audience far from law school I assume, but still… low standards.[/quote]

I’ll emphasize again that I personally am talking about debating on the internet, where he who screams loudest ‘wins’.

If we’re talking about a real debate, or a courtroom type setting, then no, I wouldn’t expect Coulter to present her typical ‘arguments’ and be able to get much of anywhere.

63

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Picking Coulter’s arguments apart both on a factual AND a rethorical basis isn’t very hard. I’m a third year law student, and I think she is an amateur most of the time. She appeals to an audience far from law school I assume, but still… low standards.

I’ll emphasize again that I personally am talking about debating on the internet, where he who screams loudest ‘wins’.

If we’re talking about a real debate, or a courtroom type setting, then no, I wouldn’t expect Coulter to present her typical ‘arguments’ and be able to get much of anywhere.[/quote]

Twelve minuets with free access to a Nexus account (I can’t afford mine anymore) and anyone could pick apart almost any of her articles or books.
If she debates the same as she “writes”, she’d be destroyed by anyone who bothered to fact check.

Of course she’d just keep screaming anyway, so it wouldn’t matter. That’s the problem with online debate. People just say the same shit over and over without any new evidence of supporting fact, for the most part.

64

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Picking Coulter’s arguments apart both on a factual AND a rethorical basis isn’t very hard. I’m a third year law student, and I think she is an amateur most of the time. She appeals to an audience far from law school I assume, but still… low standards.

I’ll emphasize again that I personally am talking about debating on the internet, where he who screams loudest ‘wins’.

If we’re talking about a real debate, or a courtroom type setting, then no, I wouldn’t expect Coulter to present her typical ‘arguments’ and be able to get much of anywhere.

Twelve minuets with free access to a Nexus account (I can’t afford mine anymore) and anyone could pick apart almost any of her articles or books.
If she debates the same as she “writes”, she’d be destroyed by anyone who bothered to fact check.

Of course she’d just keep screaming anyway, so it wouldn’t matter. That’s the problem with online debate. People just say the same shit over and over without any new evidence of supporting fact, for the most part.[/quote]

I’ve seen this sort of statement over and over, how the author would shred Ann’s arguments.

Pick one and go for it.

65

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Picking Coulter’s arguments apart both on a factual AND a rethorical basis isn’t very hard. I’m a third year law student, and I think she is an amateur most of the time. She appeals to an audience far from law school I assume, but still… low standards.

I’ll emphasize again that I personally am talking about debating on the internet, where he who screams loudest ‘wins’.

If we’re talking about a real debate, or a courtroom type setting, then no, I wouldn’t expect Coulter to present her typical ‘arguments’ and be able to get much of anywhere.

Twelve minuets with free access to a Nexus account (I can’t afford mine anymore) and anyone could pick apart almost any of her articles or books.
If she debates the same as she “writes”, she’d be destroyed by anyone who bothered to fact check.

Of course she’d just keep screaming anyway, so it wouldn’t matter. That’s the problem with online debate. People just say the same shit over and over without any new evidence of supporting fact, for the most part.

I’ve seen this sort of statement over and over, how the author would shred Ann’s arguments.

Pick one and go for it.

[/quote]

One argument?

The question was about America’s allies, the question didn’t state anything about “countries”. So, attacking Obama on this ground is not only a fallacy, but also ignorant. The simple fact that the EU is a very important ally both economical and political to US is also a point that she should consider… :slight_smile:

66

[quote]PGJ wrote:
??? How do you win a debate without NOT being partisan? Huh? You win a debate by taking stance on an issue and proving your point without backing down. Being partisan is simply compromise. Ann would eat your lunch, pull your underwear over your head and shove you into the girls locker room.

[/quote]
What does the word “partisan” mean to you?

This is what I think of by partisan:

I have no “emotional allegiances” except to observation and even then…I can be tricked by what I observe. This also means I only take a stance based on the “best” data available. The problem with most debaters is that they don’t know how to say “I don’t know” because they view it as a weakness.

Science has taught me how to understand–to a certain point–why I don’t “know” and what it would take to “know”. This is a powerful tool in debate. I guarantee you I could poke holes in anyone’s argument about anything with this simple effective technique and not become emotional about it.

Even the most junior scientist would wax ms. coulter with a basic understanding of uncertainty.

Did I ever tell you I am a masterdebater…? (pun intended)

67

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
??? How do you win a debate without NOT being partisan? Huh? You win a debate by taking stance on an issue and proving your point without backing down. Being partisan is simply compromise. Ann would eat your lunch, pull your underwear over your head and shove you into the girls locker room.

What does the word “partisan” mean to you?

This is what I think of by partisan:

"an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. "

I have no “emotional allegiances” except to observation and even then…I can be tricked by what I observe. This also means I only take a stance based on the “best” data available. The problem with most debaters is that they don’t know how to say “I don’t know” because they view it as a weakness.

Science has taught me how to understand–to a certain point–why I don’t “know” and what it would take to “know”. This is a powerful tool in debate. I guarantee you I could poke holes in anyone’s argument about anything with this simple effective technique and not become emotional about it.

Even the most junior scientist would wax ms. coulter with a basic understanding of uncertainty.

Did I ever tell you I am a masterdebater…? (pun intended)[/quote]

The whole point of a debate is to clearly state your case/point of view and then back it up. In a debate, you don’t say “oh, I guess you’re right, I change my position”. Now, if you’re trying to make policy, negotiate, discuss a topic or stabilize a situation, THEN you can open up the floor to new ideas. But, in a debate, you don’t back down.

When a reporter asks a Presidential Candidate “How would you handle the war?” I don’t want to hear “I don’t know” (kind of like Obama’s answer). I want a direct answer. If he/she can’t give a straight answer he/she has no business running the country.

Using “uncertainty” as an argument is a weak man’s method of avoiding a firm position.

68

[quote]PGJ wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
??? How do you win a debate without NOT being partisan? Huh? You win a debate by taking stance on an issue and proving your point without backing down. Being partisan is simply compromise. Ann would eat your lunch, pull your underwear over your head and shove you into the girls locker room.

What does the word “partisan” mean to you?

This is what I think of by partisan:

"an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. "

I have no “emotional allegiances” except to observation and even then…I can be tricked by what I observe. This also means I only take a stance based on the “best” data available. The problem with most debaters is that they don’t know how to say “I don’t know” because they view it as a weakness.

Science has taught me how to understand–to a certain point–why I don’t “know” and what it would take to “know”. This is a powerful tool in debate. I guarantee you I could poke holes in anyone’s argument about anything with this simple effective technique and not become emotional about it.

Even the most junior scientist would wax ms. coulter with a basic understanding of uncertainty.

Did I ever tell you I am a masterdebater…? (pun intended)

The whole point of a debate is to clearly state your case/point of view and then back it up. In a debate, you don’t say “oh, I guess you’re right, I change my position”. Now, if you’re trying to make policy, negotiate, discuss a topic or stabilize a situation, THEN you can open up the floor to new ideas. But, in a debate, you don’t back down.

When a reporter asks a Presidential Candidate “How would you handle the war?” I don’t want to hear “I don’t know” (kind of like Obama’s answer). I want a direct answer. If he/she can’t give a straight answer he/she has no business running the country.

Using “uncertainty” as an argument is a weak man’s method of avoiding a firm position.

[/quote]

That is a scary attitude. Being certain of all and everything is not a good sign.

69

[quote]PGJ wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
??? How do you win a debate without NOT being partisan? Huh? You win a debate by taking stance on an issue and proving your point without backing down. Being partisan is simply compromise. Ann would eat your lunch, pull your underwear over your head and shove you into the girls locker room.

What does the word “partisan” mean to you?

This is what I think of by partisan:

"an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. "

I have no “emotional allegiances” except to observation and even then…I can be tricked by what I observe. This also means I only take a stance based on the “best” data available. The problem with most debaters is that they don’t know how to say “I don’t know” because they view it as a weakness.

Science has taught me how to understand–to a certain point–why I don’t “know” and what it would take to “know”. This is a powerful tool in debate. I guarantee you I could poke holes in anyone’s argument about anything with this simple effective technique and not become emotional about it.

Even the most junior scientist would wax ms. coulter with a basic understanding of uncertainty.

Did I ever tell you I am a masterdebater…? (pun intended)

The whole point of a debate is to clearly state your case/point of view and then back it up. In a debate, you don’t say “oh, I guess you’re right, I change my position”. Now, if you’re trying to make policy, negotiate, discuss a topic or stabilize a situation, THEN you can open up the floor to new ideas. But, in a debate, you don’t back down.

When a reporter asks a Presidential Candidate “How would you handle the war?” I don’t want to hear “I don’t know” (kind of like Obama’s answer). I want a direct answer. If he/she can’t give a straight answer he/she has no business running the country.

Using “uncertainty” as an argument is a weak man’s method of avoiding a firm position.

[/quote]

How would you rate the Republican candidates on this issue then? (I am curious is all)

70

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Picking Coulter’s arguments apart both on a factual AND a rethorical basis isn’t very hard. I’m a third year law student, and I think she is an amateur most of the time. She appeals to an audience far from law school I assume, but still… low standards.

I’ll emphasize again that I personally am talking about debating on the internet, where he who screams loudest ‘wins’.

If we’re talking about a real debate, or a courtroom type setting, then no, I wouldn’t expect Coulter to present her typical ‘arguments’ and be able to get much of anywhere.

Twelve minuets with free access to a Nexus account (I can’t afford mine anymore) and anyone could pick apart almost any of her articles or books.
If she debates the same as she “writes”, she’d be destroyed by anyone who bothered to fact check.

Of course she’d just keep screaming anyway, so it wouldn’t matter. That’s the problem with online debate. People just say the same shit over and over without any new evidence of supporting fact, for the most part.

I’ve seen this sort of statement over and over, how the author would shred Ann’s arguments.

Pick one and go for it.

[/quote]

I’ll look around for my project. Ripped up a few chapters of “How to talk to a Liberal (But only if you have too)” (I believe that was the books name).

She may be incredibly intelligent and a good debater for all I know, but in her books she just flat out lies. She misinterprets, cuts off quotes, and she uses other questionable journalistic practices.

Like I said, I no longer have a Nexus account, so I couldn’t do as well right this moment. But still, I’m sure there will be plenty of responses to your challenge by those who just want to rip up her more stupid statements.

71

[quote]PGJ wrote:
When a reporter asks a Presidential Candidate “How would you handle the war?” I don’t want to hear “I don’t know” (kind of like Obama’s answer). I want a direct answer. If he/she can’t give a straight answer he/she has no business running the country.
[/quote]

In this case I would ask the question why are we going to war. I take a firm opposition to wars that cause more damage to our security than fix it. I truly believe this is the ultimate end result of waging war against Iraq. The only time I would commit troop to war is to stop a government that is a clear threat to us. Iraq was not…neither is Iran nor Korea…nor any other nation on the planet.

Don’t confuse not taking a stand with not being able to see shades of grey. Coulter doesn’t see gray…it’s black or its white. Same as most politicians.

And just to clear up what uncertainty means and how it would be used in debate: its not only to say I am uncertain but to show how also others are uncertain because of epistemological constraints–as well as to allow for “truthiness”.

72

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

Obama was asked to name “America’s three most important allies around the world” ? a question rejected as “too easy” on Fox’s new game show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” Any politically savvy 11-year-old could have named Britain, Australia and Israel.

B. Hussein Obama answered: “the European Union.” Which is (a) not a country, and (b) not an ally. "

The question was about America’s allies, the question didn’t state anything about “countries”. So, attacking Obama on this ground is not only a fallacy, but also ignorant. The simple fact that the EU is a very important ally both economical and political to US is also a point that she should consider… :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Doesn’t being an ally assume that the ally is a functioning country? Has the EU reached this status, or is it more like NATO?

I consider an ally as a country whose troops would bleed or has bled with you on the battlefield. Being friendly is not necessarily an ally status.

Sorry, all I know about the EU is that Germany created it to dominate Europe with its currency, the Deutschmark come Euro.

73

[quote]Ren wrote:
PGJ wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
??? How do you win a debate without NOT being partisan? Huh? You win a debate by taking stance on an issue and proving your point without backing down. Being partisan is simply compromise. Ann would eat your lunch, pull your underwear over your head and shove you into the girls locker room.

What does the word “partisan” mean to you?

This is what I think of by partisan:

"an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. "

I have no “emotional allegiances” except to observation and even then…I can be tricked by what I observe. This also means I only take a stance based on the “best” data available. The problem with most debaters is that they don’t know how to say “I don’t know” because they view it as a weakness.

Science has taught me how to understand–to a certain point–why I don’t “know” and what it would take to “know”. This is a powerful tool in debate. I guarantee you I could poke holes in anyone’s argument about anything with this simple effective technique and not become emotional about it.

Even the most junior scientist would wax ms. coulter with a basic understanding of uncertainty.

Did I ever tell you I am a masterdebater…? (pun intended)

The whole point of a debate is to clearly state your case/point of view and then back it up. In a debate, you don’t say “oh, I guess you’re right, I change my position”. Now, if you’re trying to make policy, negotiate, discuss a topic or stabilize a situation, THEN you can open up the floor to new ideas. But, in a debate, you don’t back down.

When a reporter asks a Presidential Candidate “How would you handle the war?” I don’t want to hear “I don’t know” (kind of like Obama’s answer). I want a direct answer. If he/she can’t give a straight answer he/she has no business running the country.

Using “uncertainty” as an argument is a weak man’s method of avoiding a firm position.

How would you rate the Republican candidates on this issue then? (I am curious is all)[/quote]

On the issue of how to debate? For the most part they suck. However, President Bush kicked Kerry and Gore’s ass in head-to-head debate by stating his position and not saying stuff like “I don’t know, it needs to pass a global litmus test”.

For as poor a public speaker President Bush is, he more than makes up for it in deciseveness (quite the opposite from the Democratic candidates). Unlike almost ALL other politicians, the man has a backbone, sticks to his guns and doesn’t follow trends.

74

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
PGJ wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
??? How do you win a debate without NOT being partisan? Huh? You win a debate by taking stance on an issue and proving your point without backing down. Being partisan is simply compromise. Ann would eat your lunch, pull your underwear over your head and shove you into the girls locker room.

What does the word “partisan” mean to you?

This is what I think of by partisan:

"an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. "

I have no “emotional allegiances” except to observation and even then…I can be tricked by what I observe. This also means I only take a stance based on the “best” data available. The problem with most debaters is that they don’t know how to say “I don’t know” because they view it as a weakness.

Science has taught me how to understand–to a certain point–why I don’t “know” and what it would take to “know”. This is a powerful tool in debate. I guarantee you I could poke holes in anyone’s argument about anything with this simple effective technique and not become emotional about it.

Even the most junior scientist would wax ms. coulter with a basic understanding of uncertainty.

Did I ever tell you I am a masterdebater…? (pun intended)

The whole point of a debate is to clearly state your case/point of view and then back it up. In a debate, you don’t say “oh, I guess you’re right, I change my position”. Now, if you’re trying to make policy, negotiate, discuss a topic or stabilize a situation, THEN you can open up the floor to new ideas. But, in a debate, you don’t back down.

When a reporter asks a Presidential Candidate “How would you handle the war?” I don’t want to hear “I don’t know” (kind of like Obama’s answer). I want a direct answer. If he/she can’t give a straight answer he/she has no business running the country.

Using “uncertainty” as an argument is a weak man’s method of avoiding a firm position.

That is a scary attitude. Being certain of all and everything is not a good sign.[/quote]

You will never win a debate if you concede to your oponent.

75

“Sorry, all I know about the EU is that Germany created it to dominate Europe with its currency, the Deutschmark come Euro.”

You don’t know anything about EU in other words? :wink:

76

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
PGJ wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
??? How do you win a debate without NOT being partisan? Huh? You win a debate by taking stance on an issue and proving your point without backing down. Being partisan is simply compromise. Ann would eat your lunch, pull your underwear over your head and shove you into the girls locker room.

What does the word “partisan” mean to you?

This is what I think of by partisan:

"an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. "

I have no “emotional allegiances” except to observation and even then…I can be tricked by what I observe. This also means I only take a stance based on the “best” data available. The problem with most debaters is that they don’t know how to say “I don’t know” because they view it as a weakness.

Science has taught me how to understand–to a certain point–why I don’t “know” and what it would take to “know”. This is a powerful tool in debate. I guarantee you I could poke holes in anyone’s argument about anything with this simple effective technique and not become emotional about it.

Even the most junior scientist would wax ms. coulter with a basic understanding of uncertainty.

Did I ever tell you I am a masterdebater…? (pun intended)

The whole point of a debate is to clearly state your case/point of view and then back it up. In a debate, you don’t say “oh, I guess you’re right, I change my position”. Now, if you’re trying to make policy, negotiate, discuss a topic or stabilize a situation, THEN you can open up the floor to new ideas. But, in a debate, you don’t back down.

When a reporter asks a Presidential Candidate “How would you handle the war?” I don’t want to hear “I don’t know” (kind of like Obama’s answer). I want a direct answer. If he/she can’t give a straight answer he/she has no business running the country.

Using “uncertainty” as an argument is a weak man’s method of avoiding a firm position.

That is a scary attitude. Being certain of all and everything is not a good sign.

You will never win a debate if you concede to your oponent.
[/quote]

Well, I’m most familiar with legal debates/arguments, and being overly confident and well… your fasit doesen’t apply there I’m afraid. I don’t see how it should apply for other areas of life either.

77

[quote]Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Ann Coutler wrote:
Indeed, I believe this marks the first time a Korean has killed anyone in the United States, not involving an automobile.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

That, among other gems, just on page one! Sounds like just the crazy, loudmouth bitch for the job.[/quote]

I haven’t read the whole thread, I had to stop here when I read her little line.
I go to a VA school a few hours away from VTech. A disporportionate number of people from my highschool and friends go to VTech.

Its way too soon for these kinds of jokes. And if that frigid, stick-like, blonde-bitch, douche-filled cunt can’t see that, then there is not an adjective in the English language, or any other for that matter, that can describe the depths of her depravity.

-Gendou