Proper Debate - Head to Head Face-off

[LankyMofo]

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Do people just take any thread and argue it with insults and egos regardless of the purpose of the thread? Staying on topic shouldn’t be that big of a deal for adult human being. The purpose of this thread was to discuss and break down the methods used is debates/discussion and, in particular, critique the effectiveness of this one. It has since broken down into yet another thread of bickering over semantics and who can seemingly gain higher ground…that doesn’t bore anyone else?[/quote]

You must be new around here…

[ZEB]

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

He doesn’t talk about killing cops. That point makes all your other points invalid. Also, live up to your own standards.[/quote]

Oh yes let’s split hairs shall we? Fair enough, implied violence to a police officers - Bad enough he shouldn’t be invited to the White House.

[quote]Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton

I walk like a warrior,

from them I won’t run[/quote]

Guhu (pokes forehead with palm) do ya think he’s talkin bout given up that ther gun?

Ha ha…okay I’m mad at you now because I actually had to read this obnoxious piece of, um what do you call it? Poetry? Music? I have a better word for it but I don’t like to use that language I’ll save that for all of the “talented” cop hating rappers.

You and Michelle Obama can have that scum bag rapper.
[/quote]

Like everybody else you only quote the part that suits you.[/quote]

Well tell me how many times would I be allowed to say the “N” word, or to call a homosexual a derogatory name in a song before that song was considered trash? The answer (in case you didn’t know that either) is ONCE. And that’s how it should be. And quite honestly I think threatening the life of a police officer is at least as bad as these.

Got it yet?[/quote]

What are you talking about?[/quote]

Ha ha, yes playing dumb is probably better than your original argument. You are playing right?

[siouxperman]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

He doesn’t talk about killing cops. That point makes all your other points invalid. Also, live up to your own standards.[/quote]

Oh yes let’s split hairs shall we? Fair enough, implied violence to a police officers - Bad enough he shouldn’t be invited to the White House.

[quote]Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton

I walk like a warrior,

from them I won’t run[/quote]

Guhu (pokes forehead with palm) do ya think he’s talkin bout given up that ther gun?

Ha ha…okay I’m mad at you now because I actually had to read this obnoxious piece of, um what do you call it? Poetry? Music? I have a better word for it but I don’t like to use that language I’ll save that for all of the “talented” cop hating rappers.

You and Michelle Obama can have that scum bag rapper.
[/quote]

Like everybody else you only quote the part that suits you.[/quote]

Well tell me how many times would I be allowed to say the “N” word, or to call a homosexual a derogatory name in a song before that song was considered trash? The answer (in case you didn’t know that either) is ONCE. And that’s how it should be. And quite honestly I think threatening the life of a police officer is at least as bad as these.

Got it yet?[/quote]

What are you talking about?[/quote]

Ha ha, yes playing dumb is probably better than your original argument. You are playing right?

[/quote]

No, I really have no idea what you’re getting at, as it doesn’t seem to pertain to the topic.

[ZEB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
As all the 20 something liberals line-up to stroke Jon stewart. Sooooo predictable…(yawn)[/quote]

Ad hominem digs and recycled partisan one-liners.[/quote]

Not ad hominem digs if they’re true. Now here is an assignment for you. I want you to do some research, you’re good at that right? Take a look at the demographic that Stewart attracts. Then get back to me with what you found. Let’s see if you are intellectually honest enough to look at the demograhics and post back about his audience.[/quote]

Funny how you quoted the part about ad hominem attacks and conveniently ignored my question to you–partisan bullshit aside, do you honestly think that Jon Stewart’s point is not a valid one? Do you honestly believe that he isn’t right about the whole Springsteen, Dylan, Bono, Johnny Cash thing?[/quote]

Finish your assignment and then post back to me. What you will find is that Jon Stewart has a lock on 20 something’s. And he continually feeds them this crap, in the form of humor of course. And then they get on sites like this and spew it all back.

But you won’t look at the demographics will you? No, you won’t.

[ZEB]

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
As all the 20 something liberals line-up to stroke Jon stewart. Sooooo predictable…(yawn)[/quote]

Ad hominem digs and recycled partisan one-liners.[/quote]

Not ad hominem digs if they’re true. Now here is an assignment for you. I want you to do some research, you’re good at that right? Take a look at the demographic that Stewart attracts. Then get back to me with what you found. Let’s see if you are intellectually honest enough to look at the demograhics and post back about his audience.[/quote]

Maybe I didn’t search hard enough, but 74 percent the Daily Show’s audience is between 18 and 49.

Not only the 20 something’s. Or are do you think that anyone under 50 is an idiot?

My 67 year old father likes Stewart. He also thinks that the republicans have all boarded the crazy train. He used to be much more conservative in his younger years. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal though.

Conservatives just need to find someone who is funny and not just pissed off.

Sorry about the poor grammar, but am typing on an iPad. [/quote]

First of all it was not our assignment. Secondly you break out demographics more specifically than that. If you’re going to do another person’s assignment at least do it right. And it matters not who your grandfather likes (eye roll) I am talking about hard statistics.

Now run along.[/quote]

Well, first of all, you brought up the assignment. Multiple times.[/quote]

Wrong, at the time you jumped in I asked it once and it was of smh, not you.

You have again and again dismissed the views of anyone you disagree with and also happens to be under the age of thirty as irrelevant.

Wrong again, I have dismissed the liberal views of most college aged kids as irrelevant.

Really, the old, wise man persona has gotten old.

Then don’t read my posts dear. You should have taken my advice and moved along, yet here you are engaging me. What’s the point? Now move along.

Those under thirty don’t need to be treated gingerly

And I don’t treat them gingerly do I?

and your outright dismissal of the 20 something’s is elitist at best.

Oh is that what it’s called. Gee thanks, you’ve offered up something really special here. You’re sooooo smart. Let’s be friends

SecondLy, I did acknowledge the anecdotal evidence. Or did your old man’s eys miss that?

Your anecdotal evidence was mocked by me as being irrelevant and quite frankly pretty stupid. Did your inexperienced eye’s miss that one dear? Or do you just not see things that make sense?

Seriously, stop being such an elitist and writing off the opinions of anyone younger than you.

Anyone younger than me? ANYONE? Do you want to rephrase that I think you’ve made another one of your many errors here.

[ZEB]

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

He doesn’t talk about killing cops. That point makes all your other points invalid. Also, live up to your own standards.[/quote]

Oh yes let’s split hairs shall we? Fair enough, implied violence to a police officers - Bad enough he shouldn’t be invited to the White House.

[quote]Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton

I walk like a warrior,

from them I won’t run[/quote]

Guhu (pokes forehead with palm) do ya think he’s talkin bout given up that ther gun?

Ha ha…okay I’m mad at you now because I actually had to read this obnoxious piece of, um what do you call it? Poetry? Music? I have a better word for it but I don’t like to use that language I’ll save that for all of the “talented” cop hating rappers.

You and Michelle Obama can have that scum bag rapper.
[/quote]

Like everybody else you only quote the part that suits you.[/quote]

Well tell me how many times would I be allowed to say the “N” word, or to call a homosexual a derogatory name in a song before that song was considered trash? The answer (in case you didn’t know that either) is ONCE. And that’s how it should be. And quite honestly I think threatening the life of a police officer is at least as bad as these.

Got it yet?[/quote]

What are you talking about?[/quote]

Ha ha, yes playing dumb is probably better than your original argument. You are playing right?

[/quote]

No, I really have no idea what you’re getting at, as it doesn’t seem to pertain to the topic.
[/quote]

But it does pertain to what you and I were talking about. And that is the lyrics of a song. Now that I’ve proven you wrong you’d like to stay closer to the topic.

How obvious, but how very amusing.

[Steel_Nation]

Why do people jump all over song lyrics like they’re completely literal? Singing or rapping about implied violence against police is nothing more than expressing anger towards law enforcement. There is a lot of that in society. Just visit GAL once in a while, and you’ll see it in any thread involving LEOs abusing power.

This reminds me of the dipshit kids that killed themselves because they thought Suicide Solution was literally about killing yourself instead of a play on words about alcoholism being the death of you.

[smh23]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
As all the 20 something liberals line-up to stroke Jon stewart. Sooooo predictable…(yawn)[/quote]

Ad hominem digs and recycled partisan one-liners.[/quote]

Not ad hominem digs if they’re true. Now here is an assignment for you. I want you to do some research, you’re good at that right? Take a look at the demographic that Stewart attracts. Then get back to me with what you found. Let’s see if you are intellectually honest enough to look at the demograhics and post back about his audience.[/quote]

Funny how you quoted the part about ad hominem attacks and conveniently ignored my question to you–partisan bullshit aside, do you honestly think that Jon Stewart’s point is not a valid one? Do you honestly believe that he isn’t right about the whole Springsteen, Dylan, Bono, Johnny Cash thing?[/quote]

Finish your assignment and then post back to me. What you will find is that Jon Stewart has a lock on 20 something’s. And he continually feeds them this crap, in the form of humor of course. And then they get on sites like this and spew it all back.

But you won’t look at the demographics will you? No, you won’t.[/quote]

I understand perfectly well the demographic composition of his audience. More importantly, I asked you a direct and simple questions that actually pertains to the topic at hand, and you refuse to answer it because in doing so you will have to agree with Stewart.

Once again: do you honestly think that Jon Stewart’s point is not a valid one? If not, then what, may I ask, are the logical flaws in his line of reasoning?

[ZEB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I understand perfectly well the demographic composition of his audience. [/quote]

Then tell me the exact breakdown. And then I’ll tell you why you think as you do.

[LankyMofo]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I understand perfectly well the demographic composition of his audience. [/quote]

Then tell me the exact breakdown. And then I’ll tell you why you think as you do. [/quote]

Or you could answer his question because O’Reilly’s comeback about how Common actually visited Cuba does not make a lick of difference in Stewart’s point. I’m interested in how anyone can explain the difference between Common, Bob Dylan, Bono or whoever and explain why this time is different.

It literally makes no sense and until I hear or see an explanation that does make sense, none of this is anything more than partisan bickering. This coming from a conservative.

[ZEB]

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I understand perfectly well the demographic composition of his audience. [/quote]

Then tell me the exact breakdown. And then I’ll tell you why you think as you do. [/quote]

Or you could answer his question because O’Reilly’s comeback about how Common actually visited Cuba does not make a lick of difference in Stewart’s point. I’m interested in how anyone can explain the difference between Common, Bob Dylan, Bono or whoever and explain why this time is different.
[/quote]

Okay, I’ll play, just for you lank. But this will be my final post on that question until your little buddy answers mine regarding Stewart’s demographic base.

O’Reilly totally owned Stewart in almost every segment. And I think the visit to Cuba does make a difference. As O’Reilly appropriately pointed out we have a President with a history of hanging around some pretty seedy characters. Shall we list them? Naw, you know who they are. And now Common gets invited to the White House after threatening the lives of police officers in his song.

If Obama is trying to lose the law and order vote he could not have done a better job. So, on that note I applaud his decision because it harms him politically.

Now drag your little brother smh back out here so that he can answer my question.

[smh23]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I understand perfectly well the demographic composition of his audience. [/quote]

Then tell me the exact breakdown. And then I’ll tell you why you think as you do. [/quote]

Or you could answer his question because O’Reilly’s comeback about how Common actually visited Cuba does not make a lick of difference in Stewart’s point. I’m interested in how anyone can explain the difference between Common, Bob Dylan, Bono or whoever and explain why this time is different.
[/quote]

Okay, I’ll play, just for you lank. But this will be my final post on that question until your little buddy answers mine regarding Stewart’s demographic base.

O’Reilly totally owned Stewart in almost every segment. And I think the visit to Cuba does make a difference. As O’Reilly appropriately pointed out we have a President with a history of hanging around some pretty seedy characters. Shall we list them? Naw, you know who they are. And now Common gets invited to the White House after threatening the lives of police officers in his song.

If Obama is trying to lose the law and order vote he could not have done a better job. So, on that note I applaud his decision because it harms him politically.

Now drag your little brother smh back out here so that he can answer my question.[/quote]

I don’t give a shit about Stewart’s audience, which I have already acknowledged is overwhelmingly young (as if that matters to anyone). The point is that he was right and O’Reilly was wrong.

If you would pull your head out of your ass and read the lyrics in questions, you would see that they are a condemnation of violence. There is no way to interpret the lyrics, taken as a whole, in any other light.

Here is a link where, if you click on a line, it will explain it to you (a feature that I am expecting will be quite beneficial to you): Common – A Letter to the Law | Genius

EDIT: Pay particular attention to “No time for that, cause there’s things to be done,” which refers back to and consequently alters the meaning of every motif preceding it.

[SexMachine]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I understand perfectly well the demographic composition of his audience. [/quote]

Then tell me the exact breakdown. And then I’ll tell you why you think as you do. [/quote]

Or you could answer his question because O’Reilly’s comeback about how Common actually visited Cuba does not make a lick of difference in Stewart’s point. I’m interested in how anyone can explain the difference between Common, Bob Dylan, Bono or whoever and explain why this time is different.
[/quote]

Okay, I’ll play, just for you lank. But this will be my final post on that question until your little buddy answers mine regarding Stewart’s demographic base.

O’Reilly totally owned Stewart in almost every segment. And I think the visit to Cuba does make a difference. As O’Reilly appropriately pointed out we have a President with a history of hanging around some pretty seedy characters. Shall we list them? Naw, you know who they are. And now Common gets invited to the White House after threatening the lives of police officers in his song.

If Obama is trying to lose the law and order vote he could not have done a better job. So, on that note I applaud his decision because it harms him politically.

Now drag your little brother smh back out here so that he can answer my question.[/quote]

I don’t give a shit about Stewart’s audience, which I have already acknowledged is overwhelmingly young (as if that matters to anyone). The point is that he was right and O’Reilly was wrong.

If you would pull your head out of your ass and read the lyrics in questions, you would see that they are a condemnation of violence. There is no way to interpret the lyrics, taken as a whole, in any other light.

Here is a link where, if you click on a line, it will explain it to you (a feature that I am expecting will be quite beneficial to you): Common – A Letter to the Law | Genius

EDIT: Pay particular attention to “No time for that, cause there’s things to be done,” which refers back to and consequently alters the meaning of every motif preceding it.[/quote]

The line ‘No time for that, cause there’s things to be done’ alters the meaning of everything before it? How so?

[ZEB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I don’t give a shit about Stewart’s audience, which I have already acknowledged is overwhelmingly young (as if that matters to anyone).[/quote]

It doesn’t matter you say? That’s funny I think it makes all the difference in the world that his primary viewers are young males aged 18-29. If you fall into that demographic, and you do, that means that you are more likely to watch Stewart’s show and you’re more likely to be liberal in your social beliefs. This also makes you far more forgiving when a performer attacks any part of the establishment, especially the police. And in fact you may actually feel empowered when you hear such lyrics. And that was my original point.

The point is that he was right and O’Reilly was wrong.

O’Reilly was right and Stewart got owned. And one of the reasons that I think that is the same reason that you think Stewart was correct. As I am in a different demographic, and am more sympathetic to O’Reilly’s view-point. Each of us has preconcieved notions as to what is “right” and we listen and watch with that bias.

If you would pull your head out of your ass and read the lyrics in questions, you would see that they are a condemnation of violence. There is no way to interpret the lyrics, taken as a whole, in any other light.

I posted the lyrics on this site junior. And when someone says that they have an uzi and are not going to run away if the police come that pretty much says it all. But you don’t see anything wrong with that because you are the age you are and watch Stewart. And I see a lot wrong with it because I am the age that I am at and I watch O’Reilly. that’s why age and demographics relative to viewership is important. But if you’ve never studied demographics, or worked with it in any capacity then you wouldn’t understand, and you don’t!

You are viewing this argument from a very limited perspective. And I am not going to say why, I’ll just leave it at that.

[Makavali]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I don’t give a shit about Stewart’s audience, which I have already acknowledged is overwhelmingly young (as if that matters to anyone).[/quote]

It doesn’t matter you say? That’s funny I think it makes all the difference in the world that his primary viewers are young males aged 18-29. If you fall into that demographic, and you do, that means that you are more likely to watch Stewart’s show and you’re more likely to be liberal in your social beliefs. This also makes you far more forgiving when a performer attacks any part of the establishment, especially the police. And in fact you may actually feel empowered when you hear such lyrics. And that was my original point.

The point is that he was right and O’Reilly was wrong.

O’Reilly was right and Stewart got owned. And one of the reasons that I think that is the same reason that you think Stewart was correct. As I am in a different demographic, and am more sympathetic to O’Reilly’s view-point. Each of us has preconcieved notions as to what is “right” and we listen and watch with that bias.

If you would pull your head out of your ass and read the lyrics in questions, you would see that they are a condemnation of violence. There is no way to interpret the lyrics, taken as a whole, in any other light.

I posted the lyrics on this site junior. And when someone says that they have an uzi and are not going to run away if the police come that pretty much says it all. But you don’t see anything wrong with that because you are the age you are and watch Stewart. And I see a lot wrong with it because I am the age that I am at and I watch O’Reilly. that’s why age and demographics relative to viewership is important. But if you’ve never studied demographics, or worked with it in any capacity then you wouldn’t understand, and you don’t!

You are viewing this argument from a very limited perspective. And I am not going to say why, I’ll just leave it at that.

[/quote]

Until you read the whole thing and understand it within its context, you have no idea what Common was talking about. You talk about limited perspectives, and yet I’ve never seen anyone try so hard to limit their own perspective as I’ve seen with you on this thread.

I’m not a fan of Common. I think maybe two of the songs he has released are any good. I don’t think the “poetry” he read was any good either. And yet I’m not joining in this bitchfest with you because what you are doing is ignoring some very basic facts. What you (and it seems O’Reilly too) are doing is effectively what 9/11 truthers do, and quite frankly, it is beyond shameful.

[Makavali]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I posted the lyrics on this site junior. And when someone says that they have an uzi and are not going to run away if the police come that pretty much says it all.[/quote]

No, you selectively posted certain lines to paint an unfavorable picture. Read the whole thing and comment, or shut up. It’s not a dissertation, it’s a few god damn lines. Old people aren’t meant to be lazy you know. It’s the first sign we should put you in a home.

[ZEB]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

No, you selectively posted certain lines to paint an unfavorable picture. Read the whole thing and comment, or shut up. It’s not a dissertation, it’s a few god damn lines. Old people aren’t meant to be lazy you know. It’s the first sign we should put you in a home.[/quote]

Well now, you seem all upset there Mak - Is mommy charging you rent now to live in the basement? Tell me how many times does an “artist” have to say the “n” word and attach a negative comment to it before he is considered a racist? Once and rightly so. And that is at the heart of my point. The left screams for tolerance regarding cop hating lyrics, homosexual weddings and a host of other things, but has no tolerance for anything beyond their tight little world view. It IS about that hate filled line! It doesn’t matter what else he’s saying! Just like it’s about certain key buzz words that the left hates. You know all that talk about “hate speech”? It didn’t originate with the right.

Furthermore, I deliberately pointed out why I saw things one way and smh saw them another. Did all of that escape you? You obviously fall in with smh’s demographic and you agree with him - Wow what a shocker! I feel O’Reilly won the exchange and you and some others of your demo feel Stewart won. I’m not offended by that in the least and indeed I fully understand it. Open your eyes, we are both products of our age, what we view, and our political views. Is this concept that difficult for you to grasp?

Finally, for further verification of my supposition take a look at the polls and see where the people of the US stand on inviting that scum bag to the white house. Those over 40 agree with me and those under 30 agree with you, with a mix of roughly 50/50 for those 30 to 40 years in age. But the solid majority of adults over all demographics and gender do agree that it was a bad move on Obama’s part.

My gosh, you should be embarrassed that I have to explain this AGAIN.

Please post back and tell me you understand this simple, simple concept. Or am I giving you too much credit?

[smh23]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Until you read the whole thing and understand it within its context, you have no idea what Common was talking about. You talk about limited perspectives, and yet I’ve never seen anyone try so hard to limit their own perspective as I’ve seen with you on this thread.

I’m not a fan of Common. I think maybe two of the songs he has released are any good. I don’t think the “poetry” he read was any good either. And yet I’m not joining in this bitchfest with you because what you are doing is ignoring some very basic facts. What you (and it seems O’Reilly too) are doing is effectively what 9/11 truthers do, and quite frankly, it is beyond shameful.[/quote]

This.

[ZEB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Until you read the whole thing and understand it within its context, you have no idea what Common was talking about. You talk about limited perspectives, and yet I’ve never seen anyone try so hard to limit their own perspective as I’ve seen with you on this thread.

I’m not a fan of Common. I think maybe two of the songs he has released are any good. I don’t think the “poetry” he read was any good either. And yet I’m not joining in this bitchfest with you because what you are doing is ignoring some very basic facts. What you (and it seems O’Reilly too) are doing is effectively what 9/11 truthers do, and quite frankly, it is beyond shameful.[/quote]

This.[/quote]

That?

[SexMachine]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I posted the lyrics on this site junior. And when someone says that they have an uzi and are not going to run away if the police come that pretty much says it all.[/quote]

No, you selectively posted certain lines to paint an unfavorable picture. Read the whole thing and comment, or shut up. It’s not a dissertation, it’s a few god damn lines. Old people aren’t meant to be lazy you know. It’s the first sign we should put you in a home.[/quote]

So you say it’s ‘a few lines’ therefore we shouldn’t be concerned about the suggestion that President Bush should be burned or support for cop killers? smh23 says the words ‘no time for that cause there’s things to be done’ changes the meaning of EVERYTHING before it? I wouldn’t have the indecency to compare you to 9/11 truthers who accuse the victims, their families and the government of complicity in mass murder however I will say that your statements are ridiculous.