Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Welfare Policy"

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:38:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have been hounded for nearly a week now on an RFD I gave in regards to whether or not "helping out the poor" at the government level is the same as a "welfare policy".

IMHO it's definitional that the two are equivalents, but I have been repeatedly told otherwise by the complainant. Thus, I am posting this thread to get more opinions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:45:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To add some clarity, wrichriw is talking about his RFD on my debate with Lannan. My opponent didn't make any argument on welfare until his last round, and when he did he put it under the heading of "money", regarding an argument he had made throughout the round of establishing a uniform currency. He didn't mention welfare, rather said "this will help the poor..." after talking about increasing inflation, and then his source talked about welfare.

The debate is here if anyone wants to check it out http://www.debate.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:49:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:45:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
To add some clarity, wrichriw is talking about his RFD on my debate with Lannan. My opponent didn't make any argument on welfare until his last round, and when he did he put it under the heading of "money", regarding an argument he had made throughout the round of establishing a uniform currency. He didn't mention welfare, rather said "this will help the poor..." after talking about increasing inflation, and then his source talked about welfare.

The debate is here if anyone wants to check it out http://www.debate.org...

Any policy that helps the poor is a welfare policy. Inflationary policy aimed at helping the poor easily fits under this bill.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:53:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:49:56 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:45:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
To add some clarity, wrichriw is talking about his RFD on my debate with Lannan. My opponent didn't make any argument on welfare until his last round, and when he did he put it under the heading of "money", regarding an argument he had made throughout the round of establishing a uniform currency. He didn't mention welfare, rather said "this will help the poor..." after talking about increasing inflation, and then his source talked about welfare.

The debate is here if anyone wants to check it out http://www.debate.org...

Any policy that helps the poor is a welfare policy. Inflationary policy aimed at helping the poor easily fits under this bill.

That's fine, the problem is I didn't ignore the argument on inflation policy (it was actually my rebuttal to his argument). Your RFD claimed that I ignored his argument on "welfare policy" which I presumed you meant to be cash transfers because that's what his source detailed even if he didn't personally argue about it.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:53:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For example, talk surrounding Social Security is about reducing benefits by lowering the cost of living adjustment. Essentially this is welfare reduction via inflation.
http://www.nytimes.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:55:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:53:08 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:49:56 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:45:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
To add some clarity, wrichriw is talking about his RFD on my debate with Lannan. My opponent didn't make any argument on welfare until his last round, and when he did he put it under the heading of "money", regarding an argument he had made throughout the round of establishing a uniform currency. He didn't mention welfare, rather said "this will help the poor..." after talking about increasing inflation, and then his source talked about welfare.

The debate is here if anyone wants to check it out http://www.debate.org...

Any policy that helps the poor is a welfare policy. Inflationary policy aimed at helping the poor easily fits under this bill.

That's fine, the problem is I didn't ignore the argument on inflation policy (it was actually my rebuttal to his argument). Your RFD claimed that I ignored his argument on "welfare policy" which I presumed you meant to be cash transfers because that's what his source detailed even if he didn't personally argue about it.

Let's say this is true (I wholly ignored PRO's point on inflation). You still did not address the actual welfare portion of his argument:

"...if we help out the poor the standards of living will increase for the middle class causing people to have more money and thus stimulating the economy"
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:57:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, I did not score arguments against you. I thought you did really well in the debate. This is a major point in a debate about populism, but I'm not going to score against you due to all of the factors we already discussed.

I don't understand why you're being so antagonistic over a null vote.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:04:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:55:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:53:08 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:49:56 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:45:23 PM, thett3 wrote:
To add some clarity, wrichriw is talking about his RFD on my debate with Lannan. My opponent didn't make any argument on welfare until his last round, and when he did he put it under the heading of "money", regarding an argument he had made throughout the round of establishing a uniform currency. He didn't mention welfare, rather said "this will help the poor..." after talking about increasing inflation, and then his source talked about welfare.

The debate is here if anyone wants to check it out http://www.debate.org...

Any policy that helps the poor is a welfare policy. Inflationary policy aimed at helping the poor easily fits under this bill.

That's fine, the problem is I didn't ignore the argument on inflation policy (it was actually my rebuttal to his argument). Your RFD claimed that I ignored his argument on "welfare policy" which I presumed you meant to be cash transfers because that's what his source detailed even if he didn't personally argue about it.

Let's say this is true (I wholly ignored PRO's point on inflation). You still did not address the actual welfare portion of his argument:

"...if we help out the poor the standards of living will increase for the middle class causing people to have more money and thus stimulating the economy"


Well two things, it was in the last round and secondly it's pretty unclear that Pro was arguing for cash transfers...I dont remember perfectly, but I'm about 90% certain his argument wasn't even about cash transfers. I just thought it was kind of crazy to judge the round on such a vague, unimpacted statement
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:07:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:57:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Again, I did not score arguments against you. I thought you did really well in the debate. This is a major point in a debate about populism, but I'm not going to score against you due to all of the factors we already discussed.

I don't understand why you're being so antagonistic over a null vote.

I'm sorry wrichcirw, I didn't mean to be overly antagonistic. Perhaps it came off as that, but it's not the fact that you didn't vote for me that bothered me, it was your reasoning. I felt (and still feel) that the decision was ignoring a huge number of important points that should be weighed more highly than a vague statement on pro's part. Still that doesn't justify being overly antagonistic which, admittedly, at many times I was.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:33:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:38:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I have been hounded for nearly a week now on an RFD I gave in regards to whether or not "helping out the poor" at the government level is the same as a "welfare policy".

Well, it kind of is. To me, welfare is helping out the poor.

However, today's welfare system isn't helping the poor. Most welfare recipients today can't get off their lazy butts because they've figured out that they can get by without a job. Welfare is meant to help someone get back on their feet, but too many people abuse it and don't use it as "help."

I'd like to see the government actually help the poor without effecting other people. I don't know, maybe if all welfare is cut off, it'll scare people into trying to get a job or go to school. Of course that'll never happen, but imagine what would happen to all the people that could do better.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:50:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well two things, it was in the last round and secondly it's pretty unclear that Pro was arguing for cash transfers...I dont remember perfectly, but I'm about 90% certain his argument wasn't even about cash transfers. I just thought it was kind of crazy to judge the round on such a vague, unimpacted statement

1) A welfare policy does not necessarily entail cash transfers. A progressive tax can be seen as part of a welfare policy, but it does not at all involve cash transfers like a negative income tax or EITC.

The sentence I quoted dealt with welfare in general, which is why it stuck out so much for me, because no one had addressed it at all beforehand in a debate about populism. That would be akin to talking about CEO pay generally without talking about corporate earnings...anyone who brings up a cogent point about corporate earnings will stick out when it comes to persuasion and being convincing, whereas the other party will seem much, much less persuasive and much less aware of the relevant impacts regarding a discussion about CEO pay. Some points just naturally stick out, IMHO.

What if you talked about Eminem's music in a general manner without talking about rap culture, or if you talked about the color of the sky without mentioning the color blue? IMHO at some point it becomes expected given the material. I do try to vote based on tabula rasa, but I do not leave my faculties for reasoning at the door.

2) I understand that the brevity of the argument will most certainly make it seem less impactful, but it was surprisingly cogent and was even sourced correctly - this, added to its direct and immediate relevancy to the resolution made it really stand out from the rest of PRO's arguments. Again, no way I would have given arguments to PRO given the debate as a whole, but this was an extremely important general statement on "why populism?"

---

I felt (and still feel) that the decision was ignoring a huge number of important points that should be weighed more highly than a vague statement on pro's part.

I do think my decision took all of those points into account, and that you strongly disagree with how I weighed the arguments. That's fair criticism, you're free to your opinion after all, but to say I ignored them is not.

---

Well, it kind of is. To me, welfare is helping out the poor.

However, today's welfare system isn't helping the poor. Most welfare recipients today can't get off their lazy butts because they've figured out that they can get by without a job. Welfare is meant to help someone get back on their feet, but too many people abuse it and don't use it as "help."

Yeah, I'm close to full agreement on this.

---

I'd like to see the government actually help the poor without effecting other people.

This however I don't think is actually possible.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 8:08:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:50:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Well two things, it was in the last round and secondly it's pretty unclear that Pro was arguing for cash transfers...I dont remember perfectly, but I'm about 90% certain his argument wasn't even about cash transfers. I just thought it was kind of crazy to judge the round on such a vague, unimpacted statement

1) A welfare policy does not necessarily entail cash transfers. A progressive tax can be seen as part of a welfare policy, but it does not at all involve cash transfers like a negative income tax or EITC.

Right, but what you voted on was the fact that cash transfers help us all.


The sentence I quoted dealt with welfare in general, which is why it stuck out so much for me, because no one had addressed it at all beforehand in a debate about populism. That would be akin to talking about CEO pay generally without talking about corporate earnings...anyone who brings up a cogent point about corporate earnings will stick out when it comes to persuasion and being convincing, whereas the other party will seem much, much less persuasive and much less aware of the relevant impacts regarding a discussion about CEO pay. Some points just naturally stick out, IMHO.

What if you talked about Eminem's music in a general manner without talking about rap culture, or if you talked about the color of the sky without mentioning the color blue? IMHO at some point it becomes expected given the material. I do try to vote based on tabula rasa, but I do not leave my faculties for reasoning at the door.

But when you reach the point that you decide "I'm voting on whoever wins this point" before the debate starts (like you did for welfare in my debate), you aren't anywhere near the blank slate paradigm. Moreover it was brought up in the last round, so it can't be considered. It's especially interesting that you claim welfare was the most important argument in the round then define welfare as policies aimed to help the poor. Very important points in round were made about progressive vs. flat taxes, inflation aimed at helping the poor, taxes on corporations (who many poor people felt violated their rights) and state control of industries that would've been aimed to make things more accessible to the poor. So I think claiming that no one argued about welfare policy given your definition of welfare is a bit unfair.


2) I understand that the brevity of the argument will most certainly make it seem less impactful, but it was surprisingly cogent and was even sourced correctly - this, added to its direct and immediate relevancy to the resolution made it really stand out from the rest of PRO's arguments. Again, no way I would have given arguments to PRO given the debate as a whole, but this was an extremely important general statement on "why populism?"

This is where we disagree. Pro didn't even MAKE the argument involving cash transfers, he said "this will help the poor" (without saying what "this" was) right after an argument about inflation and then his source talked about cash transfers. Even ignoring that it was brought up last round, it's hardly fair to call this the most important argument in round given that it wasn't even clear what Pro was arguing for, and even if you think cash transfers are the most important populist idea (which is pretty reasonable), Pro didn't make that evaluation.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 9:49:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 8:08:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:50:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Well two things, it was in the last round and secondly it's pretty unclear that Pro was arguing for cash transfers...I dont remember perfectly, but I'm about 90% certain his argument wasn't even about cash transfers. I just thought it was kind of crazy to judge the round on such a vague, unimpacted statement

1) A welfare policy does not necessarily entail cash transfers. A progressive tax can be seen as part of a welfare policy, but it does not at all involve cash transfers like a negative income tax or EITC.

Right, but what you voted on was the fact that cash transfers help us all.

Again, nothing about anything I said, wrote, or voted on had anything to do with cash transfers. I don't know why you keep bringing up this phrase, this is total misattribution. I have explained the reasoning above and below, and you seem to have agreed with it, and then wholly ignored it.

The sentence I quoted dealt with welfare in general, which is why it stuck out so much for me, because no one had addressed it at all beforehand in a debate about populism. That would be akin to talking about CEO pay generally without talking about corporate earnings...anyone who brings up a cogent point about corporate earnings will stick out when it comes to persuasion and being convincing, whereas the other party will seem much, much less persuasive and much less aware of the relevant impacts regarding a discussion about CEO pay. Some points just naturally stick out, IMHO.

What if you talked about Eminem's music in a general manner without talking about rap culture, or if you talked about the color of the sky without mentioning the color blue? IMHO at some point it becomes expected given the material. I do try to vote based on tabula rasa, but I do not leave my faculties for reasoning at the door.

But when you reach the point that you decide "I'm voting on whoever wins this point" before the debate starts (like you did for welfare in my debate), you aren't anywhere near the blank slate paradigm.

I did not know it was going to be the winning point, until it was made and the debate was over. I weighed everything I read and remembered in the debate, and then came to my conclusion. To think you can somehow guess as to how I vote on a debate outside of anything I have written down is supremely presumptuous and idiotic on your part.

I'm beginning to become extremely irritated at the level of baseless assumption and stupidity you are attributing to my RFD. You need to stick with what you know, and admit what you don't know.

Basically, you're not a fvcking mind reader, and you need to stop thinking you're one.

I will stop here. This is just becoming a repeat of your utter banality in the debate proper.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:01:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 9:49:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:08:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:50:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Well two things, it was in the last round and secondly it's pretty unclear that Pro was arguing for cash transfers...I dont remember perfectly, but I'm about 90% certain his argument wasn't even about cash transfers. I just thought it was kind of crazy to judge the round on such a vague, unimpacted statement

1) A welfare policy does not necessarily entail cash transfers. A progressive tax can be seen as part of a welfare policy, but it does not at all involve cash transfers like a negative income tax or EITC.

Right, but what you voted on was the fact that cash transfers help us all.

Again, nothing about anything I said, wrote, or voted on had anything to do with cash transfers. I don't know why you keep bringing up this phrase, this is total misattribution. I have explained the reasoning above and below, and you seem to have agreed with it, and then wholly ignored it.

Well then now I'm confused. You said in your RFD: " PRO addressed welfare in the final round, which I consider to be the main platform of a populist position.". Later on I asked you what you meant by that, and you said

" PRO's final round brought in what I considered to be significant evidence for his position that went unchallenged. He sacrificed 1 point for conduct and in the process saved 5 points for args and sources, which I was heavily leaning towards giving you before closing args."

The card Pro brought up (in the last round, which you can't consider anyway) was about cash transfers. I'm using this term to avoid confusion because you've defined welfare as any policy to help the poor, so the conventional use of "welfare" to describe cash payments given to the poor is out.


The sentence I quoted dealt with welfare in general, which is why it stuck out so much for me, because no one had addressed it at all beforehand in a debate about populism. That would be akin to talking about CEO pay generally without talking about corporate earnings...anyone who brings up a cogent point about corporate earnings will stick out when it comes to persuasion and being convincing, whereas the other party will seem much, much less persuasive and much less aware of the relevant impacts regarding a discussion about CEO pay. Some points just naturally stick out, IMHO.

What if you talked about Eminem's music in a general manner without talking about rap culture, or if you talked about the color of the sky without mentioning the color blue? IMHO at some point it becomes expected given the material. I do try to vote based on tabula rasa, but I do not leave my faculties for reasoning at the door.

But when you reach the point that you decide "I'm voting on whoever wins this point" before the debate starts (like you did for welfare in my debate), you aren't anywhere near the blank slate paradigm.

I did not know it was going to be the winning point, until it was made and the debate was over. I weighed everything I read and remembered in the debate, and then came to my conclusion. To think you can somehow guess as to how I vote on a debate outside of anything I have written down is supremely presumptuous and idiotic on your part.

But I'm not saying I can guess. I'm going off what you said. As an example of the priority you placed on welfare in the debate, you stated in the comments that the resolution:

"Basically, "is welfare good?" If yes, then populism, if no then not. R4 was the first time PRO substantiated the resolution in a satisfactorily manner, IMHO, with a new argument in support of it."

Now I'm pretty sure in this case you meant welfare as cash transfers to the poor since the rest of the debate was about policies aimed to help the poor, which you define as welfare later on.


I'm beginning to become extremely irritated at the level of baseless assumption and stupidity you are attributing to my RFD. You need to stick with what you know, and admit what you don't know.

I didn't intend to say anything I didn't know. It's true I don't know what went through your mind, but when you say things like: "Basically, I see this debate centered around welfare, and how to pay for it if allowed." it seems to indicate that you view welfare (and not welfare as any policy to help the poor since those were discussed in the debate, but specifically cash transfers to the poor--the argument in question) as the key to the resolution, even if no one made that analysis.


Basically, you're not a fvcking mind reader, and you need to stop thinking you're one.

I will stop here. This is just becoming a repeat of your utter banality in the debate proper.

Calm down dude. I thought we were having a relatively civil disagreement until now.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:07:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will add at this point that you have switched topics over, and over, and over again regarding my RFD after I have addressed and settled each and every one of your claims, no matter how ridiculous they have been.

I have been extremely patient in addressing the following over the past week:

- tax cuts and budget balancing
- arguing contra status quo and BoP
- "economic impacts"
- stated impacts and weights by PRO/CON
- supposed bias in weighing arguments found in PRO's sources

As far as I'm concerned, I have justified each and every one of these points, or have shown them to be false accusations. At some point, what may seem to be a valid contestations will turn to be nothing other than wailing and bitching, and I think a week of dealing with you on one RFD on one debate easily constitutes "enough is enough".

Since I don't see you capable of stopping yourself, I will stop this now. My RFD stands, and I will be wary of your honesty in the future. Your challenges are getting absurd and non-sensical, and I do not see any reason to entertain them further.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:11:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:01:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:49:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Calm down dude. I thought we were having a relatively civil disagreement until now.

I get angry when I see stupidity. Your contestations breached the line of "civil disagreement" a couple days ago, when I noted that you were beginning to insult my intelligence.

I've had enough. I've put in more time into this one RFD than most would put into an entire debate. You keep bringing up new sh!t because you don't seem to understand that with every point that you lay to rest, you become less and less convincing and more and more irritating.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:12:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:07:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I will add at this point that you have switched topics over, and over, and over again regarding my RFD after I have addressed and settled each and every one of your claims, no matter how ridiculous they have been.

I have been extremely patient in addressing the following over the past week:

- tax cuts and budget balancing
- arguing contra status quo and BoP
- "economic impacts"
- stated impacts and weights by PRO/CON
- supposed bias in weighing arguments found in PRO's sources

I didn't deny that you were patient to discuss the RFD with me.

As far as I'm concerned, I have justified each and every one of these points, or have shown them to be false accusations. At some point, what may seem to be a valid contestations will turn to be nothing other than wailing and bitching, and I think a week of dealing with you on one RFD on one debate easily constitutes "enough is enough".

That's fine. No one is forcing you to discuss it, and I doubt many people will think any less of you for getting tired of having to hash out the same issues.


Since I don't see you capable of stopping yourself, I will stop this now. My RFD stands, and I will be wary of your honesty in the future. Your challenges are getting absurd and non-sensical, and I do not see any reason to entertain them further.

If you say so. I obviously don't think so, or I wouldn't be asking you about them still. People have differing opinions, and you shouldn't get so worked up over that. If you want to be "wary of my honesty" that's fine but I should note that at no point have I been dishonest. There may have been some miscommunication, but it's because of my value of honesty that I dislike and "bitch" about what I consider bad votes
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:15:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:11:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:01:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:49:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Calm down dude. I thought we were having a relatively civil disagreement until now.

I get angry when I see stupidity. Your contestations breached the line of "civil disagreement" a couple days ago, when I noted that you were beginning to insult my intelligence.

Really? Well I certainly didn't intend to.


I've had enough. I've put in more time into this one RFD than most would put into an entire debate. You keep bringing up new sh!t because you don't seem to understand that with every point that you lay to rest, you become less and less convincing and more and more irritating.

The whole issue the past couple of days have been the validity of Pro's usage of a R4 argument and the proper weight that should be given to it. I don't really see where I've brought up a bunch of new points, rather it's just been a long discussion and obviously that brings about a lot of dialogue.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:34:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:07:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, I have justified each and every one of these points, or have shown them to be false accusations. At some point, what may seem to be a valid contestations will turn to be nothing other than wailing and bitching, and I think a week of dealing with you on one RFD on one debate easily constitutes "enough is enough".

No such thing as 'enough is enough', defend your position or lose by default. I think this site merely facilitates people like you who want to wail and bitch and then pretend you did something more profound because you think a few lines in an RFD is 'the end.'

Any other debate site you would have no faulty system to shield your actions, you would obviously quit having failed to support practically everything you wrote.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 1:31:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 12:34:08 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:07:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, I have justified each and every one of these points, or have shown them to be false accusations. At some point, what may seem to be a valid contestations will turn to be nothing other than wailing and bitching, and I think a week of dealing with you on one RFD on one debate easily constitutes "enough is enough".

No such thing as 'enough is enough', defend your position or lose by default. I think this site merely facilitates people like you who want to wail and bitch and then pretend you did something more profound because you think a few lines in an RFD is 'the end.'

Any other debate site you would have no faulty system to shield your actions, you would obviously quit having failed to support practically everything you wrote.

You remind me of badger.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 2:54:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 1:31:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
You remind me of badger.

Then three cheers for badger and what few are left with some modicum intellectual integrity... well that is if I could trust you to accurately evaluate me or badger and truthfully determine whether we are similar; which I can't.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 7:13:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:15:37 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:11:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


Calm down dude. I thought we were having a relatively civil disagreement until now.

I get angry when I see stupidity. Your contestations breached the line of "civil disagreement" a couple days ago, when I noted that you were beginning to insult my intelligence.

Really? Well I certainly didn't intend to.

Then you need to rethink how you present yourself. Making a comment like the following:

""wricrhiw, I know you dont mean any harm but your voting style is so ridiculously interventionist that I'd really appreciate it if you just refrained from voting on any of my debates in the future""

...expresses clear exasperation and incivility, and does not look to forward a discussion or contest any part of my RFD. Basically, you are a hypocrite.

I don't understand why you went to such lengths to challenge an RFD that went in your favor. All I understand is that your bitching is not at all conducive to persuasion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 9:51:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 7:13:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:15:37 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:11:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


Calm down dude. I thought we were having a relatively civil disagreement until now.

I get angry when I see stupidity. Your contestations breached the line of "civil disagreement" a couple days ago, when I noted that you were beginning to insult my intelligence.

Really? Well I certainly didn't intend to.

Then you need to rethink how you present yourself. Making a comment like the following:

""wricrhiw, I know you dont mean any harm but your voting style is so ridiculously interventionist that I'd really appreciate it if you just refrained from voting on any of my debates in the future""

...expresses clear exasperation and incivility, and does not look to forward a discussion or contest any part of my RFD. Basically, you are a hypocrite.

Not really... There are plenty of ways to be way more uncivil about that. Regardless I've already explained *why* I'm uncomfortable with your judging style and apologized for saying it in a way that came off rudely. I also don't see how this makes me a hypocrite at all but whatever


I don't understand why you went to such lengths to challenge an RFD that went in your favor. All I understand is that your bitching is not at all conducive to persuasion.

It's not the points it's the reasoning. I don't really view posting a few comments on the debate as "great lengths" Bad voting is one of my pet peeves and the mature thing to do probably would've been to just ignore what I disliked in the RFD but I can't claim to be wise and mature all, or even most of the time. Despite your exasperation and anger, I've done my best to make my position clear and show you my view. I'm sorry that you think all I'm doing is "bitching" but really I'm just trying to explain what went wrong.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:19:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not that I want to become embroiled in this dispute, but I have three quick things to say:

1. wrichcirw: I think it's unfair to remove the conduct point because of something thett3 did after the round. It seems a bit spiteful.
2. wrichcirw: your vote was interventionist. Some people don't mind that, but clearly thett3 does not (nor do I, but that's a different sotry...). Why not just agree not to vote on her debates, and vice-versa--your paradigms just don't mesh.
3. I definitely have an opinion on the vote, but at this point, it seems like this issue is irresolvable. Maybe agreeing to disagree is the wisest and most calm-headed thing to do at this juncture...?

(P.S. - why is this in the politics forum thread...?)
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:03:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:19:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Not that I want to become embroiled in this dispute, but I have three quick things to say:

1. wrichcirw: I think it's unfair to remove the conduct point because of something thett3 did after the round. It seems a bit spiteful.

I abstained. Abstention is not spiteful.

2. wrichcirw: your vote was interventionist. Some people don't mind that, but clearly thett3 does not (nor do I, but that's a different sotry...). Why not just agree not to vote on her debates, and vice-versa--your paradigms just don't mesh.

I fully disagree, and advise you to take your own advice to agree to disagree.

At a certain point, tabula rasa is untenable. I am not supposed to be expected to have a "blank slate" when it comes to the alphabet or the number system.

Each person has their own "certain point". For some, it is higher than others. That's why we have multiple judges for debates.

My vote is fully valid.

3. I definitely have an opinion on the vote, but at this point, it seems like this issue is irresolvable. Maybe agreeing to disagree is the wisest and most calm-headed thing to do at this juncture...?

(P.S. - why is this in the politics forum thread...?)

Because this topic was not supposed to involve thett3, as I was clearly asking for opinions about a political topic. I did not link the debate in question.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:06:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 9:51:51 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 7:13:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:15:37 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:11:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


Calm down dude. I thought we were having a relatively civil disagreement until now.

I get angry when I see stupidity. Your contestations breached the line of "civil disagreement" a couple days ago, when I noted that you were beginning to insult my intelligence.

Really? Well I certainly didn't intend to.

Then you need to rethink how you present yourself. Making a comment like the following:

""wricrhiw, I know you dont mean any harm but your voting style is so ridiculously interventionist that I'd really appreciate it if you just refrained from voting on any of my debates in the future""

...expresses clear exasperation and incivility, and does not look to forward a discussion or contest any part of my RFD. Basically, you are a hypocrite.

Not really... There are plenty of ways to be way more uncivil about that.

The point is it was uncivil. You breached civility. Please respect this fact for what it is, although at this point I am very much of the notion that you are a lying hypocrite, and will be guarded whenever I vote on your debates. I consider intentional deceit to be a greater offense than plagiarism.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:08:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 9:51:51 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 7:13:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It's not the points it's the reasoning.

There is no reasoning required for abstention.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:25:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 12:06:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:51:51 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 7:13:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:15:37 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:11:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


Calm down dude. I thought we were having a relatively civil disagreement until now.

I get angry when I see stupidity. Your contestations breached the line of "civil disagreement" a couple days ago, when I noted that you were beginning to insult my intelligence.

Really? Well I certainly didn't intend to.

Then you need to rethink how you present yourself. Making a comment like the following:

""wricrhiw, I know you dont mean any harm but your voting style is so ridiculously interventionist that I'd really appreciate it if you just refrained from voting on any of my debates in the future""

...expresses clear exasperation and incivility, and does not look to forward a discussion or contest any part of my RFD. Basically, you are a hypocrite.

Not really... There are plenty of ways to be way more uncivil about that.

The point is it was uncivil. You breached civility. Please respect this fact for what it is,

I don't know. It's not like I yelled at you or said you were a scumbag who has it out for me, or swore at you. There were probably nicer ways to say it (like bsh1 said--our paradigms don't mesh), but it wasn't *that* bad. We've both seen way more hostile things and, frankly, the things you've called me are far worse even if I did "breach civility".

although at this point I am very much of the notion that you are a lying hypocrite, and will be guarded whenever I vote on your debates. I consider intentional deceit to be a greater offense than plagiarism.

If you admit to being "guarded" when you vote on my debates, you probably shouldn't vote on them. Nowhere have I lied and hypocrisy seems completely out of the picture but you're free to believe whatever you want. I'll just suggest that to avoid future controversy, you should probably not vote on any of my debates in the future, even if just because you admit that you'll start out with a bias.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:26:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 12:08:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:51:51 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 7:13:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It's not the points it's the reasoning.

There is no reasoning required for abstention.

You're right, but you didn't abstain from voting, you voted and then voted a tie with shoddy reasoning. I think there's a distinction to be made there
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:30:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 12:25:21 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 12:06:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:51:51 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 7:13:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:15:37 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:11:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


Calm down dude. I thought we were having a relatively civil disagreement until now.

I get angry when I see stupidity. Your contestations breached the line of "civil disagreement" a couple days ago, when I noted that you were beginning to insult my intelligence.

Really? Well I certainly didn't intend to.

Then you need to rethink how you present yourself. Making a comment like the following:

""wricrhiw, I know you dont mean any harm but your voting style is so ridiculously interventionist that I'd really appreciate it if you just refrained from voting on any of my debates in the future""

...expresses clear exasperation and incivility, and does not look to forward a discussion or contest any part of my RFD. Basically, you are a hypocrite.

Not really... There are plenty of ways to be way more uncivil about that.

The point is it was uncivil. You breached civility. Please respect this fact for what it is,

I don't know. It's not like I yelled at you or said you were a scumbag who has it out for me, or swore at you. There were probably nicer ways to say it (like bsh1 said--our paradigms don't mesh), but it wasn't *that* bad. We've both seen way more hostile things and, frankly, the things you've called me are far worse even if I did "breach civility".

I could care less. You breached civility, and that is all that matters. If you can't be well-mannered, don't expect me to reciprocate.

Your breach of civility occurred after a full week of me dealing with inaccurate and manipulative charges from you that mischaracterized the debate and my RFD. Frankly I found your complaints not only wholly unwarranted but borderline deceitful, but did not breach civility by being accusational until you did. Now you are getting my raw, unadulterated opinion on your gripes, bitching, and lying.

although at this point I am very much of the notion that you are a lying hypocrite, and will be guarded whenever I vote on your debates. I consider intentional deceit to be a greater offense than plagiarism.

If you admit to being "guarded" when you vote on my debates, you probably shouldn't vote on them.

I have no reason to adhere to your requests, stipulations, or demands.

Nowhere have I lied and hypocrisy seems completely out of the picture but you're free to believe whatever you want.

Obviously since I consider you a liar, I have no reason to take you at your word.

'll just suggest that to avoid future controversy, you should probably not vote on any of my debates in the future, even if just because you admit that you'll start out with a bias.

All voters start with a bias. That's not a disqualifying condition.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?