Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Tophatdoc's Requirements for Debate Opponents

monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 2:34:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. Any person who has not participated in and won a debate on this forum will be seen by Tophatdoc to be unworthy of debating him and will be disqualified for that reason.

2. Tophatdoc will not accept or even entertain his opponent's evidence if it comes from an internet search. All evidence that doesn't meet his standards will be considered by him to be disqualified as evidence in a debate.

Tophatdoc would almost certainly insist on other requirements which he has so far not stipulated.

---------------------

And now my question is: Is Tophatdoc within his rights to insist on those requirements and qualifications? Are these fair and just parameters to insist upon before entering a debate?
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 2:38:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

Don't believe him, he is very dishonest. Look at the link he posted in #66 of this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.bing.com...
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:01:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

I can live with any of his personal requirements if he himself is limited in the same manner. I really don't think he would want to be limited in what he could present as evidence but I've been surprised by dictatorial munchkins on forums such as this before.

In any case, I'm leaving the invitation to him open whenever he decides that he's not a 'special' case who deserves 'special' consideration.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:55:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 2:38:39 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

Don't believe him, he is very dishonest. Look at the link he posted in #66 of this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.bing.com...

How is this proof of dishonesty? All this comment is is proof that you will resort to ad hominem (calling your opponent a liar) when you cannot counter-argue the point. IMHO you would have "lost" this debate, had this been in any way a formal exercise.
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
3/16/2014 11:08:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 2:38:39 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

Don't believe him, he is very dishonest. Look at the link he posted in #66 of this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.bing.com...

I will also add that the 5th photo from top left was sourced from a photo essay from Mother Jones, the publication that originally published the Mitt Romney 47% video.
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?
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 7:07:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:55:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:38:39 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

Don't believe him, he is very dishonest. Look at the link he posted in #66 of this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.bing.com...

How is this proof of dishonesty? All this comment is is proof that you will resort to ad hominem (calling your opponent a liar) when you cannot counter-argue the point. IMHO you would have "lost" this debate, had this been in any way a formal exercise.

Wrichcirw claims that Tophatdoc used an ad hominem against Monty. I was not arguing a point to even try to use an ad hominem. Perhaps if you had taken two minutes to read what I said, you would of noticed I didn't present any point other than attacking his character.

You claim he argued a point. What point did he argue successfully? None. I asked for evidence of proof Tea Party racism, than he redirects me to a Bing search engine photos. None of which he explained. So you would "lose" this debate too.

I will also add that the 5th photo from top left was sourced from a photo essay from Mother Jones, the publication that originally published the Mitt Romney 47% video.

That is right Monty did point that out as an example of Tea party racism. Oops, no that was wrichcirw. Monty didn't explain a single one of the pictures.

YAWN. You "lose" two debates LOL. Do you ever plan to say anything of importance? Complain, Complain, and more complaints? Wrichcirw go find a customer service to complain to, you would enjoy it. Now, you are going to complain that this is a personal attack. Good, it was supposed to offend you. If you harass, I will attack.

Don't respond to my posts any more unless you are going to say something of importance instead of your usual complaints that no one cares about. I finally picked up on what you do and I don't plan to respond any more at all. Because this post like your ones yesterday and the times before are an absolute waste of time with your miniscule complaints.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 7:43:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:07:25 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:55:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:38:39 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

Don't believe him, he is very dishonest. Look at the link he posted in #66 of this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.bing.com...

How is this proof of dishonesty? All this comment is is proof that you will resort to ad hominem (calling your opponent a liar) when you cannot counter-argue the point. IMHO you would have "lost" this debate, had this been in any way a formal exercise.

Wrichcirw claims that Tophatdoc used an ad hominem against Monty. I was not arguing a point to even try to use an ad hominem. Perhaps if you had taken two minutes to read what I said, you would of noticed I didn't present any point other than attacking his character.

That attack is your argument. The counter is that there's zero evidence for that attack being valid.

You claim he argued a point. What point did he argue successfully? None. I asked for evidence of proof Tea Party racism, than he redirects me to a Bing search engine photos. None of which he explained. So you would "lose" this debate too.

Those pictures are self-explanatory. A sign with the word "NIGGAR" on it is rather indicative of race-motivated hate speech, i.e. racism. The MJ article clearly ties such signs to the Tea Party.

I will also add that the 5th photo from top left was sourced from a photo essay from Mother Jones, the publication that originally published the Mitt Romney 47% video.

That is right Monty did point that out as an example of Tea party racism. Oops, no that was wrichcirw. Monty didn't explain a single one of the pictures.

If you need information spoon-fed to you, then perhaps we should start back in kindergarten. Do you remember what a picture is?

YAWN. You "lose" two debates LOL. Do you ever plan to say anything of importance? Complain, Complain, and more complaints? Wrichcirw go find a customer service to complain to, you would enjoy it. Now, you are going to complain that this is a personal attack. Good, it was supposed to offend you. If you harass, I will attack.

Wait, so you complain about someone's supposed lack of argumentation, and then try to turn this around? No...the only turning your own arguments against you is me, and I am evidently succeeding.

Don't respond to my posts any more unless you are going to say something of importance instead of your usual complaints that no one cares about. I finally picked up on what you do and I don't plan to respond any more at all. Because this post like your ones yesterday and the times before are an absolute waste of time with your miniscule complaints.

Your entire feedback towards me in the referenced thread was a litany of complaints. I actually provided pertinent feedback on your post, and instead you decided to glorify misogyny, and to (ironically) bitch at those that disagreed with your perspective.
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?
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 7:59:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:43:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:07:25 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:55:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:38:39 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

Don't believe him, he is very dishonest. Look at the link he posted in #66 of this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.bing.com...

How is this proof of dishonesty? All this comment is is proof that you will resort to ad hominem (calling your opponent a liar) when you cannot counter-argue the point. IMHO you would have "lost" this debate, had this been in any way a formal exercise.

Wrichcirw claims that Tophatdoc used an ad hominem against Monty. I was not arguing a point to even try to use an ad hominem. Perhaps if you had taken two minutes to read what I said, you would of noticed I didn't present any point other than attacking his character.

That attack is your argument. The counter is that there's zero evidence for that attack being valid.

You claim he argued a point. What point did he argue successfully? None. I asked for evidence of proof Tea Party racism, than he redirects me to a Bing search engine photos. None of which he explained. So you would "lose" this debate too.

Those pictures are self-explanatory. A sign with the word "NIGGAR" on it is rather indicative of race-motivated hate speech, i.e. racism. The MJ article clearly ties such signs to the Tea Party.

I will also add that the 5th photo from top left was sourced from a photo essay from Mother Jones, the publication that originally published the Mitt Romney 47% video.

That is right Monty did point that out as an example of Tea party racism. Oops, no that was wrichcirw. Monty didn't explain a single one of the pictures.

If you need information spoon-fed to you, then perhaps we should start back in kindergarten. Do you remember what a picture is?

YAWN. You "lose" two debates LOL. Do you ever plan to say anything of importance? Complain, Complain, and more complaints? Wrichcirw go find a customer service to complain to, you would enjoy it. Now, you are going to complain that this is a personal attack. Good, it was supposed to offend you. If you harass, I will attack.

Wait, so you complain about someone's supposed lack of argumentation, and then try to turn this around? No...the only turning your own arguments against you is me, and I am evidently succeeding.

Don't respond to my posts any more unless you are going to say something of importance instead of your usual complaints that no one cares about. I finally picked up on what you do and I don't plan to respond any more at all. Because this post like your ones yesterday and the times before are an absolute waste of time with your miniscule complaints.

Your entire feedback towards me in the referenced thread was a litany of complaints. I actually provided pertinent feedback on your post, and instead you decided to glorify misogyny, and to (ironically) bitch at those that disagreed with your perspective.

You have been reported for violating Terms of Use.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:20:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:59:52 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:43:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:07:25 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:55:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:38:39 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

Don't believe him, he is very dishonest. Look at the link he posted in #66 of this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.bing.com...

How is this proof of dishonesty? All this comment is is proof that you will resort to ad hominem (calling your opponent a liar) when you cannot counter-argue the point. IMHO you would have "lost" this debate, had this been in any way a formal exercise.

Wrichcirw claims that Tophatdoc used an ad hominem against Monty. I was not arguing a point to even try to use an ad hominem. Perhaps if you had taken two minutes to read what I said, you would of noticed I didn't present any point other than attacking his character.

That attack is your argument. The counter is that there's zero evidence for that attack being valid.

You claim he argued a point. What point did he argue successfully? None. I asked for evidence of proof Tea Party racism, than he redirects me to a Bing search engine photos. None of which he explained. So you would "lose" this debate too.

Those pictures are self-explanatory. A sign with the word "NIGGAR" on it is rather indicative of race-motivated hate speech, i.e. racism. The MJ article clearly ties such signs to the Tea Party.

I will also add that the 5th photo from top left was sourced from a photo essay from Mother Jones, the publication that originally published the Mitt Romney 47% video.

That is right Monty did point that out as an example of Tea party racism. Oops, no that was wrichcirw. Monty didn't explain a single one of the pictures.

If you need information spoon-fed to you, then perhaps we should start back in kindergarten. Do you remember what a picture is?

YAWN. You "lose" two debates LOL. Do you ever plan to say anything of importance? Complain, Complain, and more complaints? Wrichcirw go find a customer service to complain to, you would enjoy it. Now, you are going to complain that this is a personal attack. Good, it was supposed to offend you. If you harass, I will attack.

Wait, so you complain about someone's supposed lack of argumentation, and then try to turn this around? No...the only turning your own arguments against you is me, and I am evidently succeeding.

Don't respond to my posts any more unless you are going to say something of importance instead of your usual complaints that no one cares about. I finally picked up on what you do and I don't plan to respond any more at all. Because this post like your ones yesterday and the times before are an absolute waste of time with your miniscule complaints.

Your entire feedback towards me in the referenced thread was a litany of complaints. I actually provided pertinent feedback on your post, and instead you decided to glorify misogyny, and to (ironically) bitch at those that disagreed with your perspective.

You have been reported for violating Terms of Use.

lol, if any of my comments are a violation of TOS (in that I am critical of your actions), so is your initial comment in this thread, by calling monty dishonest.

As it is, this thread is critical of your own actions. The arguments here are about the actions of specific individuals, so of course the comments are going to be laced with ad hominem. Regardless, what caused this thread to come into being was not an ad hominem...it was visual proof of a position, proof you found worthy to use only as a personal attack against your opponent.
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
3/17/2014 8:30:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:59:52 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:

At 3/17/2014 7:07:25 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:

YAWN. You "lose" two debates LOL. Do you ever plan to say anything of importance? Complain, Complain, and more complaints? Wrichcirw go find a customer service to complain to, you would enjoy it. Now, you are going to complain that this is a personal attack. Good, it was supposed to offend you. If you harass, I will attack.

You have been reported for violating Terms of Use.

The irony and hypocrisy here is notable, lol. Apparently you can't handle your own medicine.
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?
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:38:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:01:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

I can live with any of his personal requirements if he himself is limited in the same manner. I really don't think he would want to be limited in what he could present as evidence but I've been surprised by dictatorial munchkins on forums such as this before.

In any case, I'm leaving the invitation to him open whenever he decides that he's not a 'special' case who deserves 'special' consideration.

So you are not going to debate. If you want to comment in the forums without being examined, so be it. That is what many people on this site do. But don't feign like you want to debate when you clearly don't.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 5:42:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 8:38:41 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:01:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:36:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Yes, if he too abides by them.

I can live with any of his personal requirements if he himself is limited in the same manner. I really don't think he would want to be limited in what he could present as evidence but I've been surprised by dictatorial munchkins on forums such as this before.

In any case, I'm leaving the invitation to him open whenever he decides that he's not a 'special' case who deserves 'special' consideration.

So you are not going to debate. If you want to comment in the forums without being examined, so be it. That is what many people on this site do. But don't feign like you want to debate when you clearly don't.

I'll debate you tophatdoc but first you have to admit you're totally and completely wrong, stupid (your word), and childish to say you can't accept evidence from the internet.

The debate will be: The teabaggers are a bunch of racist and ignorant pigs. I'm arguing the pro side.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 5:44:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 5:42:13 PM, monty1 wrote:


I'll debate you tophatdoc but first you have to admit you're totally and completely wrong, stupid (your word), and childish to say you can't accept evidence from the internet.

The debate will be: The teabaggers are a bunch of racist and ignorant pigs. I'm arguing the pro side.

No, I already sent you a debate based on what you said. If you don't accept, then that is your business.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc