But what about his big right arm? Or his snickersnee?
I would also be interested. I recently invited another member to a similar style debate. (It was meant to be by PM but I accidentally posted it publicly.) No response yet…
~Max
This. 100% this. I wish Sam would reflect on the fact that the facts he posts are wrong. A lot. There has to come a time where you wonder why your sources of information are wrong so very often. Except, as mentioned a few times, I don’t think he sees it. Someone else later on says, it is all about the narrative, and I think that’s accurate. The facts are not important. The left is bad. The right is good. Facts be damned!
And for clarity. I don’t think Sam is stupid. I don’t think he’s a bad guy. As mentioned, outside of political threads, he’s a pretty normal poster. I think he’s capable of reflection, and I would love to see him do so. But I think I’m going to be disappointed. And it is too bad.
I’d agree with that definition for a healthy debate. And it’s the one that most school debating teams, or debating societies tend to emulate. You’re arguing for or against a point with relative merit - for example, you absolutely could argue that nuclear power is a better short term fix for fossil fuels, and argue both sides in good faith. You can provide information either way, and you can even (gasp!) argue that the sources one party or the other is using is based on research funded by an involved party.
You can’t just say (in a debate) that it’s false because ‘people are saying’ or ‘some analyst’ had a dissenting opinion, without citing the actual facts in said opinion. Or ascribe equal weight to an opinion from a professional in a field to that of someone with no credentials, or insist that only your own sources can be considered valid.
What I’d like to see in a debate, if it is held, to be closer to a mock-trial. In which the posters would actually have to provide valid, verifiable information. I strongly suspect it would end up like most of Trump’s election based litigation, nibbling at a minor issue here and there, but all of a sudden the sweeping claims disappear. And I’ll note that in a lot of threads, that is exactly what Sam does - once all the bold declarations are blown away, he’ll narrow down on some tiny, niggly detail in which they’re technically right to claim the win, while refusing to acknowledge the 95% where he was wrong.
He’s doing a great job demonstrating his debate prowess in the “economics” thread.
He unironically would probably be better if assigned a random position on a random debate topic that the ones he’s emotionally invested in.
And I think we all know how that would turn out.
If anyone is looking for a thread about politics to read, with almost no posts from Sam (2/141 right now), I found one,
I guess the subject of that thread, unlike American politics, has no direct impact on him.
And, btw Sam, I would be glad to debate you on the topic of Has Reaganomics benefitted or hurt America?. Not going to take the opposite position, lol, this is real life not Ender’s Game.
we’d have to set up some rules and procedures like (spitballing here):
- We each open up with our thesis.
- Pre-assigned moderator(s) ask us questions to which we both respond. I’m thinking just 4 questions, (two for each of us) let’s not dedicate our lives to this.
- Neither you nor I have to respond to the peanut gallery, just to each other and the moderator(s).
So:
Opening statements:
Q1 (assume made to Sam): Sam responds, JT rebuts, Sam responds.
Q2 (assume made to JT): JT responds, Sam rebuts, JT responds
Q3 (assume made to Sam): Sam responds, JT rebuts, Sam responds.
Q4 (assume made to JT): JT responds, Sam rebuts, JT responds
Closing Statements:
I would like about 12-24 hours for each question - we have lives, you know, and this is for fun and internet pointz.
Voting by the peanut gallery. There probably should be a different thread for commentary, but it may not be necessary… but would keep things more organized, to be fair.
Thoughts?
Is the peanut gallery allowed to post Ben Stein memes?
Peanut gallery can throw anything at us but actual peanuts. 
In honor of the board and the OG columns, it should be Circus Peanuts. But that may qualify as cruel and unusual punishment under board and US law.
fills up a bag with cashews
… damn legal types and their adherence to the letter of the law… 
Coconuts?
… see previous post.
I noticed the same thing and thought it odd. Why does that “Canadian” love to debate US politics but can barely raise a “meh” about his own? 
… to be continued?
We have had plenty of standard debates. The whole point of what I was suggesting was to try to get people to understand the other side by having to make their arguments, or to determine who really understands the other side’s argument. I’m sure you are ready to go with lots of ammo for discussing how bad Reaganomics was in your opinion. The question is whether you could successfully defend Reaganomics from the viewpoint of a conservative against someone else who has good arguments against it.
If you really want to understand the ‘other side’, it’s not enough to just google around for material you can use to refute them. To understand them, you have to try to think of the issue from their point of view. To have empathy for their point of view, even if you strongly disagree with it.
The world would be a much better place if people could disagree on facts while not ‘othering’ people who disagree with them, or with having arguments against them that are little more than a collection of factoids and zingers to be thrown out when challenged without ever really considering the point the other person is trying to make.
So I thought it would be interesting if people had to enter a debate in which they would have to take the other side’s point of view to ‘win’ it. It might force people to learn a little bit about how the other side thinks instead of the caricatures that our tribal nature drives us towards.
No, people should agree about facts, because they’re facts. Disagreement should be about what to do in regards to those facts, and opinions about them.
People who choose to only believe things they want to be real are delusional. That’s the definition of delusion.
This is why the right has problems on the SDMB. Left-leaning folks have very different opinions and get into arguments (sometimes heated ones) and interesting discussions result.
Right-leaning folks come in holding what aren’t simply different opinions, but they just believe flat-out lies, and then get upset that they can’t have proper discussions. Then there are accusations about a “hive” because these left-leaning (and moderate) people with varying opinions agree on well-documented facts that conflict with the right’s delusions.
This is the core problem.