# Bricker: This is not a good debating technique **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 18, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213 "2005-12-18T22:28:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/21 "2005-12-19T00:08:18Z")
The reason the thread is problematic is that when debating his OP you have two choices: 1) reject his strawman presentation of the point he is trying to socratically disprove (which will be off-topic and inappropriate in a GD thread) or 2) dispute his plainly ridiculous arguments to no one’s benefit. It’s a disingenuous waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/22 "2005-12-19T00:12:58Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I’m reminded of [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=321995&highlight=News) which was spawned from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=321859). Bricker bounced back and forth from wanting to debate and wanting a quid pro quo. In those two threads, to borrow some absolutely brilliant words, I "…framed the debate fairly, and … argued it using rhetoric that passes without comment all the fucking time on this board. " Many people that responded in those threads were “…incapable of debating the issue and [couldn’t] rebut [their] own rhetoric when it’s used against [them]…” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/23 "2005-12-19T00:14:07Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > The reason the thread is problematic is that when debating his OP you have two choices: 1) reject his strawman presentation of the point he is trying to socratically disprove (which will be off-topic and inappropriate in a GD thread) or 2) dispute his plainly ridiculous arguments to no one’s benefit. It’s a disingenuous waste of time. Then stay out of the thread. Simple enough. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/24 "2005-12-19T00:20:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Many people that responded in those threads were “…incapable of debating the issue and [couldn’t] rebut [their] own rhetoric when it’s used against [them]…” Ha ha, quoting while using “…” to modify the quotes. Very clever. :rolleyes: At least my technique is not skirting the rules. Now, I would like to point out, that while you can not tell good debating from bad, you were unable to show how the opposite side in that debate was wrong, bad debaters or not. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/25 "2005-12-19T00:20:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then stay out of the thread. Simple enough. That’s fine, I have stayed out since I became certain you weren’t being sincere there. But “stay out” is hardly a defense of your thread. Do you not care that you aren’t making the point you hoped to make? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/26 "2005-12-19T00:23:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In those two threads, to borrow some absolutely brilliant words, I "…framed the debate fairly, and … argued it using rhetoric that passes without comment all the fucking time on this board. " > > Many people that responded in those threads were “…incapable of debating the issue and [couldn’t] rebut [their] own rhetoric when it’s used against [them]…” I disagree. > [@Bricker](#): > > I defy anyone to give me examples of their bias. I can defend pretty much any practice of theirs, now that I know all the acceptable tactics. That’s not “framing a debate”. Them’s fightin’ words. You can see that, right? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/27 "2005-12-19T00:30:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > John: > > With all due respect… and I don’t say that lightly; I have a great deal of respect for you… > > The simple fact is that the prostitution story ran in the Washington Post this past week. It felt it was an excellent look at the issue, given the emphasis in the story on support of the proposal by both the right and the left. So the OP was timely. > > If you don’t like the proposition, don’t debate it, or argue against it. > > If you don’t care to do that, don’t participate in the thread. > > If you believe the thread is addressing another issue, all I can tell you is that the thread stands on its own, and I absolutely, truly, in real life believe that prostitution should be illegal. I’m sure a dilgent search would reveal other times on these boards that I’ve said as much. > > So… what’s the problem? I think the “gotcha” technique is beneath you. And so does almost everyone else. There is something else besides simple immorality and practicality that you know needs to be present before something should be illegal. Why don’t you just tell us what that is? Or, answer why “cheating on your spouse” should not be illegal. It’s meets the exact same criteria as you outlined in your OP. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/28 "2005-12-19T00:33:35Z")
More and more I see how shallow Bricker is. Why does anyone take him serious at all? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/29 "2005-12-19T00:35:45Z")
> [@lonesome loser](#): > > More and more I see how shallow Bricker is. > > Why does anyone take him serious at all? Because he is intelligent and articulate and is takes positions that are frequently in the minority on this board. Just because he made a mistake by posting an insincere thread doesn’t mean he isn’t a valuable poster. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/30 "2005-12-19T00:35:58Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > All right, first of all, I have zero respect for **Bricker** ; I think he’s an apologist for the current Admin, for the simple reason that they happen to coincide with his religious views, which are Catholic Orthodox, as it were. The only exception to this is his stance on the death penalty, which is also in agreement with Rome, but disagrees with Bush’s, how shall we put it, insouciance on the issue. He cloaks his religion in legal opinions, and this apparently is enough to get a bunch of Dopers to treat him with kid gloves. Foolishly, but whatever. > The thread in question is, however, an employment of Socratic debating techniques. Unless you’re prepared to call Socrates a troll, or perhaps to say that Socrates was trolling in the way he framed his debates, unless you’re prepared to say that, you can’t say that about the way **Bricker** framed his debate in the thread in question. It’s perfectly legit. > I am going to come out and say right here, unequivocally, that there is no basis for **Bricker** being penalized in any way by the mods for that thread. Also, that he was well within his rights to start it and to frame the debate the way he did. First I’m going to say I am not singling you out or picking an argument. Second, I don’t want this to turn into a deflection from the main gist of the OP or the thread. It is just a clarification of some of the Catholic official view, as it pertains to our own government’s actions - not as friendly as you might think… The Church is against the death penalty. It is against pre-emptive wars and wars of aggression. It is against the Schiavo “life at all costs” circus. It is against Intelligent Design and is able to separate religious faith from science; they say there is no conflict, no “either/or”. It says, just saying “I accept Jesus” is not enough - actions and the gift of grace freely accepted count too (no magic words will give a free ride). It is against torture. Many of these positions come from its own checkered and stormy past and hard learned lessons. They ain’t perfect ( don’t I know it), but the can learn from experience (eventually). Therefore, being an apologist (or not) has nothing to do with any church teachings. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/31 "2005-12-19T00:36:54Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Ha ha, quoting while using “…” to modify the quotes. Very clever. :rolleyes: At least my technique is not skirting the rules. Fuck you, **Scott Plaid**. Learn to read. Those quotes are not taken out of context. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/32 "2005-12-19T00:44:09Z")
:rolleyes: So I didn’t go back to the train wreck, and see what the wreckage looked like. Big deal. It was a natural assumption. Now, if you are going to get to that level of debate, then fuck you too. Fuck you (Hmm…, what the most bizarre thing I can thing of? Ah, I have it!) Fuck you sideways with the Washington Monument. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/33 "2005-12-19T00:49:58Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > Because he is intelligent and articulate and is takes positions that are frequently in the minority on this board. > > Just because he made a mistake by posting an insincere thread doesn’t mean he isn’t a valuable poster. I never said he wasn’t a valuable poster. God knows I get lots of laughs from his posts. And I need those laughs. He’s still a shallow idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/34 "2005-12-19T00:55:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think the “gotcha” technique is beneath you. I have to say, **Bricker** , I agree with this. You’re using this tactic more and more frequently lately, and when I know that you are fully capable of arguing the issue itself, to see you doing this is dismaying. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/35 "2005-12-19T01:02:03Z")
It’s apparent to me that as the bubble bursts around Bush his apologists are going crazy. Bricker is a great example. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/36 "2005-12-19T01:06:24Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > All right, first of all, I have zero respect for **Bricker** ; I think he’s an apologist for the current Admin, for the simple reason that they happen to coincide with his religious views, which are Catholic Orthodox, as it were. The only exception to this is his stance on the death penalty Not true. Bricker can certainly defend himself on this, but he’s disagreed with Bush on a number of issues. SSM is one very obvious, and very significant one. > [@](#): > > The thread in question is, however, an employment of Socratic debating techniques. Unless you’re prepared to call Socrates a troll, or perhaps to say that Socrates was trolling in the way he framed his debates, unless you’re prepared to say that, you can’t say that about the way **Bricker** framed his debate in the thread in question. It’s perfectly legit… Some applications of the Socratic method would indeed be trolling. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/37 "2005-12-19T01:09:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Not true. Bricker can certainly defend himself on this, but he’s disagreed with Bush on a number of issues. SSM is one very obvious, and very significant one. Forgive me if I’m wrong. But are you saying that SSM is more important than spying on US citizens? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/38 "2005-12-19T01:18:04Z")
> [@lonesome loser](#): > > Forgive me if I’m wrong. > > But are you saying that SSM is more important than spying on US citizens? I’m not comparing them at all. I said SSM is a “significant” issue in the sense that it’s “big”, and that being in favor of SSM is a significant departure from Bush’s politics. Mot many people who voted for Bush would favor SSM. \*\*Bricker \*\*migh be the only one! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/39 "2005-12-19T01:21:07Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Ha ha, quoting while using “…” to modify the quotes. Very clever. :rolleyes: At least my technique is not skirting the rules. BWAHAHAHA!! My God, what a moron you still are. That quote is perfectly in context, you idiot. Stay in forums where you can handle discussion without looking like a moron. This isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/40 "2005-12-19T01:21:26Z")
**SteveG1** : no argument. I’m friendly at work with a person who is as devout a Catholic as they get, and who despises this President because of this whole Iraq mess. He can’t believe that he’s so cavalier about all this death he’s caused for no good reason. However, to a conservative Catholic, to whom its positions on labor, torture, war and the death penalty are important, but not as important as its position on abortion and homosexuality, the Bush Admin is overall a good thing. Put it this way: anyone reading the Federalist Papers has no doubt what was intended by all of the restrictions placed on the President’s power to wage war, in the Constitution as originally framed. Therefore, one would expect that a self-styled strict constructionist would be absolutely livid over this whole wiretap mess, as is, for instance, as was pointed out I believe in the wiretap thread, [Bob Barr](http://www.bobbarr.org/). Obviously, one would be wrong. And the reason would be that the person in question’s agenda has nothing at all to do with the Constitution. But of course, most strict constructionists have some other agenda than the Constitution in mind when they call themselves that, so he’s pretty unremarkable in that way. Banal, even. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213.md?page=3)