No one’s forcing you to engage with people you consider dishonest. That’s all on your own shoulders.
Ooh, a martyr for the public good. We should be do grateful.
You might satisfy yourself, but it doesn’t seem like very many other participants here accept that as some kind of proof of anything.
No one’s forcing you to read, or care about, my tactics…right?
Funny how the “no one’s forcing you,” reasoning seems so unsatisfying when directed at you, eh?
No but you’re the one pretending to do it as some kind of public service and then acting like you’re accomplishing something when really all you’re doing is repeatedly driving threads into the same, tedious ditch.
I gladly pay for a membership here but Bricker thinks that’s not enough. If I don’t wager about the outcome of a legal case, he claims I have no right to an opinion.
Why doesn’t he use that fine legal mind to pick apart the lawsuits filed against my state’s Voter ID law? Apparently that’s too complicated. He prefers to hint about vague possibilities of voter fraud and make meretricious arguments to silence other opinions.
I love it when Conservatives get nervous. Not about the short run–who knows what decision will come down? But about the long run.
Are you familiar with the phrase “We will have to agree to disagree”? Do you understand why it is used? Do you see how some regard it as polite? As diplomatic?
Your wagering schtick is kind of the polar opposite. It says to the contrary that we have to cement our disagreement as some explicit contrasting positions in such a way that one of us can rub the nose of the.other in it at some point in the future.
That’s fine if you don’t care to be polite, and I’m not putting myself forward, on these boards anyway as an example of polite diplomacy. I’m just trying to give you a sense of how others might react to it.
When it is followed by your little pointing and taunting dance about how someone won’t bet so therefore their position is suspect, it becomes very tired indeed.
But it is very much Bricker.
Most of them do, or at least they* can.*
So that leaves Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon to compile their own lists, plus whatever individual cities do not choose to deal with the Feds.
Somehow those same polite, diplomatic sensibilities are not triggered when Bridget Burke says the law I am supporting is reprehensible. That’s simply polite diplomacy.
Golly gee, Hentor, tell me more.
Did you ask for one of myriad reasons, or did you want me to apply salve to your boo boo? I was responding to your request, not to how or why any specific person hurt your feelings.
In any event, the idea that betting adds any validity to your argument is so juvenile that it’s hard to comprehend the assertion arising outside of an elementary school playground. Grow the hell up and get someone else to apply bandaids for you.
I don’t say betting adds validity to the argument – that puts the cart before the horse. I say betting creates a framework that discourages opinions offered without consequence, and I say that opinions offered with no consequence for being wrong are of less value than opinions offered when there is a consequence for being wrong. In other words, when there are consequences, weak arguments don’t appear in the first place.
Sounds like an excellent topic for another thread.
Sounds like you need to start your own debate website where you can adopt rules to discourage weak arguments. What you’re doing now is trying to single-handedly remake the culture of this debate forum by throwing a gambling wrench into every thread. The rest of us seem satisfied with identifying weak arguments by simply posting our opinions about such arguments. You’re engaged in a kind of coup d’état by attempting to impose an external force to reshape the forum.
AHEM! I believe it was I who characterized the law as reprehensible. Note that I did not so characterize you. Although your very first reply to my first post was aggressive and insulting, I’ve not replied in kind.
I admit that I have on occasion engaged in small “friendly wagers”. Those have, definitionally, been with friends. I have no desire to engage in such with you for reasons I think should be obvious.
As for your desire to provide “consequences” to somehow enhance the value of our opinions – well, in my valueless opinion, if we turn out to be wrong and you right, the consequence will be that the world, and our country, and the State of Texas will all be crappy-er places.
The rest of you also promote a culture in which weak conservative arguments are savagely attacked, and weak liberal arguments are given passes. The rest of you promote a social norm of allowing liberal-friendly predictions that are subsequently proven wrong to pass unremarked, and to protect the makers of such predictions by characterizing the resurrection of threads with those failed predictions as “lacking a life,” but apply no similar social norms to conservative failed predictions.
The rest of you, in short, are satisfied by an echo chamber in which your ideas are not threatened.
So I will decline your invitation.
But thanks!
Correction noted. My mistake: that comment was your contribution to diplomacy and politeness.
Bridget Burke’s was from another GD thread.
The problem is that I don’t agree, and the courts don’t agree, and the legislature doesn’t agree, and the strong majority of your fellow voters don’t agree. So what you’re asking for is, it seems to me, the power to change the law based on what you want, and to hell with the courts, the legislature, and the strong majority of your fellow voters. Is that accurate?
Pay-To-Play debating?
No.
If you wish to debate by saying, “In my view, such-and-so is the wise course,” then there’s no relevance in demanding a wager.
But if you wish to debate by saying, “Such-and-so outcome will happen,” then, there should be some kind of consequence when your prediction is falsified by actual events.
The prevailing atmosphere, which insulates people from consequences after they insist on predictions that turn out wrongly, simply encourages careless predictions.
Not really, no. As long as one is wrong for the right reasons – that is, in support of a liberal cause – the damage to reputation is greatly attenuated.
How interesting.
Of course, that victory would itself be short-lived, wouldn’t it? If I declared victory but then the ultimate prediction went against me, that would destroy any gain made. And conversely, if the event in question did fall the way I predicted, the victory is appropriately mine, isn’t it?
That’s sort of what putting hurdles to being allowed to vote does, too.
Putting hurdles to being allowed to vote creates a framework that discourages opinions offered without consequence, and opinions offered with no consequence for being wrong are of less value than opinions offered when there is a consequence for being wrong?
OK, that’s good, then! Thanks!