Oh, I know what you were suggesting now, LEGO…

<<We had a PC commissioner like you in NSW…>>

You were suggesting that there is yet another grand international conspiracy, that somehow no-one blows the whistle on, involving all criminologists in multiple countries, in which data is manipulated in order to make it look as though if police resources are concentrated too heavily in one area, then other areas will be neglected.

Hmmm… I can’t imagine that would be too hard to fudge. Can you?

On another topic, I was just thinking. You consider yourself to be a master debater who is a force to be reckoned with on the discussion boards, and yet you don't even have a basic grasp of the common forms of fallacious reasoning, or how to formulate an argument without them.

That being said, there's something off with your Brian Ross story. This guy was supposedly "infinitely better" at debating than me and yet he was apparently unable to spot the fallacious reasoning peppered throughout your arguments.

You know what I reckon? Either he wasn't as good as you say he was, and you just needed a put-down to fire off in my direction; or he grew tired of your aggressive and unpleasant method of communication (as I suspect so many others do) and left the discussion, allowing you to get the last word in and feel like you had won the debate.

My bet is on the latter.

Hi AJ.

I don't know how you measure success in a debate, but I am very happy with my performance to date on this one. You seem to think that unless I can convince you that you are wrong, I have lost. Your response is typical of people like creationists who can not think beyond absolutes. No amount of reasoned argument can ever make a dent in the thinking of absolutist ideologues.

Who wins a debate is more about who makes the most sense, and that can only be judged by an audience. Unfortunately, we don't have one on this topic. I have been on two debate sites in the past 15 years where there was no 24 hour post limit, or 350 word limit, and where a "quote" function was used. On such sites, if either of us were to make a statement not in accord with reality, numerous debaters would pop up and give their opinion on what we have said. Unfortunately, that option does not apply on this site.

My premise is, that I am miles ahead of you on points. Our debating styles are totally different. I can stick my neck out and write entire posts on one reasoned argument because I understand the topic in question. Your position is to say as little as possible and only attack what I say. It is just like our little debate on racism. Either races are equal or they are different. Your position was to only attack my premise that they were different, but you refused to support the premise that races were equal.

I concluded in that debate that you were perfectly aware that races were different. You were therefore a typical ideologue who was more concerned about ideology than reality. Nothing in this debate has changed my opinion of you. You cannot write any reasoned arguments in support of your own position because you do not know your subject. All you can do is seize upon everything I say and get as much mileage out of it as you can by casting doubt.

No, LEGO.

<<You seem to think that unless I can convince you that you are wrong, I have lost.>>

All you have to do is provide a rational response.

<<Your response is typical of people like creationists who can not think beyond absolutes.>>

Really? I’d challenge you to provide an example. I won’t, however, hold my breath for an answer.

<<No amount of reasoned argument can ever make a dent in the thinking of absolutist ideologues. >>

If you could name an absolutist ideology, then I’ll correct it right here and now.

<<Who wins a debate is more about who makes the most sense…>>

Absolutely!

<<…and that can only be judged by an audience.>>

No, reasoned argument can be a judge of that too.

<<Unfortunately, we don't have [an audience] on this topic.>>

Oh, I’m not so sure about that. I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of your loser conservative allies reading this thread, and grinding their teeth at every word I say. This is, after all, an extremely conservative forum.

<<I have been on two debate sites in the past 15 years where there was no 24 hour post limit…>>

Oh, you must share. How I would love that! Let’s not forget, however, that the Ggeneral section of this forum allows members to post eights posts per day. But you’re not aware of the General section, unfortunately.

<<My premise is, that I am miles ahead of you on points.>>

Oh please, mention just one point and I’ll walk away with my tail between my legs.

<<I can stick my neck out and write entire posts on one reasoned argument because I understand the topic in question. Your position is to say as little as possible and only attack what I say.>>

"...most of your arguments are wrong at such a basic and fundamental level that they only require one sentence to debunk. See above, for example." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318499)

Continued...

Continued….

Your posts consisting of full paragraphs are not clever posts that are well reasoned, but posts that respond to strawmen while giving the impression of a reasoned argument because they at least look like full responses. Even when you attempt to quote me line-by-line you still manage to stuff things up by misquoting me, or responding to something other than what you quoted.

<<It is just like our little debate on racism. Either races are equal or they are different. Your position was to only attack my premise that they were different, but you refused to support the premise that races were equal.>>

No, I asked you to define “equal” because you slipped between ‘perfectly equal in every way’ to ‘deserve to be treated as equals’ when it pleased you. You refused to provide a definitive definition of ‘equality’. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284116)

<<I concluded in that debate that you were perfectly aware that races were different.>>

Indeed.

<<You were therefore a typical ideologue who was more concerned about ideology than reality.>>

Nope, check out my links.

Hi AJ.

You have a point when you say that there is more than one way to win a debate. Another way is to wait until my opponent makes a statement and then contradicts themselves. And left wing ideology is just full of it. I know that you said that right wing ideology was the same, but you did not provide any support for that premise.

As a former young leftie, I already know my left wing theology. Left wing theology appeals primarily to young adults, and they tend to grow out of it as they grow older and mature. The contradictions and double standards just become too glaring. What happened to you? The only ones who seem to get stuck in a left wing time warp are academics, cashed up inner city elites, and government "workers." I think it is because they live in a bubble where inbred views become normalised.

Anyhoo, I was surprised when you submitted some quotes from me from my old "redneck" avatar. (I would still be "redneck" today, but I got my username mixed up with my password.) I had thought you were a recent phenomena who had only just materialised on OLO several months ago. But if you have been keeping quotes of mine since my "redneck" days, you must have been gunning for me for years, and I did not even know it.

OK, that's good. You and I are now sworn enemies. I like enemies. Enemies are honest. They make no bones about wanting to get you, which is more than you can say about some "friends." There is nothing like a good enemy to keep you on your toes. Somebody you hate so much you will do anything to get the bastard. I feel sorry about people about whom others say they "did not have an enemy in the world." They must been completely inconsequential people

Damn, AJ. Here I am sitting in my easy chair with my morning coffee, ready for my morning joust with you, and you didn't post last night.

Well anyhoo, I was going to ask you a favour? Since this topic is going to drop off the page soon, I need to speed things up if I am going to paint you into a corner. Now the stereotypical trendy lefty claims that it is wrong to judge entire groups of people by their group associations, so they claim it is wrong to think about the ways that everybody thinks to make those judgements. Ipso facto, they say that people must not make generalisations, stereotype, label or prejudge groups of people.

Now, my problem is, I have not got all the quotes from you that I need saying exactly that. All I have so far is you saying about generalisations....

Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.

And one about stereotyping.....

There's forming concepts and there's judging entire groups of individuals based on a stereotype.

That one only suggests that stereotyping is wrong. Could you clarify that for me? You know, something like "stereotyping large groups of people is wrong", sorta thing.

And I have another vague one on judging groups of people,

That’s not saying that one cannot judge individuals by their group membership.

This one is a double negative. Could you write it out as a positive statement? Like, "People can be judged by their group membership". Although, I would point out to you that this is a contradiction of your whole ideology, so you had better think hard about that one.

Now, unfortunately, I have not been able to entice you into making any judgements about prejudging or labelling. You have come close, but no cigar for me. Help me out here, and show your commitment to your own fuzzy concept of your own ideology, by making direct statements about these two PC sins. You know, "Prejudging and labelling large groups of people is wrong."

Ta mate.