Geez, the snowflakes certainly have been triggered on this one. It seems the panic is really setting in now.

Good. Go-o-o-o-od.

Indy,

Thank you, too, for confirming my point. If the best rebuttal you have is that I use too many words, then I’ll live with that. It's quite the self-own, when you think about it.

And it's a bit rich to attack my foresight and integrity when - ironically - your side is the only one needing to resort to personal attacks.
_____

ttbn,

I can help you out there. Australians talk about US politics because US politics affects us - and because, like you, we’ve always talked about it.

Upon checking, I found one example that was particularly amusing:

"Obama got a prize for something even he didn't know about. Trump wouldn't want such nonsense..."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=21067#371897

That certainly didn’t age well, did it?

your side is the only one needing to resort to personal attacks.
John Daysh,
It might look like personal attack to you in actual fact however, it is prevention for the harm your side can do if not challenging your misleading & proven failed so-called alternative.
What your side is pushing is an unaffordable fairytale the next Generation will be lumped with !

But it’s not challenging anything, Indyvidual.

//…it is prevention for the harm your side can do if not challenging your misleading & proven failed so-called alternative.//

That’s the point of highlighting the personal attacks. It’s not some wounded-deer act, it’s simply noting that you’re not actually engaging the argument.

Personally, I like when ad hominems are aimed my way because they discredit themselves. They show that you couldn’t find a substantive counter, so you went for the person instead. They signal to bystanders that you can’t rebut the point on its merits.

If your goal is to "inoculate gullible youngsters," as you put it, then the only effective prevention is evidence and reasoning. Otherwise, you’ve just modelled the very thing you accuse others of: idealistic rhetoric without substance.

//What your side is pushing is an unaffordable fairytale the next Generation will be lumped with !//

I've heard a lot of scaremongering coming from the right over what a win for the Democrats would mean, but an "unaffordable fairytale" is not one of them.

I'll have to remember that one.

Dear John, (and his parables). oh how I hate to write…

Arguing with the guards is not wise while locked in a prison cell, is the conclusion of a parable.

So who are the guards and who are the prisoners?

You tell me!

Dear Dan, you’ve inspired me.

A man once sat in a debate and, when pressed for evidence, produced only insults.

When asked for clarity, he replied with riddles. And when challenged on substance, he would only wave his arms.

"Parable-teller!" he cried.

The bystanders scratched their heads.

"Who is the prisoner here?" they asked. "The one stuck in his own circular logic, or the one who calmly points it out?"

I think there's something in that for all of us. Don't you?