Quote:
Originally posted by matthew330
It was a 3 part response to your initial post "Ad Hom, the lazy debaters tool for success", listed in order of relevance / intent:
Part A: What comes around goes around.
Part B: Being that there was no debate initiated, unlike "good things happening in Iraq", where the poster had at least two paragraphs on why he posted/what he thought, i couldn't possibly have employed any sort of successfull debate tactic for lazy people.
Part C: This part was unrelated to the thread so it wasn't expounded on, and initiated by the the recognition of the previous comment that you are almost certainly a college student, and almost certainly liberal (right?) reminded me of my days in college when liberalism was shoved down my throat, and the irony that you guys get so upset with AM radio and Fox news.
And in case you were wondering that light-hearted little jab came in, I tried to tie it all together with my last sentence "Was there anything to debate? Talk about lazy....", letting you know precisely where that came from.
In a nutshell, it was essentially a T answer binding together each of the DA links ( i thought you would be impressed, thereby making up for my previous post)
|
Oh okay, thanks for the clarification.
1. The comment "Arbitrarily picked one of your links to click, came up with 'The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq stands close to 300"....last 90 days, eh?' Quite a riveting "favorites" collection you got there." was an add hom, or perhaps a strawman depending on your perspective. You chose to attack the date of a single article, unless somehow time can allow those soldiers to be resurrected and the deaths contained become inaccurate - the source still has a legitimate argument. The original poster said that "90%" of the posts are within the past month. I checked about all of them and they were in the past month (30 days). The deaths are still facts and you haven't tried to answer the information present, you simply tried to spin the date as a coherent argument. Furthermore, you took one date, of one source and used that to group the rest of the links as illegitimate. If that isn't lazy debating, I am unsure what
would qualify.
2. The argument that he only posted two sources is also bunk. He posted two sources which are a collection of other sources. ABC News, NYT, LA Times, SF Cronicle, Reuters, ect were sources which commondream decided to post from. In reality, this thread has overwhelming evidence that a good number of significant sources have serious problems with Iraq's current shape.
3. I don't see the relevance of another thread. Even if this thread was created for parody or juxtaposition, I don't see how comparing the quality of the original can be viewed as an argument against the sources contained. This thread was a source of information about the Iraq war and for discussion of those sources. Your choice to avoid the articles is clearly a "lazy debater tactic".
4.
College - Fall 2004, starting at UCSB
Liberal - Usually, depending on the subject.