Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: He is on an anti-TTAWW page saying that I banned him because he beat me in a debate. That is false.
That's a fact. I beat you in debate. You even backed away from an argument you originally supported. You said this to me towards the end of our debate, before you banned me:
"Also, you should try to be more concise. This isn't a very good medium for such long comments." -- Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores
Usually, when people demand that shorten my posts, they're getting mad... or they've already gotten mad. They're seeing that they don't have an argument, and they see the length of my posts as an extensive reason to why they're wrong.
This didn't sit well with you. You pulled many of the cards that the losing side of the debate normally pulls during a debate. This is the pattern that I've seen repeatedly throughout the decade I've been debating people online.
Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I banned him for several reasons:
Your own statement:
"Joe and you are banned for lying." -- Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores
Nope, that doesn't sound like "several reasons." You banned me for disagreeing with you.
You didn't ban me for the reasons that you stated below.
You got emotional. My argument made you realize that you didn't have an argument. You couldn't handle the fact that I was using a reasoned argument to destroy your argument. Deep down inside, you saw that I was wiping the floor with your arse.
Finally, you dropped hints that you wanted me to "drop it" and to either move on, or provide a reply that you could "stomach."
You banned me for emotional and ego reasons.
Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: 1. He wouldn't debate.
Wrong. I debated against you, and those that you supported, using a point by point rebuttal. Go back to that statement that I quoted above. If I refused to debate, I wouldn't have generated the responses that lead you to suggest that I cut down my replies.
Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: 2. Instead of debating, he tried to prove that I had made a straw man argument. I hadn't, but even if I had, the alleged straw man argument was utterly irrelevant to the discussion I was trying to have with him.
Do you see the contradiction in your own argument here? On one hand, you claim that I "wasn't" debating. In the next breath, you described a debate that we were having.
The reality is that we were debating more than one topic. As the thread progressed, we were arguing even more topics. I addressed you point by point, like what I'm doing here.
I debated you, and you know it. You refused to acknowledge it, because to acknowledge it would also mean that you acknowledge that you got destroyed in debate.
There is no, "tried," about this. I proved, using the strawman formula, that you advanced a strawman argument. Your first post on that thread was a strawman. Your description of what was going on was different from the quote that you linked to.
You failed to argue how that was "not" a strawman argument.
Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores: 3. I was on about day 4 or 5 of a cluster/migraine headache, and I simply wasn't interested in playing games with the Lobsterman.
That migraine wasn't there when you jumped in to support the argument/myth on that thread... a myth that a bunch of civilians "defeated" the U.S. Military. You didn't have that cluster/migraine headache as that thread progressed... you generated your replies to that thread.
If you had that cluster migraine headache, it didn't seem to bother you when you felt that things were going your way. It became an issue only when you ended up getting your arse handed to you on that thread.
Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores: Just throwing this out there, in case he happens to see it.
As you indicated above:
"He is on an anti-TTAWW page saying that I banned him because he beat me in a debate." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores
In the same post, it was obvious to the reader that Mac was reading what was being posted on that site.
Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: What happened was that someone else (a third person in the thread) HAD made a straw man argument, and I pointed it out. Lobsterman decided to play the white knight and basically twisted logic into a pretzel to show that I had made a straw man argument by accusing the other guy of having made one.
This is an example of "deflection," when the losing side deflects their own trait to the winning side. What am I talking about here?
Here's what you actually said in the other thread, in response to me:
"Also, this is a pretty magnificent straw man argument, since I've never suggested getting rid of the military and having no means or system of national/regional defense, but I'm totally used to straw man arguments FROM YOU people." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores (emphasis added)
You see, you were accusing me of advancing a strawman argument. Never mind that you said this first before I addressed it:
"...Yeah, that didn't work in Vietnam, did it? ... wait..." -- Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores
This was in support of the third person that you claimed "advanced a strawman argument":
"I wouldn't need a mall or regular cop if I was allowed to open carry everywhere. Wouldn't need to troops either. Civilians with More guns than most of the worlds armies? Yeah, try and invade." - Devan Robert Nelson
What was he responding to?
You posted a meme about a guy leading a 3 man "tac" team in the mall. You posted a caption right next to that photo. You talked about how this mall cop told you "civilians" that you guys didn't understand the risks that he went through.
That "third person" that you talked about, that you accuse of advancing a strawman, was responding to your statement. Both you guys touched on the theme of the utility of the mall cop. When the argument evolved into one about the utility of the troops, you jumped in... supporting the argument of the "third person."
Now, you left a link along with your commentary. This lead to another post that you made, quoting a "Mark". When you read that post, it said nothing about you guys being "softheaded". It said nothing about you guys "not understanding the risks" that mall cops went through.
Nope, it said something else.
That post talked about how you guys should explore the causes of war, and how you guys could get your message across without attacking the "humanoids" that were in the military. Nowhere in that quote did he berate you guys about being too "softheaded" and not understanding the risks that he goes through for you guys.
Your statement was a distorted version of the statement that you ultimately linked to. Hence, the first post that you generated was a strawman argument. This is something that you touched upon with your reply above.
Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I wouldn't have banned him for it, except he went on and on and on and on about it. Every time I refreshed the page, he was going on about it some more, so I decided, "Fuck this guy."
Mac, you've been caught in another one of your lies. You're implying that I was spamming the thread. Your own words; however, disagree with you:
"I am not engaging in straw man fallacies, Joe and you are banned for lying." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores
Proving someone wrong with their own words is like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limbs. :D
You stated, in simple terms, why you were banning me. Nowhere in that statement, nor in any of the statements made in that other thread, did you complain about me "spamming" your thread. Our actual arguments have been posted below.
Even when it comes to what you actually did, you openly lie.
Yes, you probably thought "fuck this guy," because you were getting your butt kicked.
No comments:
Post a Comment