the second one (if one of your arguments is shown to be faulty..) won't work it is too subjective. How do you decide that? Once again I will settle for number 3. LOL
chickaree wrote: Heh, heh. I love that. Can I borrow it?
The one that seems to trip up a lot of people around here is the point about the person making the assertion bearing the responsibility of demonstrating its truth. Around here it seems to work more like this:
A. Someone makes a wild claim. (Obama was born in Kenya!)
B. Said someone provides no actual evidence of this claim, but demands that OTHERS provide proof it is false.
C. Some others provide facts in support of the claim being false.
D. Original poster (and Peanut Gallery) chime in with ad hominem attacks (moonbats!) and/or scoffs at source of evidence as "biased" without providing any actual evidence that the evidence refuting their original assertion is false.
E. More ad hominem attacks from original poster and Peanut Gallery, along the lines of "You drank the Koolaid". "What you said is total nonsense".
F. Other posters lose any interest in debating the matter further when it only keeps going in maddening moronic circles and continuing personal attacks, and OP and Peanut Gallery chime in with claims that other side "won't discuss it because they know they are wrong".
G. Other posters log off forum and pour themselves a stiff one, wondering if its too much "Dancing With the Stars", fast food, or the alarming number of wild-eyed conspiracy-based blogs out there that have made so many of their neighbors into people utterly unable to conduct any kind of rational discussiom above the level of a pie-throwing contest.
