The War Room Bet Thread

[Space]

We can do a nice simple avatar of the winning president. No need for anything silly.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/56c640526e97c625048b822a-480/donald-trump.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151023112135-hillary-clinton-benghazi-hand-large-169.jpg

Unless you're just throwing up excuses?

Nice try at trying to call me chicken but no dice; you'd be blessed to have a Trump avatar.

 

[Hans Gruber]

@Thunderflash500 @Hans Gruber @Big_Chief_Stove surely believe Trump is more likely to win than not, based on the weight they put on the size of his rallies.

What are you talking about? I have always said crowd size doesn't indicate voter turnout. Bernie had large crowd sizes and lost.

I believe the polls. Hillary is ahead right now

 

[Thunderflash500]

@Thunderflash500 @Hans Gruber @Big_Chief_Stove surely believe Trump is more likely to win than not, based on the weight they put on the size of his rallies.

I think Trump is even with Hillary and the polls are a lie. But I have no idea who will win.

 

[VivaRevolution]

From my perspective, there is zero value in feigning anything in a debate. That's called "bullshitting" or outright lying. The whole point of betting is to end that kind of thing and get people to just be more honest.

Lol, you are a petulant child. Feigning surety is in defense of a dishonest attack.

No dishonor in lying to defend yourself from a dishonest attack, so get off your cross you whiny petulant child.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Wasn't it Bush who brought out the third party when Perot ran? I was only 13 at the time, but I'm pretty sure I remember there being a big debate over NAFTA and the right feeling disenfranchised.

Don't mean to derail, if there's substantive discussion to be had we can move it elsewhere

Yes, you are mostly correct. The other part was jerry brown playing the roll of bernie for this primary, and creating disaffected ideologues with Clinton's corporatist center philosphy.

 

[Quipling]

I think Trump is even with Hillary and the polls are a lie. But I have no idea who will win.

What are you talking about? I have always said crowd size doesn't indicate voter turnout. Bernie had large crowd sizes and lost.

I believe the polls. Hillary is ahead right now

I don't know if he's more likely than not to win, but he does have Yuuuge rallies.

Fair enough. I was speculating that you thought rally size was important based on your participation/creation of a thread on rally size, but if you didnt think it was important as an indicator, I can buy that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol, you are a petulant child. Feigning surety is in defense of a dishonest attack.

No dishonor in lying to defend yourself from a dishonest attack, so get off your cross you whiny petulant child.

Er ... not sure what you're trying to say except that you're mad. Did you understand my post?

One should never feign certainty or anything else. You're just proving my point. Bullshitters or liars hate having to back up their claims. If you're honest, it's no problem.

If you look at the bets I've made here, it was me willing to stand behind my beliefs. I really didn't think there was any plausible chance that 2015 GDP growth would be negative or that there would be more QE. I really didn't think it made sense to think that Clinton's approval rating would crater after the FBI cleared her. I bet with Blade on the nomination far past the point when Sanders seemed to have a chance. Etc.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Fair enough. I was speculating that you thought rally size was important based on your participation/creation of a thread on rally size, but if you didnt think it was important as an indicator, I can buy that.

I even said early in that thread that the thread that rally size doesn't correlate to votes. The thread was really about the media lying. It was the 2nd time in a week that they lied about rally size. Including a time when a reporter tweeted a pic 2 hours before a rally started and claimed that the turnout was bad. The place was packed. The point of the thread was just to show the media lying

Here is the thread:
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/another-reporter-caught-lying-about-trump-rally-size.3325499/

My opening post included "I am not one of those people that think the polls are fake. Hillary is ahead in the polls at the moment. Why lie about crowd size?"

My 2nd post in the thread: "No. The point is why lie about something insignificant like that?

Bernie had huge crowds too and lost.

If they lie about little things like this...what else do they lie about?"

 

[Bald1]

Brexit would've been good timing too.

Agreed.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I can't imagine what arguments felt like without a smartphone and google. Sounds awful.

The same but more drawn out.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The same but more drawn out.

Even with Google, I see a lot of this stuff from Hendo, Anung and Co.:

 

[VivaRevolution]

There's an interesting play between the two of you. Both agree on the effect of a bet mechanism - forcing people to admit to uncertainty - but you appear to disagree on whether that is a good or bad thing. @Lead Salad seems to believe that shutting down that bluster is a good thing, but @HendoRuaGOAT seems to think that bluster helps a debate, and by trying to force people to back it up, we're removing an important element of debate.
I could be misreading Hendo's argument here, but that seems to be what he is saying.

Depends on the battlefield. If the person you are debating is playing a game of move goal posts to throw you off balance for example, it would be a smart move to resist this tactic by trying to stay on the ground you choose to stand on, to support your position.

If you can admit to only having as much certainty that could be reasonably assumed, without playing into a larger ploy, it is better to acknowledge this, and move forward.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Even with Google, I see a lot of this stuff from Hendo, Anung and Co.:

Says captain build strawman, move goalposts.

Tell me more about proper storage of classified info crooked jack.

 

[JosephDredd]

I even said early in that thread that the thread that rally size doesn't correlate to votes. The thread was really about the media lying. It was the 2nd time in a week that they lied about rally size. Including a time when a reporter tweeted a pic 2 hours before a rally started and claimed that the turnout was bad. The place was packed. The point of the thread was just to show the media lying

Here is the thread:
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/another-reporter-caught-lying-about-trump-rally-size.3325499/

My opening post included "I am not one of those people that think the polls are fake. Hillary is ahead in the polls at the moment. Why lie about crowd size?"

My 2nd post in the thread: "No. The point is why lie about something insignificant like that?

Bernie had huge crowds too and lost.

If they lie about little things like this...what else do they lie about?"

Breitbart was caught lying about a Trump rally a few weeks ago.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Says captain build strawman, move goalposts.

Tell me more about proper storage of classified info crooked jack.

When have I ever done either of those things? This just sounds like another tactic of yours--claiming to believe something for some purpose. I'd bet that you can't find any examples.

No idea what you're on about with the other sentence.

 

[VivaRevolution]

When have I ever done either of those things? This just sounds like another tactic of yours--claiming to believe something for some purpose. I'd bet that you can't find any examples.

No idea what you're on about with the other sentence.

How about this little sequence.

CNN is one of the worst, actually.

You're just a ray of sunshine aren't you?

The fact that a statement might piss off trolls doesn't make it false.

The AP had something crazy along those lines, talking about CTs from both sides, while mentioning complete nuttery from Trump and very well-documented stuff from Clinton. It's insane.

See, first you claim that CNN is actually mean to your candidate, while ignoring CNN's treatment of Trump. You will insist on focusing on only the covege CNN gives Clinton while refusing to compare it to Trumps coverage. Build strawman.

Then when challenged on this, you move goal posts by claiming that AP is engaged some conspiracy to take down Clinton with disinformation, which is moving the goal posts, with another strawman.

See Jack, you accuse other posters of being nutters, while you peddle your own nutter ideas. Crooked Jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Er, those are from different posts, talking to different people (and obviously your characterizations were not honest). Don't tell me you couldn't tell that.

Quote the posts I was responding to.

@HendoRuaGOAT

 

[UpaLoompa]

I wish this place was more a concensus building platform of serious debate.

Lol.




Quality sticky btw.

 

[Lead]

Lol.




Quality sticky btw.

Yea... It's turning out great in here

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol.

Quality sticky btw.

I missed that earlier (and I definitely don't consider Hendo to be anything like an arch nemesis--the relationship is more like Arthur Dent and agrajag). That's really telling, I think. I definitely don't wish that this place was more of a consensus-building platform. WTF value is there in that? I want to see different points of view intelligently and entertainingly defended. I think people who want a consensus-building platform are a major cancer here.