War Room Lounge v61: Fun Fact: 'Race Bannon' describes two different individuals in Orbit Trump

[Lead]

These guys were literally still tagging me and flaming me like a week ago when I left the forum last year.

I'd love to have actual normal discussion but the way the War Room is moderated, you guys let people flame each other until it turns into endless vendettas between posters. (also Jack won't answer the real point)

Well what I'm calling here for is:
1. Identify the debate (you just said it at the end "Jack won't answer the real point")
2. Discuss it and avoid getting into a broad back and forth of "you don't debate me".

I mean, if you both had just did this with one post each, I wouldn't have thought much of it but how many times is it worth saying that before we actually identify what the debate is.

So what is the debate here?

 

[Lead]

You said "everyone is corrupt, then, and the charge has no meaning or significance."

The definition applies only to people in power, so no, not "everyone is corrupt." You simply incorrectly portrayed what I said.

No trolling, no posturing, no ad hominems, no BS. Do you acknowledge that?

Okay, I think you identified it here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage
@Egarret

I see this happen a lot and it drives me crazy to a degree. You are so deep in some specific recollection of an interaction (or lack thereof) and both have mentioned you would be pleased to actually engage in a debate about something political. This is my call for a voluntary reset of whatever that thread was. Come to an agreement on what the political themed debate was begin discussing it instead of continually referencing it. If the past 20 posts has really been about the statement "Hillary is corrupt", 90% of it has not been about that.

That's fair. I was trying to get him to move on to his argument that she's corrupt, but he's so obsessed with his past humiliation/victory (I really don't know if he's obsessed because he's embarrassed or because he genuinely thinks he made a good point and "won") that he can't do it.

 

[BarryDillon]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/us/chick-fil-a-mac-and-cheese-trnd/index.html

Ah yeah.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You said "everyone is corrupt, then, and the charge has no meaning or significance."

The definition applies only to people in power, so no, not "everyone is corrupt." You simply incorrectly portrayed what I said.

No trolling, no posturing, no ad hominems, no BS. Do you acknowledge that?

Yeah, by your definition, everyone is corrupt, and thus the definition has no use in an argument. If you want to try to argue that Clinton is actually corrupt, please do.

 

[EGarrett]

Well what I'm calling here for is:
1. Identify the debate (you just said it at the end "Jack won't answer the real point")
2. Discuss it and avoid getting into a broad back and forth of "you don't debate me".

I mean, if you both had just did this with one post each, I wouldn't have thought much of it but how many times is it worth saying that before we actually identify what the debate is.

So what is the debate here?

Jack ran away from multiple threads instead of debating me because he ended up in an indefensible position so quickly. He came back here to try to claim that wasn't the case, so I brought up the last post from one of those threads (from me, to which he never replied) and asked him to continue the discussion.

The key point was that I said Hillary Clinton was corrupt, he challenged me to show it, and I showed him a definition of corruption that he didn't expect (which is the one that google provided, which says dishonesty by people in power) and which makes it very very easy for me to establish it. His last attempt was to try to invalidate that definition by saying that it meant "everyone was corrupt" so it was meaningless.

But it only applies to people in power. So it's not meaningless. It's people in power not telling the truth about their actions or intentions, which makes them unfit to hold power.

I've repeatedly asked him to acknowledge that the definition is not that broad and does have meaning and he is ducking it and trying to use insults, posturing himself as important, and distractions because he's in an indefensible position. The definition does have meaning and it makes it easy for me to establish.

No trolling, no flaming necessary. He's just stuck.

 

[Fawlty]

New fred for whenever the thing becomes extra-thingy:

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...et-is-the-most-pedantic-of-all-birds.3998667/

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well what I'm calling here for is:
1. Identify the debate (you just said it at the end "Jack won't answer the real point")
2. Discuss it and avoid getting into a broad back and forth of "you don't debate me".

I mean, if you both had just did this with one post each, I wouldn't have thought much of it but how many times is it worth saying that before we actually identify what the debate is.

So what is the debate here?

Okay, I think you identified it here.

Doesn't really seem like it. The debate is whether Clinton is corrupt, or that's how I see it. He's trying to play word games to avoid having to argue for a weak position.

 

[EGarrett]

Yeah, by your definition, everyone is corrupt, and thus the definition has no use in an argument. If you want to try to argue that Clinton is actually corrupt, please do.

Oh really? By that definition, is a person who isn't in power corrupt? Like a child who goes to grade school?