A woman President

[Sophist]

Are you suggesting Hilary has denied her pro-Iraq war vote? I think not. Tried to explain it, yes, but deny it...no.

When might you start exhibiting "objective debate stance"?

Again...not a fan of Hilary...just the truth...she never claimed to be a Jew, she never claimed to be a long-term New Yorker and she never claimed to have voted against the war.

You have put all those words in her mouth.....

Or are you practicing Sophist debate? ...you know...fallacious reasoning?

Sophist reasoning is not always synonymous with fallacious. You didn't read the whole definition I provided.

I have not put any of these words in Hilary's mouth. Again, please, please, pretty pretty please read some of Hilary's speeches and press releases.

I don't remember saying she flat-out denied voting for the war? No, not those exact words. But read her recent statements, she is clearly making it sounds like she never supported it. I did try to make the point that she was for the war until other Dem forerunners openly opposed it and gained polling points. And then she was passionately against it. Gee, how convenient.

If you honestly think she didn't reveal her supposedly Jewish heritage (which she lied about, saying her grandmother was jewish when she was only married to a jewish man for a little while) after the New York Jewish community revolted on her for reports of her using ethnic slurs against Jewish politicians and publicly supporting Arafat's wife, then you are definitely a historical revisionist. She very, very strongly and repeatedly emphasized this among the Hassidic communities her support was flagging in. And guess what? Judiasm is typically passed down through a matrilineal line---at least, as far as devout jews are concerned. This is why she didn't say her father's mother was married to a jew---which would make her not Jewish according to traditional judaic law. She said her grandmother was a jew... a lie that, according to the Orthodox Jews she was campaigning amongst made her a Jew.

And her fudging of her residency requirements and involvement in New York politics is a matter of recent, well-documented record.

Denying obvious facts and committing personal attacks on those who try to make you listen to them doesn't make them go away, and refusing to learn more about a politician doesn't serve your turn well in defending their suitability for office.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Sophist reasoning is not always synonymous with fallacious. You didn't read the whole definition I provided.

Never saw the definition you posted....I rely on my Merriam Webster...it says...."a captious or fallacious reasoner."

It goes on to say "fallacious, illogical, unreasonable, specious".....I left those out.

[Sophist]

Never saw the definition you posted....I rely on my Merriam Webster...it says...."a captious or fallacious reasoner."

It goes on to say "fallacious, illogical, unreasonable, specious".....I left those out.

Well, then, it is a very incomplete definition and does an injustice to the Sophist school of philosophy and rhetoric.


It is all Plato's fault .

[Edwina's Secretary]

doesn't serve your turn well in defending their suitability for office.

I ask you....where....exactly where...have I defending Hillary's suitability for office?

I have defended the truth....maybe just not your truth

[Sophist]

I ask you....where....exactly where...have I defending Hillary's suitability for office?

I have defended the truth....maybe not your[I] truth

Not your [I] truth? Open tag, or am I missing something here?

Again with the personal attacks instead of actual rebuttals. And no, 'Nuh-uh!' doesn't count as a rebuttal.

I think denying all the well-known indiscrepancies in a candidate's representation of herself counts as defending her. In that respect, pretty much every post of yours I can recall in this thread. Sorry, not big on words games like that.

And if 'my' truth is closer to the truth one will find with even moderate delving into Hilary's past instead of just sitting back and saying "No, I just won't believe that because it sounds bad!" Well, then... I am okay with that.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I have said repeatedly....I am not a fan of Hillary because of her vote for funding the invasion of Iraq. Nor have I denied discrepancies.

Saying something is well-known does not make it so.

I don't like hyperbole and that is what you engage in.

You also fail to answer direct questions.

By golly I think you have a career in politics!

[Sophist]

I have said repeatedly....I am not a fan of Hillary because of her vote for funding the invasion of Iraq. Nor have I denied discrepancies.

Saying something is well-known does not make it so.

I don't like hyperbole and that is what you engage in.

You also fail to answer direct questions.

By golly I think you have a career in politics!

No, actually I am now failing to answer direct questions that have already been repeatedly answered. The first few times an answer is ignored and the same questions are just rephrased a bit tends to take some of the fun out of the debate.



Perhaps I am guilty of hyperbole, but that is a much more acceptable form of bad debate manners than the ad hominem attacks you seem to favor.

How are you supposed to debate the issues with someone who only responds with "Nah, that sounds bad, I'll pretend it is a complete lie and just insult you instead"???

[Puckstop31]

How are you supposed to debate the issues with someone who only responds with "Nah, that sounds bad, I'll pretend it is a complete lie and just insult you instead"???

In my experience Sophist, this means the other party has nothing to counter your points with. Basically, you are "winning" the debate.



(Does anybody ever really 'win' a debate on a website?)

[wombat2u2004]

In my experience Sophist, this means the other party has nothing to counter your points with. Basically, you are "winning" the debate.



(Does anybody ever really 'win' a debate on a website?)

Thats true.....especially with who you have been arguing with Sophist.
Get used to her style of answering questions with a question.
I'd agree with Puck....you're miles ahead.
Wombat

[Edwina's Secretary]

No, actually I am now failing to answer direct questions that have already been repeatedly answered. The first few times an answer is ignored and the same questions are just rephrased a bit tends to take some of the fun out of the debate.



Perhaps I am guilty of hyperbole, but that is a much more acceptable form of bad debate manners than the ad hominem attacks you seem to favor.

How are you supposed to debate the issues with someone who only responds with "Nah, that sounds bad, I'll pretend it is a complete lie and just insult you instead"???

You do some mighty fine ad hominen yourself! Your trick to not answer questions is interesting...When did I say "Nah, that sounds bad, I'll pretend it is a complete lie and just insult you instead?"

I have asked you to prove your statement that Hillary claimed to be a Jew. I asked you to prove your statement that Hillary claimed to be a long-term resident of New York (yes, I know she put on a Yankees hat and we all know she is a Cubs fan... ) I asked you WHERE I ever supported Hillary as a candidate.

You answered none of these questions. Instead you suggested anyone who disagrees with your assessment does not know, has not studied, etc, etc. "please, please, please".......and of course...."no, not in those exact words..."

[sparks19]

YAWN. Now this is just getting boring. lol

Let's stick to the debate and not this "well you said this" bull....