Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Huffington Post Debate Thoughts

A commenter recently asked if I have come across any well reasoned arguments from my fellow Huffington Post commenters.

I do not recall any particular time when I received a well thought out reply.  But I wonder if I am saying "well thought out" and meaning "convincing".


I just looked through the last several "Debates in the Comments" and went through quite a few before finding an attempt at a source for my opponents' claims.  I noticed that all of the recent sources have come from me.

One commenter, in this post of mine, used something that approximated a reasoned  argument.  That commenter used a quote from Truman on public unions.  I used a sourced, and linked FDR quote to respond.

For the record: my opponent used a quote from someone on her side to defend her side.  I used a quote from my opponent's side (that's her side) to defend my side's argument.

Had I used a quote from someone on the left would my opponent have paid any attention to it?

Why would someone on the right be convinced that the left is correct on an issue after the use of a quote from someone on the left?


Here is the first example, going reverse chronologically, of a sourced item in defense of my opponent's claim.  (And its from 3 weeks ago, while I've been getting around 40-70 responses to my comments per week.)

from this post:


It was ACORN not Planned Parenthood. Also, the videos were found to be edited and fake and ACORN was cleared of any wring doing. Here is the source (hoping you can read):

Notice some things in this sourced argument to support his claim:

1. he used the Huffington Post as a source (hardly unbiased)
2.  (if I may analogize the argument)

-me: We were at war with germany and Japan in WWII.

-larrybe: No, we were at war with Germany not Japan. Here's a link to saying that we were at war with Germany.

3. Do insults, "hoping you can read", count for, or against, a "well reasoned argument"?


That was my attempt to look for a sourced argument against me.

Now, Ill read their arguments to look for reason:

If we look at the most recently posted comment from an opponent of mine:


Because they are all happening on the backs of other people. I want freedom too - freedom to choose what is best for my healthcare and not a male elected official who will never experience what I go through as a female. If taxes were much lower right now, we surely wouldn't be able to pay for the most basic services. 18 tax cuts for the middle class - how much more would you like to see cut? I am totally with you on fewer handouts - no more oil subsidies or farm subsidies and I would really like to stop paying for the benefits of Congressmen and Senators that somehow don't think I'm entitled to the same benefits.

This comment is an attempt at reason.  And it is very typical of the replies that I get.

One thing that many on the left do is to say that the exception is the rule.  They say that republicans are not for freedom because of gay marriage.  Then they ignore it when I point out that democrats are against freedom, essentially everywhere else.

Is that a well reasoned argument?

How about a source to back up my claim that democrats are mostly "anti-choice"?

Here it is.

(Yes, that source is from a libertarian website, but it is the words of democrats presented there which backs my claim.)


Tomorrow's Part III will feature one of my opponents trying to argue that "raising taxes" means: raising taxes and people buying things without the government.  And then he wonders why I am so picky about trying to have "raising taxes" have one definition consistently.

My recent post at The Neckbeard Chronicles: Defining Words (for the left)


Are there well reasoned argument from the left in the comments section of the Huffington Post?

Maybe, but in order to find them you'd need to shift through hundreds, if not thousands, of comments calling their opponents mean and dumb.

Perhaps I should have a challenge:

Go to the Huffington Post, pick an article at random, and then try to find a comment that is not:

-calling one, or more, republicans: mean or evil or dumb or corrupt
-complimenting another's comment of name calling
-wondering why the republicans don't just shut up and go away

No comments:

Post a Comment