Entry for the first Annual JPP Cup World Championship
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Fixed.
Southern Woman
Banned
The Southern Man is the only choice. His debating skills make him invincible.
Would that be your OPINION??
No, its standard practice for anyone who wants to make a well-substantiated and reasoned argument.
This country has a wealth and over-abundance of institutions that provide non-partisan, fact-checked, and/or peer-reviewed information. I don’t know why Cons routinely have to rely on Op-Ed pieces or position papers from rightwing think tanks. Unless of course, it’s because scrutinized and fact-checked findings don’t typically support wingnut positions.
Personally, I rarely ever post links to left wing blogs or papers from left wing think tanks. I’m prone to using stuff from mainstream news organizations, from scientific sources, or from non-partisan entities. aka, Organizations that are required professionally or legally to have their crap reviewed and endorsed by multiple people who don’t necessarily share the same agenda as the author – either through well established channels of professional journalistic fact checking, technical peer review, administrative review, or scientific peer review.
There are about a billion sources of information in this country that come from entities or individuals who have their work fact checked and scrutinized by multiple sources. It’s not a chore to find them. It’s a total sign of weakness to have to rely on rightwing think tanks, position papers, and Op-Ed columns. That’s just a fact, jack. I’m currently peer reviewing a proposed journal submittal from a professional peer. And I’m professionally obligated to fact check and look for weakness. Maybe I should tell him to web-publish it, or put in on a think tanks website? It’d be easier, and he wouldn’t have to get his sh*t fact checked. But, he would probably laugh in my face, and I don’t think he would consider his work professionally valid and substantiated unless it were scrutinized through well-established fact checking channels.
Use rightwing blogs and opinion pieces if you must, but in my book doing so is an automatic deduction of ten points in debate grading. Good luck!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Speak of the devil. I'm assuming your joining our little competition?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Debate him and you'll find out. Can we sign you up?What? You mean opinions are not formed in vacuums?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Cypress, ID, if you join our debate you'll complete our field of 16. I asked Dixie to join but he declined. He didn't want to be judged by a panel of pinheads as he put it.
thanks Mott. Honestly, I'm not here often or long enough on a daily basis to be able to go round and round on any thread. And actually, I have to invest a buttload of energy and effort to defend legitimate science and rational thought against Flat Earth Society rightwingers on a daily basis as it is. So my hands are already pretty full defending liberal enlightenment against the hilarious onslaught of rightwing rubes!
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I don't think it will take that much of your time. The format limits the debate so it's not like you have to post pages or read for hours. Even if you win you'll only be in four debates over a months period of time and you have a complete 24 hours to do your debate and you'll have advance notice of when your debate will be scheduled. You can do this and it would be fun I think. I think we'll be in for some surprises.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
No, its standard practice for anyone who wants to make a well-substantiated and reasoned argument.
This country has a wealth and over-abundance of institutions that provide non-partisan, fact-checked, and/or peer-reviewed information. I don’t know why Cons routinely have to rely on Op-Ed pieces or position papers from rightwing think tanks. Unless of course, it’s because scrutinized and fact-checked findings don’t typically support wingnut positions.
Personally, I rarely ever post links to left wing blogs or papers from left wing think tanks. I’m prone to using stuff from mainstream news organizations, from scientific sources, or from non-partisan entities. aka, Organizations that are required professionally or legally to have their crap reviewed and endorsed by multiple people who don’t necessarily share the same agenda as the author – either through well established channels of professional journalistic fact checking, technical peer review, administrative review, or scientific peer review.
There are about a billion sources of information in this country that come from entities or individuals who have their work fact checked and scrutinized by multiple sources. It’s not a chore to find them. It’s a total sign of weakness to have to rely on rightwing think tanks, position papers, and Op-Ed columns. That’s just a fact, jack. I’m currently peer reviewing a proposed journal submittal from a professional peer. And I’m professionally obligated to fact check and look for weakness. Maybe I should tell him to web-publish it, or put in on a think tanks website? It’d be easier, and he wouldn’t have to get his sh*t fact checked. But, he would probably laugh in my face, and I don’t think he would consider his work professionally valid and substantiated unless it were scrutinized through well-established fact checking channels.
Use rightwing blogs and opinion pieces if you must, but in my book doing so is an automatic deduction of ten points in debate grading. Good luck!
But; that would still be your opinion, even if it's believed by others.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
[translation]I spend the majority of my time, trying to defend and promote the idiotic warmer theory that those lying scientist offered. I have to do this; because when it was first revealed, I stood up and supported it and now I don't know what to do, but continue to try and convince others that those lying hockey stick promoters told the truth.[/translation]
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Ahhhh yes...the answer is: the old "changing of the posts" trick.
So the question must be: What do stupid people do when petty name calling doesn't work.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Were still 2 to 4 players short.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
What? You mean opinions are not formed in vacuums?
well, those formed in Zappa's mind certainly are.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
AssHat would be at a disadvantage.....points would be lost for mentioning Noahide or neocon.....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, its standard practice for anyone who wants to make a well-substantiated and reasoned argument.
This country has a wealth and over-abundance of institutions that provide non-partisan, fact-checked, and/or peer-reviewed information. I don’t know why Cons routinely have to rely on Op-Ed pieces or position papers from rightwing think tanks. Unless of course, it’s because scrutinized and fact-checked findings don’t typically support wingnut positions.
Personally, I rarely ever post links to left wing blogs or papers from left wing think tanks. I’m prone to using stuff from mainstream news organizations, from scientific sources, or from non-partisan entities. aka, Organizations that are required professionally or legally to have their crap reviewed and endorsed by multiple people who don’t necessarily share the same agenda as the author – either through well established channels of professional journalistic fact checking, technical peer review, administrative review, or scientific peer review.
There are about a billion sources of information in this country that come from entities or individuals who have their work fact checked and scrutinized by multiple sources. It’s not a chore to find them. It’s a total sign of weakness to have to rely on rightwing think tanks, position papers, and Op-Ed columns. That’s just a fact, jack. I’m currently peer reviewing a proposed journal submittal from a professional peer. And I’m professionally obligated to fact check and look for weakness. Maybe I should tell him to web-publish it, or put in on a think tanks website? It’d be easier, and he wouldn’t have to get his sh*t fact checked. But, he would probably laugh in my face, and I don’t think he would consider his work professionally valid and substantiated unless it were scrutinized through well-established fact checking channels.
Use rightwing blogs and opinion pieces if you must, but in my book doing so is an automatic deduction of ten points in debate grading. Good luck!
ROFLMAO..... says the guy who ignores any and all pieces from mainstream media (BBC) or peer reviewed papers by calling them 'right wing' or 'that university is laughable' or 'they are not well known enough'.
Cypress's latest 'I am so unbiased and professional' commentary coming from the same guy who champions the 'independent studies' that cleared the climate 'scientists'.... yet continues to ignore that the three studies...
1) Was conducted BY East Anglia on itself
2) A second was PAID FOR BY EAST ANGLIA and the 'independent' panel included someone who worked for East Anglia for 18 years.
3) Was conducted by Penn State... the university who received millions in federal grant money for studies by Mann....
Truly amazing how they all came up exonerating the climate 'scientists.
The above from Cypress coming from the same guy who refuses to listen to any scientists who state how hard it is to get into peer reviewed journals with any paper that doesn't toe the line with the fear mongering campaigns.
The above from cypress coming from the same guy who will continually ignore the scientists who support the fear mongering should they happen to say anything that is contrary to his 'the debate is over' bullshit.
Bottom line is this.... Cypress is so unbelievably brain washed that he will attempt to ignore or demean anyone and everyone that state anything contrary to his programming.
Cypress's system...
1) BBC.... ignore it when it posts an interview that disagrees with my position
2) Jones.... ignore the comments that disagree with my position, proclaim him unimpeachable when he says things I want to be true.
3) University of Delaware... first proclaim that no one has heard of them. Second proclaim any research they did "laughable". Third pretend that the 2006 report is 'outdated'
4) Never... EVER... answer the simple questions.... IF man is causing the majority of global warming due to green house gas emissions and green house emissions have continued to remain high....
a) WHY is it that there has been no significant warming since 1995?
b) WHY the need to change from the AGW fear mongering to calling it "climate change"???
No matter how many times someone asks Cypress 'a' or 'b'.... he refuses to answer. I wonder why?
I am especially interested in the answer to 'b'. WHY the sudden desire to change from 'MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING' to 'MAN is causing the CLIMATE TO CHANGE'????
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Translation: "I know I could not win a debate. My standard tactics of creating straw men would not work. I have consumed far too much kool aid to ever cease being a brain dead fear mongering flat earth lemming."
zappasguitar
Well-known member
That's fascinating...no really it is...Now, all you have to do is PROVE all those things ACTUALLY HAPPENED and your theory might be believable...til then of course what you present is just more supposition, a.k.a. YOUR OPINION and nothing more.
I'm not going to laugh...
I'm not going to laugh...
I'm not going to laugh...
I'm not going to laugh...
Oh hell...BWAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...WHOOOOOOOOOOO!
I'm sorry, but that comment about the brainwashed and how they demean those they disagree with? Remind you of anyone you know? I won't say any names, but his initials are SUPERFREAK.
This is particularly cute...the guy who refuses to believe climate change can be caused by humans INSISTS on knowing why it's called what it's called.
Anyone else here think he could have selected a tinier nit to pick if he REALLY tried?