1 Yes, it is. He showed specific benefits that suburbs get through government intervention in the marketplace. Saying "oh, the government impacts everything" is not a counter-argument.

2 It's a Wonderful Life is not about people moving to suburbs. Period. The fact that you continue to defend your use of a piece of fiction as a counter-argument is bad enough, but the fact that you can't even use a relevant piece of fiction is just one more example of how completely and utterly you destroy your own credibility without even trying.

If anyone else on this board trotted out, say, Oliver Stone's Wall Street as an example of the way the culture of greed among bankers and financial wizards is harming America, you'd freak out on them - and you'd be entirely justified in doing so, since it would be an idiotic argument. The only difference between that hypothetical and this is that at least Wall Street would be relevant to that discussion.

3 He defined it quite well. He just didn't provide specific examples - which is a point against him, but hardly fatal to his case.

Also, if you want to dock him points for failing to answer your question in this case, you are way more in the hole for that failure than creil is.

4 Yes, he proved a lot.

5 You didn't confuse readers with your 'technical jargon' (which you didn't even use), you confuse readers with your failure to put forward a positive case for your position, instead just ineffectively trying to tear down his case and citing a piece of fiction .

When we tell you how crappy a debater you are, swamp, this is exactly what we are talking about. You didn't make an argument. You just tried to poke away at his argument, and stated an assumption without offering one scrap of evidence to support it (beyond, again, a work of ******* fiction.)

You got schooled. For once in your miserable history on this board, take defeat like a man and try to learn something from it.

Posted by antonsirius on 1/8/2011 11:04:00 AM (view original):
1 Yes, it is. He showed specific benefits that suburbs get through government intervention in the marketplace. Saying "oh, the government impacts everything" is not a counter-argument.

2 It's a Wonderful Life is not about people moving to suburbs. Period. The fact that you continue to defend your use of a piece of fiction as a counter-argument is bad enough, but the fact that you can't even use a relevant piece of fiction is just one more example of how completely and utterly you destroy your own credibility without even trying.

If anyone else on this board trotted out, say, Oliver Stone's Wall Street as an example of the way the culture of greed among bankers and financial wizards is harming America, you'd freak out on them - and you'd be entirely justified in doing so, since it would be an idiotic argument. The only difference between that hypothetical and this is that at least Wall Street would be relevant to that discussion.

3 He defined it quite well. He just didn't provide specific examples - which is a point against him, but hardly fatal to his case.

Also, if you want to dock him points for failing to answer your question in this case, you are way more in the hole for that failure than creil is.

4 Yes, he proved a lot.

5 You didn't confuse readers with your 'technical jargon' (which you didn't even use), you confuse readers with your failure to put forward a positive case for your position, instead just ineffectively trying to tear down his case and citing a piece of fiction .

When we tell you how crappy a debater you are, swamp, this is exactly what we are talking about. You didn't make an argument. You just tried to poke away at his argument, and stated an assumption without offering one scrap of evidence to support it (beyond, again, a work of ******* fiction.)

You got schooled. For once in your miserable history on this board, take defeat like a man and try to learn something from it.

1 He showed specific government actions. I showed that they didnt impact the suburbs in any unique way. The fact that the government impacts everything shows that a list of things the government does that impact the suburbs proves nothing, as the government impacts everything. He has to show a suburb advantage.

2 There was some question if people wanted to live in the suburbs or stay in dense cities. I used a movie from the 40s to show that the idea of moving into your own house in the burbs is a common American goal.

3 I think the fact that he couldnt give an example of a suburb is crucial. He claimed Warren, my city, isnt a suburb. If he cant define his terms how can we debate?

4 I showed why my point in #1 is valid. He showed some facts, I questioned the conclusions he drew based on those facts, and I actually accepted most of his facts. His response was to show me more facts that were not in question.

I always admit when I make mistakes or when my point isnt valid. Of course you never have.

I am 100% right on this, if for no other reason that I am right. Debate points aside Creil is wrong on this.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/9/2011 5:29:00 AM:
I am 100% right on this, if for no other reason that I am right.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you lost this debate, and why you lose every other debate you ever have.

You took it out of context.

Of course since you refuse to ever debate me on issues it is all theory to you.

Why dont you just call me a ****%^&d and a liar and go away like you usually do!

I took nothing out of context. Your entire approach to debate is that your position is always 100% right, and that inherent correctness should be obvious to everyone and therefore doesn't need to be proven in any way. So instead of offering up facts or arguments, you offer up works of fiction that you don't even really seem to understand, and think that will suffice.

And so you lose, badly, and look like a fool doing it. And then can't understand why.

Actually just the opposite is true.

I am always put in the postion of being the only one defending a position against a hand full of leftists.

I am expected to start from the position of "Everyone knows you are wrong so you have to produce twice the facts to even approach balance"

I stated clearly that the main point to my debate was that since this could not be random acts he would have to answer who and why. This point was not ony ignored, but great pride was taken in the fact that my point was beneath consideration.

I won because I responded to all Creil's points and he never responded to mine at all!

Thank you for proving my point, but it wasn't really necessary.

and as always thank you for proving what I go through on this site!

My fans love it when you poke your head out and cackle!

Ah yes, your "fans". That imaginary "silent majority" of yours. Poor, sad, pathetic swamp, so desperate for approval and attention.

So which is it Anton...Am I a masocist that likes to be attacked or am I desperate for approval?

Or are you just making up any insult that might fit at any time no matter how illogical it is?

So lets put your superior intellect to work....

Why is it ok for Crei to ignore my main point? 

Masochists can't be desperate for approval? I'd think that would be part of the package. The masochism is just a self-destructive way of getting that attention...

And you didn't make a point. Your entire argument was a flat assertion for which you offered no evidence whatsoever beyond It's a Wonderful Life. What you are calling your "main point" was an attempt to poke a hole in creil's argument, and was something you didn't even introduce into the debate until it was almost over.

I'll say it again and bold it so you don't miss it. You didn't make a positive case for your position. You didn't even attempt to do so. You only attempted (and failed) to discredit creil's position. That's in large part why you lost the argument so completely and thoroughly.

As for why that attempt failed (which is what you are asking in your own fucktarded way, when you ask why it's OK for creil to dismiss it), it was because you offered no foundation at all for why he needed to address it. You just went, "A-ha! Conspiracy theory! Who and why?" without establishing that a conspiracy theory was even necessary to explain creil's argument.

Hell, your own earlier attempts to poke holes in creil's argument destroyed any foundation for it. On the one hand, you said government intervention is everywhere (which is why you believe its presence doesn't necessarily mean that a market isn't free) and then a couple of pages later you claimed that government intervention requires a specific individual or individuals to push the policy, and a specific agenda behind it (your Who and Why -- your so-called "main point'). If the latter is true, the former can't be true. It's contradictory. If specific individuals are pushing a hidden agenda through specific government policies, then you cannot possibly have a free market in the areas those policies touch. A more obvious example of just throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks I can't imagine.

The bottom line is, you suck donkey balls at this ****, swamp. You don't know how to make an argument. You don't even recognize when you need to make an argument. And you don't know how to make a good counter-argument. As I said above, you just make flat assertions that you think are self-evident and don't understand why they don't get accepted as fact by anyone, even after they tell you why they don't accept your assertions as fact.

1 You cant prove a negative. I cant prove that the government didnt set out to create the suburbs. I can only respond to the data presented by Creil.

2 Creil never tied any of his evidence to the suburbs. He talked about taxes, zoning and roads. It would seem that to win his point he would need something that showed that these things helped the suburbs. It is as if MLB changed the rules and you now need 5 balls to get a walk, and creil claims this helps the Yankees because they will walk less people.

3 My main point was always my main point, he just never responded to it so I started pointing it out.

4 Your blind hatred for my worldview clouds your judgement.

What Anton said.

Posted by creilmann on 1/11/2011 6:50:00 PM (view original):
What Anton said.

And you still refuse to respond to the gap in your point.

You make no connection between your data and the suburbs and show no intent.

I never provided data, just facts about what the state has done to create today's suburban landscape.  There is no gap in the info I provided and my point.  I even summed it up quite nicely for you at the end.  I addressed your issue with intent earlier.  Others have read it and seem to understand my points, whether they agree or not is another story.  The also seem to agree that you have not been able to give any real counterpoints.  I understand that it must be frustrating for a guy who preaches against government intervention and regulation in the market so much, to have somebody show him how heavily subsidized his way of life is.  Or maybe it's like I said earlier, you already realize this but are a gigantic hypocrite who secretly doesn't mind one bit about government intervention in the market as long as it benefits him.

Regardless of the reason, your arguments are so feeble that it's just not worth carrying on with the conversation.