NY-14: Goliath falls to OCASIO!

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

[ON Progressive]

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

This debate wasn't offered in good faith whatsoever. The offer literally included an illegal campaign contribution, and Ben has always acted in bad faith anyhow.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

That's because those parts of your arguments WERE logical fallacies. You actually seem to be doing a lot better here now.  

[Calthrina950]

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

This debate wasn't offered in good faith whatsoever. The offer literally included an illegal campaign contribution, and Ben has always acted in bad faith anyhow.

Again, I'm not a Shapiro fan, and I've said elsewhere that the offer shouldn't have been posed in this manner. But some of the views espoused by others here are not ones that I condone either, as I've also made clear.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

That's because those parts of your arguments WERE logical fallacies. You actually seem to be doing a lot better here now.  

Let me ask you a question (this might be the 100th question that I've asked you). There was a thread on the Forum Community board some while back, and the vast majority of people who participated in that gave you an "HP" rating. You always seem to find fault with almost everything said by almost everyone, and don't seem to think that the rules of civility matter. What benefit do you derive from this? By constantly attacking people, you make it less likely that they want to converse with you in the future.

And your last comment seems to be more derisive then anything else. In those prior forums, I wasn't the only one arguing from the stance that I was. There are always two sides to a debate.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

That's because those parts of your arguments WERE logical fallacies. You actually seem to be doing a lot better here now.  

Let me ask you a question (this might be the 100th question that I've asked you). There was a thread on the Forum Community board some while back, and the vast majority of people who participated in that gave you an "HP" rating. You always seem to find fault with almost everything said by almost everyone, and don't seem to think that the rules of civility matter. What benefit do you derive from this? By constantly attacking people, you make it less likely that they want to converse with you in the future.

And your last comment seems to be more derisive then anything else. In those prior forums, I wasn't the only one arguing from the stance that I was. There are always two sides to a debate.

I saw a recent Forum Community Board post on me a while back, if that's the one your referring to, and not that many people commented on it, and there were only a few who referred to me as an HP.

Personally I wouldn't care if everybody referred to me as an HP, but most didn't.  So your claim is wrong. If it's the same thread as I'm referring to most wrote something along the lines of 'decent guy, but why is he happy when people die?'

I like precise arguments based on rules of logic.  If people want to stop conversing with me because they don't want to meet those standards, that's no skin off my nose.

For example, usually there aren't two sides to a debate.  There are often multiple sides and frequently there is actually just one side.

Finally, it wasn't a derisive comment.  You have cut down considerably on the number of posts in which you argue by personal anecdote and, outside of this right now, you don't seem to need to tell people any longer about how a comment personally made you feel.

You are also increasingly making points with actual evidence.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

That's because those parts of your arguments WERE logical fallacies. You actually seem to be doing a lot better here now.  

Let me ask you a question (this might be the 100th question that I've asked you). There was a thread on the Forum Community board some while back, and the vast majority of people who participated in that gave you an "HP" rating. You always seem to find fault with almost everything said by almost everyone, and don't seem to think that the rules of civility matter. What benefit do you derive from this? By constantly attacking people, you make it less likely that they want to converse with you in the future.

And your last comment seems to be more derisive then anything else. In those prior forums, I wasn't the only one arguing from the stance that I was. There are always two sides to a debate.

I saw a recent Forum Community Board post on me a while back, if that's the one your referring to, and not that many people commented on it, and there were only a few who referred to me as an HP.

I like precise arguments based on rules of logic.  If people want to stop conversing with me because they don't want to meet those standards, that's no skin off my nose.

For example, usually there aren't two sides to a debate.  There are often multiple sides and frequently there is actually just one side.

I would say that there's a minimum of two sides to every debate, and yes, in some of those (i.e. the Holocaust, white supremacy), one side is uncategorically wrong. But something like this whole matter with Ocasio-Cortez would undoubtedly qualify as one.

39 people voted in the poll on that thread. That's only a part of the Atlas community, but it's not a small blimp. But again, I'm not interested into derailing this thread with those kinds of issues. Which is also something that I've said before.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

That's because those parts of your arguments WERE logical fallacies. You actually seem to be doing a lot better here now.  

Let me ask you a question (this might be the 100th question that I've asked you). There was a thread on the Forum Community board some while back, and the vast majority of people who participated in that gave you an "HP" rating. You always seem to find fault with almost everything said by almost everyone, and don't seem to think that the rules of civility matter. What benefit do you derive from this? By constantly attacking people, you make it less likely that they want to converse with you in the future.

And your last comment seems to be more derisive then anything else. In those prior forums, I wasn't the only one arguing from the stance that I was. There are always two sides to a debate.

I saw a recent Forum Community Board post on me a while back, if that's the one your referring to, and not that many people commented on it, and there were only a few who referred to me as an HP.

I like precise arguments based on rules of logic.  If people want to stop conversing with me because they don't want to meet those standards, that's no skin off my nose.

For example, usually there aren't two sides to a debate.  There are often multiple sides and frequently there is actually just one side.

I would say that there's a minimum of two sides to every debate, and yes, in some of those (i.e. the Holocaust, white supremacy), one side is uncategorically wrong. But something like this whole matter with Ocasio-Cortez would undoubtedly qualify as one.

39 people voted in the poll on that thread. That's only a part of the Atlas community, but it's not a small blimp. But again, I'm not interested into derailing this thread with those kinds of issues. Which is also something that I've said before.

Given that there are practical limits based on scarce resources, effectively there frequently aren't two valid sides to a debate.

Was there a poll question in that thread?  Well now I'll have to see if I can find it.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

That's because those parts of your arguments WERE logical fallacies. You actually seem to be doing a lot better here now. 

Let me ask you a question (this might be the 100th question that I've asked you). There was a thread on the Forum Community board some while back, and the vast majority of people who participated in that gave you an "HP" rating. You always seem to find fault with almost everything said by almost everyone, and don't seem to think that the rules of civility matter. What benefit do you derive from this? By constantly attacking people, you make it less likely that they want to converse with you in the future.

And your last comment seems to be more derisive then anything else. In those prior forums, I wasn't the only one arguing from the stance that I was. There are always two sides to a debate.

I saw a recent Forum Community Board post on me a while back, if that's the one your referring to, and not that many people commented on it, and there were only a few who referred to me as an HP.

I like precise arguments based on rules of logic.  If people want to stop conversing with me because they don't want to meet those standards, that's no skin off my nose.

For example, usually there aren't two sides to a debate.  There are often multiple sides and frequently there is actually just one side.

I would say that there's a minimum of two sides to every debate, and yes, in some of those (i.e. the Holocaust, white supremacy), one side is uncategorically wrong. But something like this whole matter with Ocasio-Cortez would undoubtedly qualify as one.

39 people voted in the poll on that thread. That's only a part of the Atlas community, but it's not a small blimp. But again, I'm not interested into derailing this thread with those kinds of issues. Which is also something that I've said before.

Given that there are practical limits based on scarce resources, effectively there frequently aren't two valid sides to a debate.

Was there a poll question in that thread?  Well now I'll have to see if I can find it.

Yes. there was. The thread is on the second or third page of the board. 71% of those who voted went for the HP option; 28% for the FF option.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

That's because those parts of your arguments WERE logical fallacies. You actually seem to be doing a lot better here now. 

Let me ask you a question (this might be the 100th question that I've asked you). There was a thread on the Forum Community board some while back, and the vast majority of people who participated in that gave you an "HP" rating. You always seem to find fault with almost everything said by almost everyone, and don't seem to think that the rules of civility matter. What benefit do you derive from this? By constantly attacking people, you make it less likely that they want to converse with you in the future.

And your last comment seems to be more derisive then anything else. In those prior forums, I wasn't the only one arguing from the stance that I was. There are always two sides to a debate.

I saw a recent Forum Community Board post on me a while back, if that's the one your referring to, and not that many people commented on it, and there were only a few who referred to me as an HP.

I like precise arguments based on rules of logic.  If people want to stop conversing with me because they don't want to meet those standards, that's no skin off my nose.

For example, usually there aren't two sides to a debate.  There are often multiple sides and frequently there is actually just one side.

I would say that there's a minimum of two sides to every debate, and yes, in some of those (i.e. the Holocaust, white supremacy), one side is uncategorically wrong. But something like this whole matter with Ocasio-Cortez would undoubtedly qualify as one.

39 people voted in the poll on that thread. That's only a part of the Atlas community, but it's not a small blimp. But again, I'm not interested into derailing this thread with those kinds of issues. Which is also something that I've said before.

Given that there are practical limits based on scarce resources, effectively there frequently aren't two valid sides to a debate.

Was there a poll question in that thread?  Well now I'll have to see if I can find it.

Yes. there was. The thread is on the second or third page of the board. 71% of those who voted went for the HP option; 28% for the FF option.

So there was.  How do you think you'd do?

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

One of the main issues that I've had in conversing with you is that you like to pick and choose which parts of my posts to address, and dismiss others as "logical fallacies", if you consider them at all. As to your specific question, I've made clear time and time again that I am not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, do not approve of him, and will not vote for him again in 2020. Trump has said many egregious things (as I've also noted elsewhere), and I have strongly disapproved of some of his administration's policies (i.e. certain aspects of the "Muslim travel ban" and his zero-tolerance immigration policy). And as I've also said, there are limits to debate, and Trump is someone who has demonstrated, through his actions and his statements, that he may very well fall outside of those limits.

I don't think every random person should be pressed into debate; that would be too tedious a process, and many people are not as interested in politics as this forum's posters are. But the point that I'm making is that one should not shriek from rejecting any and all debates with one's ideological opposites. If they are people of good character, make their offer in good faith, and are interested in having a genuine discussion, then they shouldn't be turned away.

That's because those parts of your arguments WERE logical fallacies. You actually seem to be doing a lot better here now. 

Let me ask you a question (this might be the 100th question that I've asked you). There was a thread on the Forum Community board some while back, and the vast majority of people who participated in that gave you an "HP" rating. You always seem to find fault with almost everything said by almost everyone, and don't seem to think that the rules of civility matter. What benefit do you derive from this? By constantly attacking people, you make it less likely that they want to converse with you in the future.

And your last comment seems to be more derisive then anything else. In those prior forums, I wasn't the only one arguing from the stance that I was. There are always two sides to a debate.

I saw a recent Forum Community Board post on me a while back, if that's the one your referring to, and not that many people commented on it, and there were only a few who referred to me as an HP.

I like precise arguments based on rules of logic.  If people want to stop conversing with me because they don't want to meet those standards, that's no skin off my nose.

For example, usually there aren't two sides to a debate.  There are often multiple sides and frequently there is actually just one side.

I would say that there's a minimum of two sides to every debate, and yes, in some of those (i.e. the Holocaust, white supremacy), one side is uncategorically wrong. But something like this whole matter with Ocasio-Cortez would undoubtedly qualify as one.

39 people voted in the poll on that thread. That's only a part of the Atlas community, but it's not a small blimp. But again, I'm not interested into derailing this thread with those kinds of issues. Which is also something that I've said before.

Given that there are practical limits based on scarce resources, effectively there frequently aren't two valid sides to a debate.

Was there a poll question in that thread?  Well now I'll have to see if I can find it.

Yes. there was. The thread is on the second or third page of the board. 71% of those who voted went for the HP option; 28% for the FF option.

So there was.  How do you think you'd do?

I don't know, maybe 50-50 or 60-40. There are some others on this forum, some of whom I've listed elsewhere, who I am not on good terms with, and others with whom I am.

[IceSpear]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Last time I checked Republican representatives don't accept debates from random Twitter leftists, so why should Ocasio Cortez? In fact, a lot of them refuse to even hold town halls.

[AtorBoltox]

I hereby challenge Ben Shapiro to a debate. If he does not respond it shows he knows he can't beat me

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can we start talking about AOC Derangement Syndrome?

[Yank2133]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Lol, you are becoming a caricature of a moderate hero.

It is politically dumb for anyone to debate someone who isn't on their level (and Shapiro isn't on AOC level. She is going to congress, while he trolls college kids on twitter and does a podcast).   

[The Mikado]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

If Ben Shapiro wants to debate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he should get elected to Congress. Then, as two Members of Congress, they could face off on Meet the Press or something like regularly happens.

What political candidates randomly debate nobodies?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

If Ben Shapiro wants to debate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he should get elected to Congress. Then, as two Members of Congress, they could face off on Meet the Press or something like regularly happens.

What political candidates randomly debate nobodies?

I mean, he has almost twice her Twitter followers and is a pretty big name in Conservative media. He's not a "nobody". It is pretty rare that politicians debate "civilians", you're right - and that's because they have nothing to gain, a lot to lose. Especially given her multiple embarrassing interviews recently.

It's not that she rejected the debate, that was to be expected. Her reasoning was bad-faith garbage.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Lol, you are becoming a caricature of a moderate hero.

It is politically dumb for anyone to debate someone who isn't on their level (and Shapiro isn't on AOC level. She is going to congress, while he trolls college kids on twitter and does a podcast).  

Are you mocking me? Be advised that I don't take too kindly to ad hominem attacks, and such attacks are the easiest means by which I add someone to my ignore list. I will not dignify the rest of your post with a comment.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

If Ben Shapiro wants to debate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he should get elected to Congress. Then, as two Members of Congress, they could face off on Meet the Press or something like regularly happens.

What political candidates randomly debate nobodies?

I mean, he has almost twice her Twitter followers and is a pretty big name in Conservative media. He's not a "nobody". It is pretty rare that politicians debate "civilians", you're right - and that's because they have nothing to gain, a lot to lose. Especially given her multiple embarrassing interviews recently.

It's not that she rejected the debate, that was to be expected. Her reasoning was bad-faith garbage.

I agree with much of this post, and it probably helps to buttress some of the points that I was trying to make. People on here have continually ignored what I've said about Ocasio-Cortez's right to refuse Shapiro's debate offer, and that the offer itself wasn't posed in the best manner.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Can we start talking about AOC Derangement Syndrome?

Can we just stop talking about AOC, at least until she's sworn in?  I'm hard to see further discussion changing a single person's mind on Atlas one way or the other at this point.

[Yank2133]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Lol, you are becoming a caricature of a moderate hero.

It is politically dumb for anyone to debate someone who isn't on their level (and Shapiro isn't on AOC level. She is going to congress, while he trolls college kids on twitter and does a podcast).  

Are you mocking me? Be advised that I don't take too kindly to ad hominem attacks, and such attacks are the easiest means by which I add someone to my ignore list. I will not dignify the rest of your post with a comment.

Lol, go ahead and put me on your ignore list. I don't give ****.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Lol, you are becoming a caricature of a moderate hero.

It is politically dumb for anyone to debate someone who isn't on their level (and Shapiro isn't on AOC level. She is going to congress, while he trolls college kids on twitter and does a podcast).  

Are you mocking me? Be advised that I don't take too kindly to ad hominem attacks, and such attacks are the easiest means by which I add someone to my ignore list. I will not dignify the rest of your post with a comment.

Lol, go ahead and put me on your ignore list. I don't give ****.

Of course you don't. Your foul mouth is very much like many of the other posters on here. On to my list you go.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Lol, you are becoming a caricature of a moderate hero.   

That ship sailed long ago.

[MAINEiac4434]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Lol, you are becoming a caricature of a moderate hero.

It is politically dumb for anyone to debate someone who isn't on their level (and Shapiro isn't on AOC level. She is going to congress, while he trolls college kids on twitter and does a podcast).   

Becoming?!

[Yank2133]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Lol, you are becoming a caricature of a moderate hero.

It is politically dumb for anyone to debate someone who isn't on their level (and Shapiro isn't on AOC level. She is going to congress, while he trolls college kids on twitter and does a podcast).   

Becoming?!

I was giving her the he benefit of the doubt. But her take on this will even make wulfric to raise an eyebrow.