EDIT: Unless of course its Ben Shapiro, but you guys seem to like pretending he doesn't exist on here.

From what you've said, you don't give him the benefit of the doubt, you actively believe he is someone worth taking seriously as a president, something many republicans do not do, and that can only mean you've either drank the cool-ade he wants people to, or you're so against the left you'll take whatever.

Take note ladies

Those are some very reductive options.

also: it's Kool-Aid.

Case in point: @Kratesis who will just willingly ignore any counter arguments with passive topic changes and off-hand snark.

I do find it refreshing that despite the fact many of us think others are pretty crazy for their opinions, there's still respect.

But on a more serious note, that is an interesting criticism Dynamo. I am both surprised and not surprised. I am surprised that you would characterize me as ignoring counter arguments and being snarky when your modus operandi consists of avoiding any position which could possibly face criticism while simultaneously launching snarky memes and ad hominems from the sidelines.

At the same time I am not surprised. Attacks on the character of this threads debaters is what you do and you will go to great lengths to find something to attack. Look how far back you went to find quotes to throw at Poohead. Not quotes which provided evidence to support your argument on some point of political contention but quotes to mock and belittle him for claims he had made about his romantic and personal life. I disagree with Poohead on many things but that left a bad taste in my mouth.

Now you want to toss a few ad hominems at me which I suspect is a way to avoid taking a concrete position on anything but still getting in a few jabs. I suspect you avoid taking a position because what if you were verbally beat up and embarrassed by a superior debater? It is easier to toss out a few attacks at the characters of the debaters in this thread because no one can provide evidence in defense of their character on the internet without "doxing" themselves. The character of other debaters is the perfect target! You get to belittle someone else and position yourself as their superior while avoiding any possibility of being proven wrong because your claims can't be falsified.

If you said "your argument sucks because of X,Y and Z" then you would run the risk of being embarrassed when they provided evidence that proved your claims wrong. But when you say "you personally suck because of X, Y and Z" all they can do is say "that's not true."

But when the focus of your comments is not on the flaws of other's position or the strengths of your own position but instead on the flaws and foibles of other's character then you aren't really telling us anything about that person's flaws. We know everyone has personal flaws. When you went back I don't know how many pages to find quotes from Poohead to belittle him with you didn't tell me anything about Poohead but you told me a lot about you.

I'd literally never heard of Ben Shapiro until this thread.

>dynamo pretending he's a centrist

Lel

But your point about attack character is a load of crap, every serious debate I've had has kept the focus strictly on the argument, and very respectful. Look at my exchange with @The Harbinger of Ferocity about James Allsup and find my 'outrageous character attacks' or 'ad-homenims' go on, I'll wait. Or even better, ask the Cat-Man himself about how 'disrespectful' I was during the exchange.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

That one time where you spent two pages calling me a racist (for, ironically, valuing the lives and accomplishments of African-Americans) was super 'on the argument' and 'respectful.'