Back in the 1890’s, in the period leading up the the
Spanish-American war, something called “Yellow Journalism” came into
being. Sensationalism, jingoism, and incredibly one-sided reporting of

Also known as “propaganda”.

Now, when it comes to debating, and arguing, nowadays, especially as
reflected in political campaigns, public relations, and reputation
building, this sort of discussion seems to be the basis for any sort of

See, it seems some have the idea that debate is about “being right”, or
“winning”. I don’t believe that is the case. Logic, regardless of the
disuse into which it has fallen, is both a key to thinking
intelligently, and key to avoiding being hoisted by your own petard.
Such as it is.
Rebuttal: begin.


It’s funny. I think living every day of your life with only a quarter
inch of aluminum siding between you and the elements does something bad
to your brain. Yes…I’m sure of it.

As funny as I’m sure you think the above sounded – I neither live in a
trailer, nor have I ever lived in one. I’m not from Mississippi, or
even from the South – I’m from the American Southwest, in Tucson,
Arizona. Which you often conveniently forget. Home of the University of
Arizona, one of the premier medical schools in the nation, and a major
college town – with a population of over a million. I’m not from a
small town, nor am I uneducated, or self-educated. I live in a resort
community, in a 3,000 square foot house, and I work on computers for a

No, me and Billy Bob don’t hitch up our horses at the trough, and “done hook up our com-pooters”.


Now since I’m in a good mood I’ll put this very nicely to my rather hickish friend.

Personal jab #2.


Now, I’m proud of you, for managing to pick the words from your high
school philosophy teacher. I really hope the GED works out.

Jab number 3…
I was homeschooled, with national honors, ACT score of 32 (99th+
percentile), SAT in 99.95th percentile. Two questions away from acing
the ASVAB, multiple electronics certifications, several computer
certifications, and years of experience in electronic/computer
maintenance. Nice try. What’s your hang up with trying to make yourself
“the smartest person!!1111!!” ?


Placing importance on consequences is bad?

Yes, if they are imaginary consequences, or worst case consequences. When the potential consequences are nowhere near to actual consequences of a potential outcome. Essentially, you’re building cases like you build sandcastles.


That’s f***ing ridiculous. How can one possibly ignore the
consequences, when the consequences indicate potentially thousands of
American lives?

The solution you present is not the issue: The way you present it, and
the way you project it, is. I don’t disagree that terrorists are bad,
we need to be in Iraq to eradicate them, and that radical Islam is a
clear and present danger to the security of the United States, and her

I disagree, however, that wiping out an entire geographic region will
either serve our interests, increase our security, or even help us do
what we’re trying to do. All we’ll do is kill a bunch of people. Who,
as likely as you say they hate us, like us. You know, like the 80-95%
of Iraqis, who, when asked, say they like us being there, and
appreciate us toppling Hussein.

Instead of killing terrorists, your solution is to kill innocents,
terrorists, AND anyone else in the immediate area who fits in between
the two. Why is that acceptable? Killing a few million people won’t
keep the other terrorists, worldwide, from pulling another 9/11.
Overkill to that extreme is, to be blunt, stupid. Not to mention
frightfully immoral.

I’m not saying terrorists are worthy of mercy, or should be left alone – I’m saying – why kill everyone

when we’re killing thousands of the cockroaches already, and they show
no signs of decreasing their zeal to die? We have our military for a
reason. We have a strategic position in Iraq, as defenders and
liberators – but you want to substitute pre-emptive nuclear strikes in
place of the lightest casualties in any major war in American history?

How does that make sense?


So what I’d like you to do go over to some of the 9/11 Memorial web
sites. And I want you to tell those people over there, that we should
ignore consequences. That when picking our next president we should
ignore the potential of the terrorist threat.

Did I say that? I said you’re exaggerating the consequences to make
your point. As much as I agree with your premise, I find your idea of
“handling the situation” overly grotesque, and your replies a mere
charicature of what you were asked. You take a comment, twist it into a
pretzel, and then answer the pretzel, not the question.


“but the fact that you espouse genocide of people our very presence is converting, in rather large numbers, to Christianity.”


Yes. That’s right. We should ignore the threat of terrorism because….these people are becoming Christians!!! Wait…umm…

I said: Espouse genocide – referring to your “nuke em all” strategy. Which is retarded.
You said: ignore terrorism – does refraining from nuking whole areas of
the middle east constitute “ignoring terrorism”? In that case, we
better get that do-nothing republican who won’t nuke the middle east,
out of office…. right?

Don’t be ridiculous, and don’t rewrite comments. It’s stupid. I want us
to kill every stinking terrorist in the world before we’re done. I have
no sympathy for those seeking our deaths, our soldiers’ deaths, or
anyone’s death. They should die. But, let’s not kill every living being
in the surrounding area to do so. Guns, tanks, and (non-nuclear) bombs
should do fine.


I don’t rewrite what people say. I simply put it in the very plain
English that it should be. When someone says “don’t kill the
terrorists, understand them” what that actually mean, no matter how you
flower it up, is appease them.

When I say you “espouse genocide” that doesn’t mean “espouse” suddenly
morphed definitions into “ignore the threat”, and genocide doesn’t
magically change into “of terrorism”. Sorry. You just rewrote what I
said, and attacked something I didn’t say. You created a straw man,
attacked it, and said you won. Maybe against the straw man… However,
you never answered what _I_ said.


– long, drawn out story somehow related to something or other-

The ability to read between the lines is important. Some people, much
like you or whoever else, don’t like the fact that there are those of
us with an ability to read between the lines.

Sure, if you don’t rewrite what I say, and attack something else
altogether. I’m ex-military, pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush, pro-War on Terror,
pro-Republican, pro-defense spending, pro-foreign intervention.

In short, I’m a conservative Republican. So, don’t act like I’m some
euro liberal, who calls for appeasement, “world order”, or any of the
like. Because that’ll not only be full of crap, but not even remotely
describe my political views, which are clearly on view, here on this

Don’t blow smoke. Answer what I write, not what you wish I would have
written, so you can attack it just like you would a dem liberal, or a
euro commie.


Apparently the threat of terrorism is a false dilemma?


If it comes between us and them, I choose them for a fast delivery of nuclear weapons.

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in
reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use
of the “or” operator.

Now, when you said that, early on in the “November election” debate,
you make up a VERY unlikely scenario, put “us”, or “them” as the two
options, and try to force the readers to choose between the two.

Now, sure, in some hypothetical military confrontation between us, and
a foreign power, I’d be more than willing to initiate a nuclear
exchange. However, we’re talking guerillas, and terrorists, not a
nuclear-armed world power. There is no concentrated population base
which would make a nuclear strike effective, or even necessary. So what
is what, but a false dilemna?


Prejudicial language?


I would hope, that any other god fearing American would be willing to make that same choice.

Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral
goodness to believing the proposition.

So, not only do you use prejudicial language, but you link that to the false dilemna.


Style over substance?

The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is
taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

I don’t need a quote for this one. Your constant attempt is to use
every dirty trick you can to make yourself look good, and the opponent
look bad. Not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of destroying their reputation for the betterment of your own.


For [He doesn’t have anything to do with your opinions, sorry] sake,
RK, I’m glad you finally managed to read “Philosophy For Dummies”. I’m
sure it was a great 2 dollar investment at the General Store, but for
[Hi, I’m a potty mouthed Christian] sake, you’re such a [Hi, I’m a
potty mouthed Christian] sophomore.

Opinion noted – and ignored most wholeheartedly. I already said I don’t
care what you think – you’ve shown your opinion to be less than
worthless by how you treat people. Oh, and you’re still a pottymouth
with the dignity of a sewer, when it comes to your Christian witness.

We’ve discussed this – you don’t care, I know. Just thought I’d mention it again.


“Well you used a straw man argument!!!

Well, it WOULD kinda be more effective to even ATTEMPT to respond to
your opponent, instead of traipsing along in JF fantasy land. But,
whatever floats your boat 😀


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA”. I don’t see a score board anywhere, and I don’t see a set of rules.

I don’t see any respect or esteem, either. Which is what you’re trying
to cultivate, it seems, as you won’t argue the isues at hand – just the
issues you can hammer at over and over, with the tiring fanaticism of
someone trying his hand at creating his very own cult of personality.


If you’ve got an actual response, bring it.

Which one? The one I give, or the one you rewrite it to?


Says you in your years of experience as what?

Debating? Unlike some people, I don’t feel the need to present myself
as infallible, or perfection incarnate. I don’t need to list
credentials, or attempt to impress people by my “skillz”.

Nobody cares if you’re in law. Lawyers, unfortunately, have come a long
way from the days of John Adams. You’re no John Adams. When you’ve
written a state constitution, become a diplomat, authored many of the
papers upon which the history of a country is founded – then, you’re
big time, and above all of the “little people”. John Adams, however,
even when he was President, was not only a humble man, but a principled

That doesn’t make you superman, and you’re not infallible, superior, or
“above the riff raff”. You’re no specimen of human superiority, whose
inherent excellence shines down upon the dirty, unwashed masses, who
look up to you, adoringly, with reverence and awe.

Nope. Get off your high horse. You’re conceited. We don’t care.


I’m sorry…your internet suicide incident and break up with common law wifey.

Hrmm? I’ve never even come close to suicide. Or even hinted it.
Get real.


I’m sorry again. From now on in I’ll just refer to her as ‘yo baby momma’.

No, you’re not sorry. I’ll just call you “sewer-mouth”, since you have this fascination with pet names.


Right!!!! With a National Team Championship and a few national individual awards, I don’t know anything!!! Aha!!! That’s it!!!

They let you call people “******* morons” and rewrite their arguments to suit what you want to attack there?

Yeah, sure they do.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you had a hang-up about adequacy.


No. Link me again!!!!

Men of God International


And to quote the immortal words of Jerry Spence: “There greatest logical fallacy is logical fallacy”.



Law logic — an artificial system of reasoning, exclusively used in courts of justice, but good for nothing anywhere else.

– John Quincy Adams


Although, I must admit it’s funny that RK, who is unable to debate
without the use of his bible to attempt go at someone who is better
educated than him, now is relying on a web site about logical fallacy
to attempt go to at someone who is far better educated than him.

Really? Shows how much you know, bud. No, actually, it’s merely easy to
link to a resource someone can see, to illustrate your point – since,
umm.. were on the internet, and all? You know, where they have websites
about every conceivable subject. That you can use as reference.

I could use wikipedia, or, if that works better for you.
It doesn’t change the fact that you rarely answer the questions people
ask – just answer to make them look bad, so you look better. It’s a
pattern. You have a complex about making yourself look good in
comparison to someone else, it appears.


I want to see somebody do that in court some day. Guy is finishing his
closing argument and RK jumps up “OBJECTION THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY”.

No, they demolish fallacious logic in the arguments. If it’s retarded, well, it’s likely going to be seen as retarded.

Don’t be retarded.