Teacher going off on students.

I can't tell if you're ignoring what I'm posting to prove my point, if you just missed me saying that the Daily Caller is known for mixed reliability.

 

You don't know the difference between OPINION (you) or evidence which you don't provide.

You go on and on with opinions which is YOUR way to avoid the topic and the video.

 

I say that Daily Caller is known for mixed reliability on it's news reporting. So I cite something that proves that claim. If you mean like "that's like, the source's opinion man" argument then that's just really dumb because it's also Daily Caller's opinion about what she said. Then I pose a logical argument. If a source is known for mixed trustworthiness in reporting, why should we use that as starting ground?

 

Still an OPINION, you are avoiding debate by using a source fallacy deflection, you could have stayed away from the thread from the start.

 

With a BOGUS argument, you have not once posted EVIDENCE that the video is false, dishonest or misleading.

Your subsequent posts in the thread shows that you are babbling with ZERO evidence.....

Suggest you go away and take your trolling with you.

 

It's YOUR OPINION that my opinion is an OPINION. And you are avoiding debate by relying on your opinion and not facts and logic.

Because I'm not saying the video is false or misleading. I'm saying why should I think the video is trustworthy given the source it's from? I'm asking for you to show me why I should accept this video as common ground.

 

I'm willing to bet that "the counterpoint" can be made in a way that won't be taken down by the mods...

I'm perfectly fine with you not accepting Daily Caller as a source, but the source is not Daily Caller; it is the video itself. Do you also reject that video as a source?

It was necessary to get you to (sort of) respond to it.

Maybe that poster didn't stumble across the video all on it's own? Maybe that poster came across it while scrolling though Daily Caller?

What if you linked me to a video from CNN and I bitched and moaned about you giving me a CNN link rather than actually looking at and addressing the video itself? CNN is one of many sources that I do not accept, btw... but I would not be opposed to watching a video that was within a CNN article. I can differentiate between the source of CNN and the source of a video.

How? The video is the same whether it is on Daily Caller, Facebook, CNN, InfoWars, MSNBC, or YouTube...

Now you are just openly admitting that you are being lazy. What if who you are placing your trust in is lying to you?? That's why independent research is important. I do it all the time and come to my own conclusions. I don't just blindly believe "trusted" sources.

An article does not have a history. It is a singular instance. I think you mean a source, such as Daily Caller. If you distrust Daily Caller, and believe that Daily Caller deceptively edited the video, then you need to provide evidence of that. For instance, I believe that 60 Minutes deceptively edited their interview with President Trump. How do I know this? Because President Trump released his own video footage of the full interview, and comparing one against the other shows that 60 Minutes was deceptively editing the interview to make themselves look good and Trump look bad when the truth was actually the other way around. That's called evidence. That's called independent research. You should try it out sometime.

Okay, so you trust adfontesmedia.com's analysis?? Got it.

You are obsessing about Daily Caller when the video itself is the source in question. If you believe that the video is manipulated in some way, then you need to support that claim. The burden of proof is yours... Have at it...

 

Yup, and that's typical of people who outsource their thinking to others. They can only parrot what some other source has told them.

That's how I know precisely what politically-related statement my leftist co-worker is going to make before he even says it. I will hear it on CNN or some other lefty source and then he just repeats what they said word for word. It is intellectual laziness, and it is a big reason why the former USA (which was a bunch of individual republics under the same federal republic) has now dissolved into a bunch of individual republics (which I call the States of America) and a few oligarchies (of which I call the Socialist Oligarchy of

[1] the District of Columbia,
[2] the Territory of California, and
[3] the Territory of New York.)

 

Continued evasion. Address the video.

 

It's YOUR OPINION that his opinion that your opinion is an OPINION.

Can we wrap this juvenile game up now?

Define "debate".
Define "facts".
Define "logic".

I suggest sticking with words that you actually know the meanings of.

Okay, then address the contents of it.

Shifting the Burden Fallacy. He doesn't have to show you anything. If YOU think that the video is false/misleading/untrustworthy, then YOU need to show that it is.

Stop evading. Address the contents of the video.

 

Guessing by the exclamation points and random capitalization? Probably not no.

1. Debate- a means in which people communicate their beliefs in an organized manner.
2. facts- what kinds of facts are you talking about? Please be more specific.
3. The organized means of validating one's arguments.

I am okay with what I know.

No.

The OP has the burden of making a claim and supporting that claim. I'm asking why we should think that source is a good source, given it's tract record. OP sets common ground, I'm asking the OP to explain why common ground is here, and not somewhere where debate is more likely to happen.

 

There were no exclamation points, and the capitalization was me mimicking you, as you capitalized those words in those places. You are insulting yourself here.

Fine with me.

Debates are formal. What is happening here is not formal. What is happening here is a discussion, not a debate.

You are the one who used the word, so are you saying that you don't know how you used it?

I'll help you out though... Facts are 'assumed predicate'.

I'll help you out. Logic is defined by its axioms ("rules"). Logic is reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument directly follows from its predicate(s).

Continued evasion. It is clear that you refuse to address the contents of the video. I think that we are done here.

 

Not you, I was responding to sunset. If sunset is done acting childish, I will do the same. Note who I am responding to.

Why would I debate... if I don't accept the common ground? Debate requires common ground. I don't accept the OP's assertion about the video because I want Robert to explain why I should trust Daily Caller.

Doesn't answer my question but okay. Nice try. I need to know how you understand 'facts' and how you are using it before I can define it so we can both be on the same ground. It's how we establish common ground.

Unless it's inductive or abductive logic. In that case if the premise is true then the conclusion is likely true.

Bye. You have never in any of conversations ever attempted common ground. I have no reason to argue with someone who doesn't care about establishing common ground for building off of.

 

You responded to me. Note who you are responding to.

He doesn't need to explain anything to you. You need to explain why you believe the video to be manipulated or otherwise untrustworthy. Saying "because Daily Caller shared it" is not an acceptable response. You can dismiss Daily Caller all you want, but that is not addressing the video itself.

You are not arguing. You are incessantly whining about Daily Caller. That has nothing to do with the video. It is obvious that you refuse to discuss the matter.

 

Bye. You said we are done here, so we are done here. Bye.

 

Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks everywhere...