- 23 Jul 2009 10:37
#13103277
I have consistently put forward evidence for my argument, and I demolished your own 'evidence' as factually inaccurate and logically unsound. I have put forward a fairly nuanced view (that while the British empire was not without 'sin', it was still the better option compared to Nazi Germany), where you have simply blamed propaganda and heaped up contradictions in the hope of satisfying one tendency or another. If we want to talk about empty, one need only look at the sham of your posts.
Let's look at your (hopefully) final contribution:
Facts and events? Why actually disprove those when you can lazily dismiss them without basis and hide behind a smokescreen, or perhaps a curtain-patchwork of old ideologies. And how dare I submit reasons for my disagreement! It's just not fair to disagree with someone just because they are demonstrably wrong and not a little bit belligerent. Don't tell me to stick to the topic, that's trolling. The only thing you have missed Qatz is your usual failed tactic of pointing to my status as a moderator and crying victim.
Posting with quality mind while dealing with you Qatz would be like pearls before swine. You never deal with the topic at hand, you ignore evidence that is contray to your world view and retreat leaving nothing by nonsense in your wake. I don't post to 'win' while dealing with you Qatz, because we all lose when we descend to your level of discourse.
I completely agree with Einherjer about how arguing sentence-by-sentence can kill the essence of a debate. It's intellectually empty, and is the tactic of someone who wants to "win" a debate without actually saying anything.
I have consistently put forward evidence for my argument, and I demolished your own 'evidence' as factually inaccurate and logically unsound. I have put forward a fairly nuanced view (that while the British empire was not without 'sin', it was still the better option compared to Nazi Germany), where you have simply blamed propaganda and heaped up contradictions in the hope of satisfying one tendency or another. If we want to talk about empty, one need only look at the sham of your posts.
Let's look at your (hopefully) final contribution:
What point? What "actual events?" This sentence is a fragment that doesn't relate to the main body of the argument we were having. It's just soft trolling, really. "I disagree because..." **add reason if necessary.**
Facts and events? Why actually disprove those when you can lazily dismiss them without basis and hide behind a smokescreen, or perhaps a curtain-patchwork of old ideologies. And how dare I submit reasons for my disagreement! It's just not fair to disagree with someone just because they are demonstrably wrong and not a little bit belligerent. Don't tell me to stick to the topic, that's trolling. The only thing you have missed Qatz is your usual failed tactic of pointing to my status as a moderator and crying victim.
Posting with quality mind while dealing with you Qatz would be like pearls before swine. You never deal with the topic at hand, you ignore evidence that is contray to your world view and retreat leaving nothing by nonsense in your wake. I don't post to 'win' while dealing with you Qatz, because we all lose when we descend to your level of discourse.
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]