It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apalling argumentative skills

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Just thought I'd like to point something out I've noticed on the 9/11 threads. I've sen all of the notifications about how the section is under close staff scrutiny, and have personally read some hate filled attacks on people, but I wanted to talk more in depth about this.

A little background on me is that I am currently an assistant collegiate debate coach, and I have researched and participated in debate and argumentation for around 8 years. Having said that, I would just like to say how sad I am to see how petty and condescending people can be on these threads.

But I'm not here to yell at anyone. Instead I would like to offer up some advice to the people that are perhaps engaged in this behavior. If you really want to try to convince someone of your argument, you should be as respectful as possible to that person. Note, this goes to people on both sides of the isle.

I personally don't believe the official story of 9/11, but I am very open minded and am more than willing to listen to other opinions. After all, I like hopefully most people on ATS, am here in search of the truth, not to push an agenda. At the same time, I would also like to help others learn about my opinions, and the research that I have done. Because of that, I do not have an antagonistic view toward anybody on here.

Having said that, I'm not saying its just people that don't agree with me that are uniquely engaging in this negative argumentative style. To an extent, I think were all guilty to some degree, and should try to be more civil.

Now I'm no saint, and have probably got a little to heated in the past, but generally I try to genuinely hear out everyone, and to respond in a polite manner. I noticed the terms "truther" or "sheeple" being used in a condescending manner, and other personal insults being levied. These ad homs only turn me off from the overall message of whatever the poster was trying to say, even if it was good information.

If you believe the official story or lean that way, you probably think the people on the other side of the isle have been misled, or aren't privy to information you know. Conversely, people that don't believe the story think that people that don't agree with them are being brainwashed by mainstream sources, or whatever. Either way, its plain to see that generally no one is a bad person, and all parties should have a vested interest in convincing those there arguing with, so theres no hatred needed.

If you think a person is just a troll, don't respond to them, or be polite if you do. Trust me, most of the people that actually want the truth and are reasonable will probably recognize this too.

Lastly, I would just like to say that I personally have three friends that refuse to listen to me about 9/11, because they have dealt with smug, better than thou people in the past on the issue, so it really does make a difference. Personal attacks not only do nothing to help prove your point, they can in fact convince people your wrong.




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Any discussion on anything non-mainstream takes a lot of conviction to even follow through with after 10 minutes.

To some, a disbelief of or confrontation of their government/systems that they assume are a higher power, is not possible.

Some people actually put so much (or more) faith in the system they live in/under that it would be like showing them that quotes from the bible are actually defamatory to mankind--an impossibility.

Under that denial/spell, people with argue tooth and nail for a cause that is beyond their comprehension. It is like a wife who believes her husband would ever cheat on her. DENIAL sometimes keeps some of us so under a false sense of safety and stability, it (for some) is necessary for them to survive.

How people argue is a different story. It depends on how dedicated they are to any given cause or belief. Some give little argument at all in hopes that others will do it for them, others argue even though they have no facts.

So sometimes you have to learn to walk away from a confrontation to those that do not believe (in one fact or another). For some it takes a national newstory (from a trusted source) or 25 of their closest friends or relatives to come to the conclusion (thanks to peer/follower mentality) to wake someone up to reality.

I don't care for some methods of arguement, but as long as people discuss it, it is good for everyone involved.



[edit on 21-7-2009 by suzque66]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by suzque66
 


Exactly
, i`ve been proved wrong many times by competent debunking, when this happens I have no qualms whatsoever - pick myself up, dust down, and go again. It`s times when you prove something and your source normally some high ranking random official get`s the obligatory character defamation etc, this get`s my back up more than is deemed healthy lol.

And @ the OP love your signature
.

[edit on 16/07/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


I don't understand why this thread is being so closely scrutinised by the staff. I do however acknowledge that the premise of the thread probably warrants some level of observation, like any other thread, but it has to be purely because of the sensitivity of the subject at hand.

OK, OP you raise some interesting, but somewhat obvious points that most members on ATS are familiar with, especially in the 9/11 threads.

I personally refrain from posting on any thread attempting to prove any amount of evidence to either point toward the validity of the 'offical' story or the 'conspiracy'. As far as my inclination sways, it's firmly on the truth seeking side. I simply to do not accept the official publicised story purely because it didn't measure correctly in my opinion. But that's not to say I believe in the conspiracy theory 100% either. I make my own assessments based on what we know from science, and the evidence collected therein. The countless video footage available in favour of the conspiracy is equally as guilty of misleading the viewer because in this digital age almost anything is possible, and 99.99% of us cannot undeniably prove whether original footage or information has been tampered with unless we ourselves did the tampering.

I apologise, I'm digressing...

A logical, rational response isn't apparent in everyone. Admittingly, this is fundamentally a pyschological thing - and one that touches on the nature / nurture debate, wouldn't you agree? A well educated person, a person whos field of knowledge and expertise can substantiate their opinion far more than that of someone with lesser knowledge and experience doesn't necessarily give them a more credible opinion. A person's attributes, traits and persona all come into the mix, however educated one might me. In many instances, one might have the ability to argue or debate with diligence purely because of their nature as a person, whereas others might not -and therefore refute or reject any information that does not (as you say) either fill their criteria or comes as familiar to them.

To conclude on my part, I more than agree with the points you raise and I find the contribution to these threads equally as fascinating as the matter being discussed.

A star for you chap!



[edit on 21-7-2009 by BAZ752]

[edit on 21-7-2009 by BAZ752]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by suzque66
Any discussion on anything non-mainstream takes a lot of conviction to even follow through with after 10 minutes.

To some, a disbelief of or confrontation of their government/systems that they assume are a higher power, is not possible.

Some people actually put so much (or more) faith in the system they live in/under that it would be like showing them that quotes from the bible are actually defamatory to mankind--an impossibility.


Brushing everyone off who disagrees with your position as "someone who puts too much faith in the system" is an intellectually lazy, "one size fits all" explanation meant more to rationalize why the truthers are having so much difficulty getting the mainstream public to accept their conspiracy scenarios, than anything else. It's akin to some self-perceived macho guy saying, "well, she must be a lesbian" to rationalize why a woman won't go out with him, to avoid having to face the ugly truth that he's really a putz.

No, the fact is, if the truthers want to convince us mainstream public then we need to have actual FACTS to back the claim up. Not innuendo, not five degrees of separation Kevin Bacon games, not cute internet flicks made by college students in the dorm room, not "undisclosed secret intelligence reports from anonymous sources", but actual FACTS. How about an insider coming forward to spill the beans? How about even one of the 50,000 or so people who worked in WTC witnessing seeing strange devices planted throughout the structure before the attack? How about documenting how the 9/11 commission report is lying to us?

Like most rational people, I have a set level of acceptability where, if you present enough evidence to meet that level, i can accept the scenario as legitimate. To date, the truthers have been horribly dearth in providing anything even remotely resembling evidence. It's as if they demand we need to believe these conspiracy stories FIRST in mindless obedience, which then will allow us to accept the innuendo, the five degrees of separation Kevin Bacon games, the cute internet flicks made by college students in the dorm room, and the "undisclosed secret intelligence reports from anonymous sources" as credible evidence.

I'm sorry, but this ploy didn't work on me when the religious cults tried it so it's certainly not going to work on me when the truthers try it.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Well said, Dave.

This thread is a nice change of pace for this forum.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


I loved reading your post. But if you have a number of exchanges with certain people on the forum you will find their 'smugness' is the ONLY thing they really have going for their case, ie they are arrogant that only one set of people is always right, and the other set of people is always wrong. It doesn't matter if you can pin them down on points that they "don't understand," they will still have faith in their preferred group of people. Which is the same as saying they do not really think for themselves.

Not trying to pass judgment, just observations I have made.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You stereotype "truthers" and say they all have the same methodology, and someone gives you a star. Proof beyond proof of what the OP is saying.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   


Brushing everyone off who disagrees with your position as "someone who puts too much faith in the system" is an intellectually lazy, "one size fits all" explanation meant more to rationalize why the truthers are having so much difficulty getting the mainstream public to accept their conspiracy scenarios, than anything else.


I'm not even refering to conspiracy or theories of such. I am talking about anyone who even believes there is actually a bona fide free press, governement, television (in general) anymore. To some, even the concept of suspecting the world around them is not what it seems would dampers their comfort zone.

Even some of the ex-hippy babyboomers who once enjoyed George Carlin albums have forgotten what words he used to say-- that once echoed in our ears. Sometimes it is less painful to admit that materialism won out and there is less shame in denial when one turns a blind eye to things that in youth may have caused distress enough to even bother to be shocked.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
You stereotype "truthers" and say they all have the same methodology, and someone gives you a star. Proof beyond proof of what the OP is saying.


All right, then, I invite you to prove me wrong.

I've talked to many, many, MANY self declared members of the truth movement, and I have yet to meet ONE truther who actually read the 9/11 commission report. It would seem to me that anyone claiming to be doing "honest research" would look at BOTH sides of the argument, to see which side has the better credibility, while anyone claiming it's a pack of lies it would see it as their responsibility to read it to be able to identify what those lies exactly are. My philosophy is that the truth doesn't have to run and hide from falsehood. It's falsehood that has to run and hide from the truth.

So tell me, did YOU read the 9/11 commission report?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzque66
I'm not even refering to conspiracy or theories of such. I am talking about anyone who even believes there is actually a bona fide free press, governement, television (in general) anymore. To some, even the concept of suspecting the world around them is not what it seems would dampers their comfort zone.


I'm not sure what you mean by, free press, here. The press certainly is free I.E. not controlled by the gov't, but it's likewsie the case they cater to the public appetite, and the public they cater to seems to be the ones with the intelligence of a bag of hammers.

Yeah, we know every flipping thing about Michael Jackson, his plastic surgery fetish, and that doctor who may/may not have murdered him from gross negligence, but IN THE MEANTIME as we speak one of the robots NASA sent to Mars is sinking in a sandtrap and NASA has been tryign to figure out how to get it out.

Which then, is real and which only has the veneer of beign real news?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 



Just thought I'd like to
little trouble w/ your opening i guess.


I would just like to say how sad I am to see how petty and condescending people can be on these threads.
i'm not real sure about something here.are you saying that most of the ats' ers on either side,of the 911 debate.should be concerned, that
they have made some assistant collegiate debate coach(of around 8 yrs]sad. no wonder your advice is to just walk away.
is this a fulltime occupation for you? if so ,it sounds like a dead end job.





[edit on 21-7-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I'm not sure what you mean by, free press, here. The press certainly is free I.E. not controlled by the gov't, but it's likewsie the case they cater to the public appetite, and the public they cater to seems to be the ones with the intelligence of a bag of hammers.


I am talking about even the little/local events, not just big CNN stories (actual news, not movie star attractions du jour). Not only governments stop or contain press stories.

For example, last year two cops (high up in a force) are found dead, gunshots, in their privately owned vehicle. News is all over that like hounds. Suspicion flying--there must be a cop killer about.

Days later, the forensic team discovered it was a murder suicide and the couple (both married to other people) were actually having an affair and I guess the male broke it off with the female and she shot him then herself.

All of a sudden, no more press. Stopped in its tracks. Quiet funerals, done deal, nothing more about it.

Tragedy yes, but if this was an average couple, in the average suburbs the story would go on endlessly for weeks.

its the little things...stories swept away so that certain people don't look bad.

We see it every day in small towns where the local sheriff perhaps played Mister bad touch with someone he shouldn't have or any other corrupt behaviour. City employees (despite being connected to or socializing with the local press employees) should not have such powers to persuade or dictate what gets printed and what doesn't. When such people are entrusted with a valuable employed position which included sensitive situations, you have to wonder how much effort went into or how seriously their mental abilities were under duress..and how that effected perhaps one, several or any cases at all.

The press stopped asking questions long ago. It seems everything is too scripted (telling us what we want to hear) instead of any truth (including the unnecessary movie star trash talk within mainstream media--that used to be restricted to ragmags).



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jprophet420
You stereotype "truthers" and say they all have the same methodology, and someone gives you a star. Proof beyond proof of what the OP is saying.


All right, then, I invite you to prove me wrong.



www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There's no level of evidence YOU would accept that is possible for any of US to deliver. We don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend, or really any money at all as far as I'm concerned, we've never had authority to look at any of the debris, or even the buildings' structural documentation.

Tell me what you would want, as proof, that is possible without any of those things?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
this may not be in responset 911 but i have a more pressing issue of
a satelite voice transmitter similar to a fm boyscout voicetransmitter aimed at me. It tracks on to passing cars and anyone wearing a headset. Does anyone know how to stop such a device? I have tried various government agencys with no help at all particulay the fcc which doesnt investigae.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So tell me, did YOU read the 9/11 commission report?


A commission set up by people hand picked by Bush to head it under jurisdictionally introduced new legislation which included the absence of - 503 first responders, the denial of false statements by Norad, gross incompetence by Norad - sending Jets in the completely wrong direction.

Bush stating he saw the 1st plane crash hit the tower, they still to this day state fire made the twin towers collapse and FEMA does not know how Building 7 collapsed, suspicious stock market investment investigations still going on. Video, audio, eye witness accounts, seismograph readings, all depicting various explosions and pointing towards CD`s completely overlooked.

Unresolved issues with flight 93, certain tests on the steel - neglected, and so much more.

Reading the commission report is akin to asking the Gestapo who was responsible for setting fire to the Reichstag building.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 


Dear OP, I'd like to respond to your thread beyond the context of the 911 board as I rarely post here.

First, thanks for reminding me why I never participated in college debate activities.

Second, are you sure 'Argumentative Skills' is an appropriate title? (As opposed to Debate Skills)

Third, this is an internet discussion forum, much different than a live podium opposing smack-down. Inasmuch as we all enjoy the equal anonymity afforded by the veil of screen names and Avatars, these exchanges are the battle-ground and words and logic are our only weapon. We are not afforded the "live" experience offered by face-to-face debate, posture, eye contact, body language, timing, delivery, tone and poker faces. There is no clear winner selected by non partisan judges.

And while I agree that civility and decorum should be paramount, I personally enjoy the intensity of a heated discussion which can often get feisty.

In my opinion, the rules of collegiate debate share few commonalities to the passionate sometimes heated exchanges of this forum. I am not here for niceties or honing my etiquette skills.

I enjoy the unique blend of role-playing, anger management, sarcasm and logic presented here. Governed by the high standards of moderation and T & C enforcement. It ain't Vanilla Ice cream and Martha Stewart, and I'm thankful for that.

Of course, I am probably being a "troll" as you call it.

Regards...KK


[edit on 21-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
No on likes a fence sitter, apologist - it is the most depressing thing to ever encroach upon society - civil, well mannered considered debate with the respect to agree to disagree - it just means nothing gets done, no one gets angry, there is no emotion - your thread is pretentious and tiresome -

Finally - I find nothing more ignorant and mind numbing than organised debates - they bear zero significance to any topic - ESPECIALLY US COLLEGE debates - utterly insignificant intellectual event horizons which serve no better purpose than self congratulatory intellectual impudicity -

I have a great and profound distaste for the assumed intellectual rigour of those who are obviously without grounds for consideration due to their considerable lack of considered thought and, EVEN WORSE, their assumed right to equal consideration and legitimacy - sorry - but morons are morons - stupidity is stupidity and asinine logic is the moronic intellectual substrate that it is and will be afforded the appropriate consideration it deserves - either none, or the condescending reproach which only a lengthy foray into academia and considered logic affords -

Thanks for taking up my time .......



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I am not here for niceties or honing my etiquette skills.

I enjoy the unique blend of role-playing, anger management, sarcasm and logic presented here.


Notice how you mention logic separately from "role-playing, anger management, sarcasm."

My favorite kind of exchange is one that is logical, not emotional, and in fact no passions staining it at all if possible. So we're at odds on that one too.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join