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.
Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by oozyism
I am discussing the first post you made & am asking you why you could not just make your point without all the anti american sentiment? Fair question you keep avoiding! Tell us what you really feel. legitimate question & on topic as it has to do with you have written. I can keep asking until I get a reply!
On topic and valid if the thread is a just front for more America bashing!
why you could not just make your point without all the anti american sentiment?
Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by oozyism
I am discussing the first post you made & am asking you why you could not just make your point without all the anti american sentiment? Fair question you keep avoiding! Tell us what you really feel. legitimate question & on topic as it has to do with you have written. I can keep asking until I get a reply!
On topic and valid if the thread is a just front for more America bashing!
Originally posted by oozyism
Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by oozyism
I am discussing the first post you made & am asking you why you could not just make your point without all the anti american sentiment? Fair question you keep avoiding! Tell us what you really feel. legitimate question & on topic as it has to do with you have written. I can keep asking until I get a reply!
On topic and valid if the thread is a just front for more America bashing!
How about you post a productive response rather than personal insults.
How does that sound?
How about you post how we should discuss issues.
That is what the topic is about.
As I said in the OP itself, nonproductive discussion, you are the example.
Originally posted by imperium1984
Also, you claim that:
"You are trying to counter his point, not his evidence which backs his point."
er. no. Actually, a debate/discussion addresses both the point and the evidence.
Proving that the evidence someone has for their point is false, then proves that their point is mere opinion and not seated in any fact.
Also, using opinion as evidence doesn't work. Saying "America is bad because they invaded Iraq for no legitimate reason" is your opinion (I'm not disagreeing with the point, nor am I agreeing with it). I'm simply saying that, to someone, there WAS a legitimate reason.
Legitimacy depends on your standpoint to the situation.
Originally posted by badw0lf
You may fool people who don't know you Oozy, but everyone else sees right through you.
Why you need to bring it out in the open, is a conundrum however - But I'll just watch and see.
edit on 20/12/2010 by badw0lf because: (no reason given)
Your point My example is anti American sentiment. Your evidence to back this point ??? What constitutes as anti American sentiment?
"America is bad"
"America is bad because it invaded Iraq for no legitimate reasons (false reasons), and risked millions of lives in the process"
I will lay the un-constructive counter first. An Example of un-constructive counter would be: ("Iraq was bad before US invaded and occupied it". ---->Choosing this one "You are a terrorist sympathizer for making such points" "You are anti-American and anti-Western not to mention anti-Semite" "You are an idiot")
" US is bad"
Pointing out that Saddam was worse, is not constructive.
Originally posted by imperium1984
reply to post by oozyism
You just agreed with my point that countered what you wrote!
HAHAHHAHAAHAA!
You really are special.
Originally posted by Crutchley29
oozyism is the WORST poster on ATS by a long shot, even in a forum of conspiracy theories he's the master at fear mongering and seems to harbor an intense hatred towards the US
Introduction
A huge number of new members have joined ATS, I think it is important to set up a guide to constructive discussion.
Many threads have been trolled, spammed and completely diverted and have become useless considering objectivity.
To change that, I have created this thread to discuss how we can improve our discussion, to help us end threads with conclusions rather than uncertainty.
Point number1 (what is your point)
First you have to understand fully what your point is.
For example, "America is bad".
Point number2 (prove your point)
What do you have to support your point?
What evidence do you have which helped you come to this conclusion?
For example "America is bad because it invaded Iraq for no legitimate reasons (false reasons), and risked millions of lives in the process".
Point number3 (how to counter constructively)
How can you counter the above assertion constructively?
To help you differentiate between constructive and nonconstructive counter,
I will lay the un-constructive counter first.
An Example of un-constructive counter would be:
("Iraq was bad before US invaded and occupied it". ---->Choosing this one
"You are a terrorist sympathizer for making such points"
"You are anti-American and anti-Western not to mention anti-Semite"
"You are an idiot")
....
Why is the above nonconstructive counter? Because it takes the focus away from the original point, hence," US is bad".
Pointing out that Saddam was worse, is not constructive.
An example of a constructive counter would be to ask certain questions regarding the OP:
"Does US invading Iraq for illegitimate reasons, make US bad?"
"Is US defined by just one small portion of history"?
"Is US defined by just one action?"
"How can US be bad if it is also good?"
You are trying to counter his point, not his evidence which backs his point.
-If the evidence is clearly false, then it is understandable to concentrate on the evidence rather than the point.
-If the evidence is uncertain, tell him how the evidence is uncertain, and leave it at that, or ask him for other evidence which backs his point.
-If the evidence is true, concentrate on the point, rather than the evidence.
Point number4 (If evidence backing his point is true)
If it is true, then concentrate on the point, rather than trying to divert attention.
For Example, "Yes US invaded Iraq for illegitimate reasons, but does that make the U.S. bad"?
For Example, "US has taken a lot of actions which are regarded as good, does that mean US is good using the same logic?"
Point number5 (conclusion)
1. If the opposition is correct, that US also has good qualities, along side the bad ones, then the point of the OP is flawed, and the discussion has come to a conclusion (even if the evidence is true).
In the above sense, the conclusion is, that yes US has done wrong, but that doesnt make the US wrong, the world is not black and white. In the same manner, US has done right, but that doesnt make the US right, the world is not black and white.
----------------------------------------------------
Add your thoughts regarding a constructive discussion which doesn't lead to the path of trolling, spamming, clear off-topicism etc.
What are we suppose to take in to consideration when we are discussing an issue?
The point?
The evidence backing the point?
etc
Thanks for your patience
Originally posted by imperium1984
this guy gives me a headache.
Introduction A huge number of new members have joined ATS, I think it is important to set up a guide to constructive discussion. Many threads have been trolled, spammed and completely diverted and have become useless considering objectivity. To change that, I have created this thread to discuss how we can improve our discussion, to help us end threads with conclusions rather than uncertainty. Point number1 (what is your point) First you have to understand fully what your point is. For example, "America is bad". Point number2 (prove your point) What do you have to support your point? What evidence do you have which helped you come to this conclusion? For example "America is bad because it invaded Iraq for no legitimate reasons (false reasons), and risked millions of lives in the process". Point number3 (how to counter constructively) How can you counter the above assertion constructively? To help you differentiate between constructive and nonconstructive counter, I will lay the un-constructive counter first. An Example of un-constructive counter would be: ("Iraq was bad before US invaded and occupied it". ---->Choosing this one "You are a terrorist sympathizer for making such points" "You are anti-American and anti-Western not to mention anti-Semite" "You are an idiot") .... Why is the above nonconstructive counter? Because it takes the focus away from the original point, hence," US is bad". Pointing out that Saddam was worse, is not constructive. An example of a constructive counter would be to ask certain questions regarding the OP: "Does US invading Iraq for illegitimate reasons, make US bad?" "Is US defined by just one small portion of history"? "Is US defined by just one action?" "How can US be bad if it is also good?" You are trying to counter his point, not his evidence which backs his point. -If the evidence is clearly false, then it is understandable to concentrate on the evidence rather than the point. -If the evidence is uncertain, tell him how the evidence is uncertain, and leave it at that, or ask him for other evidence which backs his point. -If the evidence is true, concentrate on the point, rather than the evidence. Point number4 (If evidence backing his point is true) If it is true, then concentrate on the point, rather than trying to divert attention. For Example, "Yes US invaded Iraq for illegitimate reasons, but does that make the U.S. bad"? For Example, "US has taken a lot of actions which are regarded as good, does that mean US is good using the same logic?" Point number5 (conclusion) 1. If the opposition is correct, that US also has good qualities, along side the bad ones, then the point of the OP is flawed, and the discussion has come to a conclusion (even if the evidence is true). In the above sense, the conclusion is, that yes US has done wrong, but that doesn't make the US wrong, the world is not black and white. In the same manner, US has done right, but that doesn't make the US right, the world is not black and white. ---------------------------------------------------- Add your thoughts regarding a constructive discussion which doesn't lead to the path of trolling, spamming, clear off-topicism etc. What are we suppose to take in to consideration when we are discussing an issue? The point? The evidence backing the point? etc Thanks for your patience oz
Originally posted by oozyism
Originally posted by imperium1984
this guy gives me a headache.
Did you finally read the OP
Originally posted by Zamini
I can see a lot of people have difficulties with reading and understanding. I see a lot of ego-complexes of a generation raised by tv and computergames...in this thread alone.
It's amazing that, even though you speak the same language, people will go out of their way to not understand you. On a site with a motto: Deny ignorance! This is extremely ironic.
You have people that have lived a comfortable life say to refugees to return to the place they fled. This is extremely insulting and it is the exact opposite of denying ignorance, it is encouraging it. Ever stopped to think that there are specific reasons as to why this is not possible? I just hope for those saying these things that they never have to flee the place they were born for valid reasons. Or how about the people who are saying that a person should get out of a country where they flagship freedom of speech for expressing his views?
I think you overvalued the computing capabilities of certain of posters here Ooz. When people are hellbent on disagreeing with you it is best to simply ignore them, since one ignorant post in a thread is better than a dozen.
Ah well...