It has to think that white on others racism is a top priority in the Untited Sates.
Who should take on a self identified Nazi and do the best?
Online debate, one on one. Minimal ad hominem allowed.
Nominate one self described left winger from here who thinks racism is important to debate a Nazi
-
Karha of Honor
- Captain
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:46 pm
-
BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11637
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Nominate one self described left winger from here who thinks racism is important to debate a Nazi
Minimum ad hominem = kids gloves.
..What mirror universe?
-
Karha of Honor
- Captain
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:46 pm
-
Darth Wedgius
- Captain
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:43 pm
Re: Nominate one self described left winger from here who thinks racism is important to debate a Nazi
Two quick points:
First, and pardon me to those who already know this, which might be all of you, but I've seen this mis-used a lot. Ad hominem as a fallacy isn't just an attack "you're stupid." Ad hominem is when a point is dodged in favor of an attack against the presenter. A simple form would be, "You're wrong because you're stupid."
In its trickier (and more common) forms there are exchanges like:
"We can't raise taxes without depressing the economy too much" being met by, "You're just greedy!" The person might be greedy or might not be, and it may or may not be possible to raise taxes without depressing the economy too much, but the one has nothing to do with the other.
My second point, I think "ad hominems" (in the meaning of just insulting each other, not as a fallacy) should be allowed if in the form of iambic pentameter. It'll add class.
First, and pardon me to those who already know this, which might be all of you, but I've seen this mis-used a lot. Ad hominem as a fallacy isn't just an attack "you're stupid." Ad hominem is when a point is dodged in favor of an attack against the presenter. A simple form would be, "You're wrong because you're stupid."
In its trickier (and more common) forms there are exchanges like:
"We can't raise taxes without depressing the economy too much" being met by, "You're just greedy!" The person might be greedy or might not be, and it may or may not be possible to raise taxes without depressing the economy too much, but the one has nothing to do with the other.
My second point, I think "ad hominems" (in the meaning of just insulting each other, not as a fallacy) should be allowed if in the form of iambic pentameter. It'll add class.
