COMMENTS:
Voted : yes, that he feels he must resort to censorship hurts his case
If you have to do that, you have lost the debate.
Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh come to mind.
Also George Bush, with his staged 'town hall meetings'.
by mojo on Sun Apr 22, 07 7:44am
[+]
Voted : yes, that he feels he must resort to censorship hurts his case
Means that the censoring party is afraid to have the other side of the story heard.
The truth is a powerful weapon in debate but you can be wrong and still win.
Voted : It Depends
The creditability of ones argument stands on it's own merits.
There's usually an element of partisanship on both sides. If one side resorts to censorship, it may not necessarially mean their argument isn't creditable. Perhaps ones opponent is evasive, spins the issue, is lying, or failed to prove his case but continues to criticize his opponents case.
I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just pointing out situations that may justify censoring a participant.
Voted : yes, that he feels he must resort to censorship hurts his case
It sounds that way.
Herzog can't speak for himself? Let him post as a guest user like you do. Then he...I mean you, can go approve the lies so you won't be exposed as a fraud.
Don't be going around talking smack sabotaging everyones ballots because you can't deal with the fact you got proved a little coward.
^
What happened? I looked at my ballot for a split second last night and it looked full. Now it's not. It would be kind of funny if it suffered the fate of the ballot topic itself. So what gives?
|
