CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Hillary is a LIAR !
Clinton Says She ‘Misspoke’ About Dodging Sniper Fire
BLUE BELL, Pa. — As part of her argument that she has the best experience and instincts to deal with a sudden crisis as president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently offered a vivid description of having to run across a tarmac to avoid sniper fire after landing inBosnia as first lady in 1996.Yet on Monday, Mrs. Clinton admitted that she “misspoke” about the episode — a concession that came after CBS News showed footage of her walking calmly across the tarmac with her daughter, Chelsea, and being greeted by dignitaries and a child.Mrs. Clinton corrected herself at a meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News editorial board; she did not explain why she had misspoken, but only admitted it and then offered a less dramatic description.
Mrs. Clinton said she had been told “that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire,” not that actual shots were being fired.
Yeah, dude, as a troll, you're really not succeeding. Stating things that are clearly not true and nonsensical will not infuriate your opponents in any way.
Ah, well I was trying to use 'infuriate' in terms of an extreme reaction, which is absolutely what trolls are looking for. They want to get entertainment from what they create. If they infuriate their opponent, they have succeeded. The goal of the opponent is then to infuriate the troll by refusing to be infuriated.
"Extreme reaction tends to be the result of someone trolling another, and therefore is the reason why trolls troll."
^That's me quoting your subconscious thought process and other's . Lol.
Oh oh oh and "Saying nonsensical things is what constitutes trolling." Lololol.
So simple minded, you people.
The primary purpose of trolls, is to deceive, that is all.
Oh lemme try and guess what you're gonna think next, "Durrrr. He's calling me names, he's just trying to make me mad.".
No, sir and/or mam, I'm simply making a point.
"Nah ah, I'm intelligent. I can tell what you're doing and know what your purpose is. Cuz I'm psychic"
Sir and/or mam, to determine what someone is up to, you must first be aware of that someone's psychology. But if that someone is constantly being deceitful how is it that you can discern what is and what isn't intrinsic to that someone's psychology?
You are belligerent, and more often than not I'm not a fan of that. So when I saw you being belligerent towards someone regarding the concept of "trolling" and its various forms, I figured I would take part in one myself. Based on the three rapid fire and somewhat defensive responses, I'd say it worked.
Your belligerence is more of an objective fact rather than a subjective observation. Regardless, I don't actually think that said belligerence is evidence of you trolling. The entire purpose of claiming such was, in fact, "trolling".
I don't actually think that said belligerence is evidence of your trolling
This isn't what I was claiming to be your actual belief.
It is your subjective observation that my behavior is belligerent. If it isnt just a subjective observation, then explain how you objectively determined that my behavior is belligerent.
Once again, claiming that I'm something that you actually believe I am or stating a fact, isn't trolling, because there isn't no deception involved.
It is your subjective observation that my behavior is belligerent. If it isnt just a subjective observation, then explain how you objectively determined that my behavior is belligerent.
Calling it objective was a joke.
Regardless, I was referring to your belligerence is proof of trolling, with trolling being the actual claim. Demonstrating that you were being belligerent (aggressive) is pretty easy and self evident, even to you based on your posts. Claiming that said belligerence was evidence that you were trolling obviously was not. You are mistakenly putting the emphasis on belligerence, not trolling. The irony comes into play by trolling you with claims of trolling. God I hate that term.
Oh. If that's the case, then you failed at trolling. Lol.
And irony. xD
Demonstrating that you were being belligerent (aggressive) is pretty easy and self evident, even to you based on your posts.
Didn't you just say that calling it objective was a joke? How can you demonstrate that I was being belligerent then? Lol
I admit to being abrasive, not aggressive. So what makes you think that what you believe to be belligerent, is evident to me?
Or are you still joking? Lol. I ain't even mad , trust me. I find this all humorous and empowering.
God I hate that term
Indication of emotional inclination. People with emotional inclination tend to be terrible when it comes to reasoning, but great when it comes to fallacious reasoning.
Ah, now I remember you! You're good old mister Humpty Dumpty, with the "Words mean exactly what I want them to mean" mentality.
I'm sorry, but I gave you two primary definitions from two of the most circulated English dictionaries in existence, and you responded by giving me a video on a form of irony I wasn't even employing (Not all irony is situational irony).
There are three types of irony, my belligerent friend: Verbal, Dramatic, and Situational. I had employed verbal irony, which is defined the way I have previously cited.
Unless you are that special kind of person that doesn't accept definitions that you haven't created :P Then it might be somewhat troubling. Like the apparently non-valid definitions of verbal irony provided by those pesky dictionaries.
Except that it's just some random guy with no apparent credentials.
Also, given the many sources I've read, verbal irony is simply stating the opposite of what's meant and sarcasm is the same, but with mockery
Your post was to mock and therefore is sarcasm.
Also, the video doesn't change the fact that saying "The irony of this interaction is quite delicious." Is synonymous with saying that "I find this situational irony quite delicious".
Politicians incorporate it into their political communication, whether it is through deliberate or creative intention we hear their interpretations of the truth that depend upon what advantage may be gained at the time.
Fact Check determines if political statements are correct and gives them a rating. It is quite interesting so see that there is quite a wide variance in the results
