Do you know of debate threads where most of one side is presenting substance and the other, not so much?

Fluther

^ True. You’ve ignored substantive responses and only responded with bluster so many times I’ve lost count.

Plus that time you pretended that some basement dweller’s self-published screed was a peer reviewed science article.

Hillary Clinton’s emails were on Hunter Biden’s computer, and left in Bengazi.
or some similar distraction

Both Reddit and Twitter can be that, based upon who you and/or what topics you are following.

@Irukandji I have blustered, that is true. However most times I am the only one providing facts, citations to back up those facts, and applying logic. I am met with only ridicule, personal attacks, efforts to deflect based on the claim you don’t like the source of the article I cite. So which of those two sides is unsubstantive?

^^ 99.999% of the time…YOURS!!!

Even the mods say your citations are useless!!!

@LadyMarissa They have had issues with a citation or two in the past. But in pretty much every case I have found the exact same information in a more “acceptable” source. But answers like that are exactly what I am talking about. Go after the source instead of the substance means it is a deflection. If the information I am putting out is complete garbage, it should be very easy to show it to be garbage…the information is wrong, outdated, opinion, whatever. To just say you don’t like a source because it leans right is deflection. But when all you do is say “that’s ridiculous!” that isn’t disputing the information. It is voicing an opinion which you are entirely entitled to do, but it is far more insubstantial.

Tell you what…if you really want to be fair, go back to any of the threads where I am very active. Look with honest eyes at who is showing evidence, who is giving citations and who isn’t. And see how those that respond to the citations are doing it. Are they debating the substance or are they trying to discredit the whole thing because they don’t like the source. And if someone gives a citation and I respond to it, am I strictly discounting it because of source or do I take the time to read/watch their citation and respond to what I see?

The problem is one of how you define “substantive”. If someone voices an opinion you agree with, even when it is not backed by any evidence, do you consider that substantive? And if someone disagrees and gives evidence to back up their side of the debate, do you consider that insubstantial?

@seawulf575: I know of many threads where I personally asked you to provide links and you didn’t. In some, when you finally did provide links, they were to right-wing sites with the words “heritage” or “patriot” in the names. Now you are making it sound like you always were willingly providing links, but that is simply not true.

Just to add, when you make a claim (“you” meaning anyone, not just you), it is up to you to provide proof of that claim. It’s not up to other people to disprove your claim. They can, if they want to, but when you post something as fact, and then provide a garbage site as proof, you can’t then expect others to do research proving that your “fact” was not accurate.

@jca2 I don’t always provide links. I get tired of being the only one that is asked to do so. That, too, plays into this question. I DO provide a great many links whereas those that question me do not. That shows which is the more substantive side. And you just showed that you don’t care about substance if the source of a link isn’t one you like.

And trying to claim a garbage site as proof not needing to be rebutted is just another way of saying you have no substance. I have stated here and many other times that you (you as in those that stick at the source) don’t look at the substance, you stop at the source. You are not actually addressing the substance, you are avoiding it. If the substance is garbage, it should be relatively easy to prove it as such. But none of you really do. You mainly stop at claiming the source is bad. Let me remind you that was the claim about the NY Post when they broke the Hunter Biden laptop story. The NY Post makes stuff up, the NY Post is just pandering to Trump…all sorts of claims of discredit the source which were all false. We know them to all be false because the story has been proven to be true.

If the NY Post claimed little green men were dancing naked in the WH rose garden, I’d say that was a bit outlandish. I’d say I’d have to see what the story was. “Anonymous sources say…” or “Pictures have been obtained…” (when the pictures are grainy and look like some kid’s rubber toy left on the lawn) would be keys to showing that to be a false story. The story could be demonstrated to be false in quite a few things because it would be false. But “I don’t believe it” is no more substantive than the story itself.

@seawulf575: Since most people here are not intrerested in substance, according to you, it again makes me wonder why you stay here.

@jca2 Because I am curious how people can twist themselves into knots avoiding facts. It points to an illness in our society that I believe I need to understand better.

@seawulf575 I don’t think that the difference between a substantive answer and a non-substantive answer consists in whether or not it contains a link. There are ways to make a substantive point without trawling the internet for someone who agrees with you. Besides, the ability to provide a link is meaningless if the person providing it is, like you, incapable of distinguishing good sources of information from bad ones. Again, I go back to the time you presented the self-published screed of an avowed racist as if it were a peer reviewed article.

The problem isn’t just that the source was bad, it’s that you either didn’t know or didn’t care that it was bad. And then when I pointed out how bad it was, you either couldn’t understand why it was bad or wouldn’t acknowledge that it was bad. (By the way, I know you saw the answer where I pointed out how bad your “sources” were because you responded to it without actually addressing any of the things I said. Then the mods did you a favor by taking the question down.) It doesn’t matter how many links you provide if they don’t actually count as evidence.

You also spend a lot of time arguing with what appears to be a poorly programmed bot and someone who exists only to be a provocateur. Maybe that’s really the league you’re in, or maybe you’re just looking for some fish in a barrel to avoid real discussion. But you can’t complain about finding yourself in unsatisfying conversations when you actively ignore substantive challenges to your posts and and instead engage primarily with people who clearly aren’t here to have a real discussion.

Alright to change the subject from whatever immature personal attacks are going on above me, you pretty much answered your own question.

”this is about any Q&A site”

… Any site that allows for personal opinion is going to have what you described. Reddit, Facebook, Twitter. It’s all going to have one side being lazy with evidence and actual fact.

@Irukandji You obviously are hung up on one particular citation I gave. But let me ask: are you hung up because you don’t like the guy that did the research and presented it or because the material was untrue? It is exactly the point. Your statements here make me think it was the former. And that is exactly what I mean about insubstantial responses.

So you have to provide a source to be substantive? Not at all. Yet I get asked repeatedly for my sources. They are demanded. Yet none of you seem to have to support your views. What does that say? It tells me that you cannot actually support your views which makes them insubstantial compared to those that are backed up. And even when pressed about your opinion, I have asked specific questions when someone is providing a garbage view to get them to understand how garbage it is. The responses I get are either personal attacks (often) or answers to questions that were not asked…evasion. Is that substantive? According to you it is.

And while we are on your views of substantive, where are you on personal attacks? Do you believe them to be substantive? I answered this original question with a one word answer. You were johnny-on-the-spot to come out with a personal attack on me. Substantive? Or just a weak mind lashing out? I view it as the latter but you are the one that apparently is the sole decision on what is and isn’t substantive. So tell me, is it substantive to attack someone for no apparent reason? With nothing but opinion?

@seawulf575 “You obviously are hung up on one particular citation I gave.”

Not at all. It’s just the quintessential example of your inability to parse information, which speaks to a lack of “facts, citations to back up those facts, and applying logic” in your arguments. And your refusal to respond to the objections I raised at the time speaks to the fact that you aren’t the one bringing substance to debates.

“But let me ask: are you hung up because you don’t like the guy that did the research and presented it or because the material was untrue?”

Because it was untrue, as I demonstrated at the time. The fact that you were bamboozled by a pedophilic Nazi was just icing on the cake.

“So you have to provide a source to be substantive?”

No. We agree on this.

“Yet I get asked repeatedly for my sources.”

Because your claims frequently make reference to “facts” that supposedly exist, so people want to know the basis for your assertions. If you were providing arguments rather than just “somebody somewhere else already proved this,” then you wouldn’t get asked for sources so often. There are different ways to support a view, but you rarely engage in any of them.

“which makes them insubstantial compared to those that are backed up.”

Links to non-data aren’t back up. They’re attempts to obfuscate.

“I have asked specific questions when someone is providing a garbage view to get them to understand how garbage it is. The responses I get are either personal attacks (often) or answers to questions that were not asked…evasion. Is that substantive?”

No. And if you bother to read, I already addressed this. I’ve never said that the people you argue with are all substantive. I specifically mentioned that you avoid a lot of arguments with people who are interested in substantive conversation and instead engage primarily with people who cannot and will not challenge you. You seek out the personal attacks and evasion because it makes you more comfortable than the real debate.

“And while we are on your views of substantive, where are you on personal attacks? Do you believe them to be substantive?”

Actual personal attacks are not substantive. Critiques of a person are not necessarily personal attacks and can be substantive.

“I answered this original question with a one word answer. You were johnny-on-the-spot to come out with a personal attack on me.”

Not a personal attack. An observation that seems to have resonated with many here. And to be fair, I was agreeing with you. Just not in the way you expected.

“Or just a weak mind lashing out?”

See, now this is a personal attack. I have backed up my criticism with specific examples. You, however, are just asserting that I have a weak mind because you don’t like what I say. My responses have been substantive. Yours have been defensive.

“but you are the one that apparently is the sole decision on what is and isn’t substantive.”

Disagreeing with you, giving arguments for why I disagree with you, and not being convinced by the bluster you send back my way is not the same as asserting that only I get to decide what is substantive. Throwing up your hands like this is just a dodge.

“So tell me, is it substantive to attack someone for no apparent reason? With nothing but opinion?”

No, its not. So you should really stop doing it so often.

@Irukandji Got it. You don’t agree with sources you don’t like, you don’t actually present any facts yourself, just opinion you believe is just as good as fact, you attack without provocation and then blame others for the attacks. Does that about sum it up?