I would like to propose a new rule in OzPolitic. If a member fails to respond to a counter argument post within 48 hours (and they have logged on during that time), then that person shall be deemed to have lost the argument, and must change his/her point of view and agree with the person with whom he/she argued.

Reasons such as 'this is a stupid example' or 'I'm not going to dignify that question with an answer' or any other evasory reasons are not acceptable reasons to refuse debate or discussion. Either you continue debating or concede defeat;  stalemate is possible if both parties agree.

The foregoing rules shall not apply to any debate or discussion directly relating to a specific person or any details of that person (except with his/her explicit consent).

This is a forum: no idea should be undebatable. If you argue it's undebatable, then this is automatically a concession of defeat, subject to the foregoing paragraph.

Concession of defeat must be clearly stated in the following manner: "I (insert nickname) have lost the argument concerning this topic. I agree with (insert nickname) and have now changed my point of view to agree with (opponent's name)."

Failure to concede defeat openly on this forum shall result in a one-week suspension from the Forum, but no person shall be suspended for more than two weeks in any one month period.

Augie, far too many comments are made on here that are not worthy of debate.

issuevoter wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:



you lose 

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:35pm:


No idea is above is scrutiny. Ultimately, if you feel that a person cannot be reasoned with, then just concede defeat and move on; at least you'll make that person feel better.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:42pm:


Why would i concede defeat when they are clearly wrong?

I prefer to think of it as taking the higher ground.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:


You would be taking the higher ground by being noble. At the end of the day, you don't need to truly believe it; it's only for the purposes of this forum.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:46pm:




my dear sir..... has it occurred to your good self grap had lost complete interest  in your argument and couldnt be bothered...

if you are looking for knock out blows to win any argument   this is the wrong place for you..

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:41pm:


sorry but I disagree.
Firstly, only a teenager declares themselves a 'winner' on an online forum. If you come here to 'win' debates you're in the wrong place. Perhaps you need to find a debate forum? People come here to exchange ideas, discuss options, hear other peoples points of views etc. There are no winners or losers.

Secondly, I may not give enough of a sh1t about your counter argument to bother with a reply. If you need to tell yourself you won that debate, go ahead. I'm pretty sure no one will lose sleep over it.

Thirdly, that crap you wrote about politicians has no relevance here and is a pathetic and rather sad attempt to try and get me to agree with you.

You haven't responded to my post in politics regarding Welfare.   You have 24 hours left or i win (nah nah nah nah nah)

I agree with your argument, Augie. Let's do it.

Starting from now.

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:


that's not a valid argument, just give up and declare me the winner

I see Karnal has declared me the winner.

Right, we'll start after i knock off from work.

I'm choosing to ignore the fact that the conditions of my victory are dependent on the  fulfillment of the hypothesis that i am not accepting begins until after i knock off from work but unless someone can present me with a valid reason why i can't do that, i see no reason why my victory should be challenged.

I propose a rule that Karnal change her sweaty burqa once every three days instead of the current one month.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:


A compelling argument.

Alright, i concede defeat. We'll start now.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 1:51pm:


If he cannot be bothered, then he shouldn't make counter-claims in the first place.

Quote:


John, you managed to convince me about the benefits of on-shore processing, and I admitted that I had changed my point of view and agreed with you. Aussie and Brian Ross have also been successful in convincing me and changing my mind.

How many people on this Forum could ever really admit that?

Ye Grappler could've convinced me of his point of view, and I would've conceded and become more centrist.

I think what I asked, John Smith, was not an unreasonable point of view.

If no one can be convinced of anything or every change their mind, then what's the point?

mothra wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:


Mothra, I'm referring to the specific post I made to Ye Grappler. I'm happy for anyone to take it on. The problem is that no one has so far, and I think I know the reason why.

Because you and I weren't the ones debating, it doesn't apply to you. If you do or say nothing, then it doesn't apply.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:



that's because the arguments I gave you were sound. Whether you agreed or not, my arguments remain sound and your acceptance of it is neither here nor there.

that doesn't mean that I won or that you lost, it's just means you hadn't considered something that I was able to bring to light. Your acceptance of it is merely an indication that you were more open minded than most people on here.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:


only if he cared enough about it to want to convince you.

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:54pm:


So, if he doesn't care, then he shouldn't have responsibly even engaged with me in the first place.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 4:00pm:


Under the new rules, she is still allowed to refute your argument and debate it. If she chooses not to refute it, then she would have to. As far as I'm aware, she has made no attempt to refute your claim.

Caesaraugustus, OzPol is not a place where any weight is given to a declaration of a win.  In fact, you may have noticed how many times buffoons here declare themselves a winner....or 'mark their own home-work' as I often say.  Real validation is not going to happen with a Rule of the kind you propose.....'Whoopeeeeee. I won because he did not reply in time.'

Nah.

Best to demonstrate the quality of what you post by simply posting.....quality.  Over time, others will take a position of respect or total lack of interest or somewhere, anywhere in between.  To use Karnal as an example.  You have to have been here for a while to understand this bloke.  Yeas, its a bloke not a woman. More than half the time, he is taking the piss and it is obvious to those who know what he does.  On other occasions, it is always crystal clear when he is presenting a serious opinion which, in my experience, is always very cogently and credibly argued.  But......he gets no Winner's Crown for it.  He just gets on with being......Karnal.

OzPol does not award 'Winner' medals.  Quite the reverse, if anything.

Cheers.

Karnal has no credibility. His positions change according to party lines.

do you understand the words 'party lines'?

yes.

Auggie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:



like I have already said you are in the wrong place..

that happens on just about every thread sunshine..

some of us get exhausted from arguing and saying the same stoooopid things over and over..

if you think making a rule like this will change people..

you need help..

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:22pm:


to hard? Ok, I'll help you out.

You're not in any position to question others credibility. You're one of the least credible on here.

do you get it yet?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:33pm:



I told you, for you everything is about blaming lefties. If you want an example how about this one from you earlier this arvo

Lefties don't care if people starve to death, as long as they 'save the environment'.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:


you don't think your questioning someones credibility because of how they comment along party lines is hypocrisy? 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 6:01pm:


my position is not at all muddled, even though you appear to be. I'll say it as plainly as I can

Your questioning someone elses credibility for the reasons you gave is hypocritical

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 4:50pm:


Indeed, Ich am just complaining because. I'm over it now. Cheers.

nope.

Be careful about turning feedback into general chat. Never turn it into a shitfight.