Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThirdPartyView
No, what you are supposed to do is present both sides of the case (as there is another side that you are trying to 'defeat', afterall), but focus on the strengths of your side (or at the very least acknowledge that the other side exists and try to tear down their argumentation). Also, you are not supposed to intentionally call every opponent a fighter has faced as horrible if that is not true, just to 'get over' your point. Here's his opening post:
Calling Schemling, Baer and Bradddock 'sorry ass'? Calling Max Baer 'old' when he was 26? Max Schmeling was 'old' at 33? Jim Braddock 'sucked'? We can go on and on with his faults, but the point is simple:
Animal Squables was not engaging in a true debate. He was basically calling every achievement of Louis' shit, and therefore he was a horribly overrated fighter with no chin. I don't see how this post wasn't inflammatory and flame baiting material.
|
when john kerry and george bush debated,kerry always said the US went in alone ,he never mentioned the other contries that were there in token amounts, as he was trying to make his point that the U.S should have got U.N support. he never mentioned the other countries .and these are the biggest debates in the world.(see where i am going on the subject of debates ?)
while i agree he debated in very poor taste,the end of his arguement was that louis was not among the very elite in hw champs,his sole purpose was not to bash a fighter or make insults such as someone saying ortiz has a big head
his thread was louis is overrated,not louis or his oppenents are a piece of ****