• UN's Ban Ki-moon warns Israel of 'fatal blow' to peace
    72 replies, posted
[QUOTE=laserguided;38693897]You can form your own opinion. I'm not going to sit here and argue over it. I think the Merkava is superior to the Abrams because of its crew safety, armour. Do your own research, form your own opinion.[/QUOTE]You made the claim, you have the burden of proof.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38693897]You can form your own opinion. I'm not going to sit here and argue over it. I think the Merkava is superior to the Abrams because of its crew safety, armour. Do your own research, form your own opinion.[/QUOTE] the merkava is way ahead of the Abrams, we follow our own air defense grid guidelines/networks/technology modeled closely after the Israeli's (they have one of the best in the world) Israel is alot more involved with our military technology then you think
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38693918]You made the claim, you have the burden of proof.[/QUOTE] Its a opinion based on what I've read. I don't care for citing opinions anymore because it turns into a "your readings are invalid because X" and I don't find that type of debate enjoyable.
[QUOTE=SickJits;38693895]He was actually the manager of the Q/C Inspection departments at most of those places clarification: he used really big machines on really expensive pieces to lots of modern military technology to find really really tiny imperfections[/QUOTE] hey sickjits nobody gives a fuck about your anecdotes [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] you're like the kid on the playground whose dad owns xbox and says left 4 dead 3's coming out next year
[QUOTE=laserguided;38693946]Its a opinion based on what I've read. I don't care for citing opinions anymore because it turns into a "your readings are invalid because X" and I don't find that type of debate enjoyable.[/QUOTE]So basically you don't like it when people prove you wrong, so you instead just toss out arguments without backing them up?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38693963]So basically you don't like it when people prove you wrong, so you instead just toss out arguments without backing them up?[/QUOTE] Nope. He doesn't have any sources countering my claim thus I don't feel the need to back up what I said. Prove that I am wrong, it goes both ways.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38693947]hey sickjits nobody gives a fuck about your anecdotes [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] you're like the kid on the playground whose dad owns xbox and says left 4 dead 3's coming out next year[/QUOTE] he does own xbox though
[QUOTE=laserguided;38693988]Nope. He doesn't have any sources countering my claim thus I don't feel the need to back up what I said. Prove that I am wrong, it goes both ways.[/QUOTE]No it doesn't. That's not how the burden of proof works at all. What are you doing? You failed to substantiate your claim at all, and until you provide something to do so, he has no obligation to do anything. He can't refute anything because you have provided nothing to refute. BoP always rests with the affirmative, it is always their responsibility to prove their claim, not the other way around.
Food for thought, the crew has more emergency exits and is more protected due to the engine being in the front. They can also be protected by a a system which takes out incoming RPG's, similar to Arena. [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38694007]No it doesn't. That's not how the burden of proof works at all. What are you doing?[/QUOTE] I'm defying the burden of proof.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694017]I'm defying the burden of proof.[/QUOTE]Then you're a failure of a debater.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38694060]Then you're a failure of a debater.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules in sensationalist headlines.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694017]I'm defying the burden of proof.[/QUOTE] Bullshitting 101.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694069]I'm sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules.[/QUOTE]Its not like these are rules I just made up. This is a long established concept that sits at the very core of debate and is basically the driving force behind the entirety of the field.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694069]I'm sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules in sensationalist headlines.[/QUOTE] Dude, it's a common unwritten rule for debating. Provide a source for your claim when asked to, or you're per-default both wrong [B]AND[/B] a moron.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38694088]Its not like these are rules I just made up. This is a long established concept that sits at the very core of debate and is basically the driving force behind the entirety of the field.[/QUOTE] I can't backup my sources because its based on what I've read/heard/noticed. Its quite clear the Merkava better protects the crew, and is this superior then the Abrams. Abrams does not have a APS, has a rear engine and is getting to outweigh its original purpose to be a fast tank. Its bloated today.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694017] I'm defying the burden of proof.[/QUOTE] literally lmao-ing what's the point of posting then
[QUOTE=Van-man;38694097]Dude, it's a common unwritten rule for debating. Provide a source for your claim when asked to, or you're per-default both wrong [B]AND[/B] a moron.[/QUOTE] Prove it.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694146]I can't backup my sources because its based on what I've read/heard/noticed. Its quite clear the Merkava better protects the crew, and is this superior then the Abrams. Abrams does not have a APS, has a rear engine and is getting to outweigh its original purpose to be a fast tank. Its bloated today.[/QUOTE] So the abrams does what its owners want it to do, the merkava wants its owners to do what it wants to do... Abrams is worse tank, yep. No objective measure what~so~ever~ [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;38694154]Prove it.[/QUOTE] He's "defying the burden of proof"
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694146]I can't backup my sources because its based on what I've read/heard/noticed. Its quite clear the Merkava better protects the crew, and is this superior then the Abrams. Abrams does not have a APS, has a rear engine and is getting to outweigh its original purpose to be a fast tank. Its bloated today.[/QUOTE]So its so clearly better that you can't find sources. It's so clear that it is transparent and in-fact invisible.
[QUOTE=scout1;38694170]He's "defying the burden of proof"[/QUOTE] Why thank you.
[QUOTE=scout1;38694170]So the abrams does what its owners want it to do, the merkava wants its owners to do what it wants to do... Abrams is worse tank, yep. No objective measure what~so~ever~ [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] He's "defying the burden of proof"[/QUOTE] Last time I cited my sources it turned into "omg yur source is inferior to my non existent source!". So how about you start citing your source for every single opinion you make no matter the format.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694219]Last time I cited my sources it turned into "omg yur source is inferior to my non existent source!".[/QUOTE] You said you don't have sources.
[QUOTE=scout1;38694225]You said you don't have sources.[/QUOTE] You can't read. I give up and declare victory over this internet argument via the burden of not being laserguided(its a unwritten rule).
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694219]Last time I cited my sources it turned into "omg yur source is inferior to my non existent source!".[/QUOTE] Well if you post a horrible biased source that's not reputable for speaking the truth, expect to defend it. Also providing additional sources that says the same thing and doesn't crosslink each other or otherwise have suspiciously same content is also a good idea, except if they ARE well know & trustworthy news sites. You're new to this debating thing. [QUOTE=laserguided;38694249]You can't read. I give up and declare victory over this internet argument via the burden of not being laserguided(its a unwritten rule).[/QUOTE] Kiddo, go back to elementary school.
[QUOTE=Van-man;38694255]Well if you post a horrible biased source that's not reputable for speaking the truth, expect to defend it. Also providing additional sources that says the same thing and doesn't crosslink each other or otherwise have suspiciously same content is also a good idea, except if they ARE well know & trustworthy news sites. You're new to this debating thing.[/QUOTE] Sources don't have to be reputable news agencies, because most reputable news agencies are extremely dumbed down "RPG? Must be a kaslash".
This argument is going in circles please stop :)
Instead of going on and on about how everyone else is wrong and you're right, you could've cited some sources and avoided this entire debacle. Ok, so the engine in the Merkava is in the front and it has more holes to pop through in the case of an emergency, and it can also have a doo-dad that shoots down RPGs, ok great. But unless you provide some proof to go with your initial statement, you are expecting us to believe a guy who from our point of view might be full of shit. Back yourself up, man.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694262]Sources don't have to be reputable news agencies, because most reputable news agencies are extremely dumbed down "RPG? Must be a kaslash".[/QUOTE] You're right sources for proving a point as truth should be drawn from agencies known for not telling the truth brilliant
[QUOTE=scout1;38694309]You're right sources for proving a point as truth should be drawn from agencies known for not telling the truth brilliant[/QUOTE] Pretty much every major news agency does it because journolists tend to know nothing about weapons and turn to sensationalist buzzwords like "X generation" and "AK-47 type". Its like the BBC consistently having dumbed down tech news because constant use of the word cyber satisfys the majority of readers. [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Deadman;38694299]Instead of going on and on about how everyone else is wrong and you're right, you could've cited some sources and avoided this entire debacle. Ok, so the engine in the Merkava is in the front and it has more holes to pop through in the case of an emergency, and it can also have a doo-dad that shoots down RPGs, ok great. But unless you provide some proof to go with your initial statement, you are expecting us to believe a guy who from our point of view might be full of shit. Back yourself up, man.[/QUOTE] I could have also just said nothing and not provided proof or ammunition for them, but I'm bored. [editline]3rd December 2012[/editline] Plus, I don't even know why people are bothering if they're outraged over my debate skills. What you should be outraged about is the actual article and not Merkava v Abrams, the former which in my opinion is more important by fuck tons. But maybe bumping the thread with meaningless shit actually helps spread the word.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38694017]I'm defying the burden of proof.[/QUOTE] So how about those alts?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.