As many of you know, I recently penned a piece to correct the eight egregious errors of an inaccurate hit piece on Ron Paul which went so far as to refer to the gentle, even grandfatherly Congressman from Texas as “an abomination who should be cast out of decent society.”
The author of that piece — Calvin Freiburger — ended up responding with another piece of his own (There’s the link, Calvin — no accusing me of keeping your rebuttals under wraps. It’s right there for everyone to visit, read, and draw their own conclusions.)
Now I’m not a fan of wasting hours responding back and forth five times, playing blog tag, and having to chase down every last evasion, obfuscation, equivocation, dropped context, (etc.) that people with flimsy arguments and bankrupt ideologies are usually guilty of committing to appear like they are engaging ideas, when they are actually evading them.
So after the master of Horowitz hyperbole posted a link to his rebuttal on my website, the following exchange occurred, in which I challenged him to a live debate so we could settle this once and for all and move on. We would each have a chance to cross examine each other. No one could get away from it looking like anything but an idiot if they can’t defend their ideas. Calvin declined. That’s probably a smart move for him:
Calvin: So, I take it Mr. Messamore isn’t interested in answering for his dishonesty….or perhaps he simply isn’t able….
(LOL! PS: sorry — I have to interject here — I love how it’s not that I’m mistaken, but that I’m dishonest. Apparently in his eyes, if I say anything in disagreement with him, I’m not merely wrong, I’m lying. And I don’t need to be corrected or enlightened — I need to “answer for” it like I’ve committing some great crime for daring to disagree with Calvin or Horowitz. Geeze, adversarial much?)
Wes: Hey Calvin — yeah I saw your response, but I’m a little jammed up presently with the election (timed perfectly to coincide with some other heavy lifting I’m doing for my non-political, commercial enterprises)… give me some time and I’ll respond. Or if you’re up for it, I propose we set up a debate to stream live. We would have to agree of course to a resolution and a format for the debate, but that wouldn’t be difficult to set up. I’m willing to go as narrow as foreign policy as I suggested in my article, or to zoom out and debate on the matter of Dr. Paul in general. Let me know and I will get back to you as soon as I can.
Calvin: My schedule’s a little too up in the air over the next several days to set up a streamed debate, so text would probably be better. Take your time, and I look forward to seeing what you have to say.
Wes: The problem is that it’s too easy to wiggle around, equivocate, ignore key arguments, misinterpret (deliberately or not) assertions, and just generally waste time when writing columns back and forth to each other.
A proper, live, spoken debate with time allotted for us each to cross examine each other will ensure that no one can wiggle out of answering the tough questions.
So let me propose that we set this up as soon as your schedule permits because my schedule (and patience) simply don’t permit me to engage in an endless back and forth.
It’s just more time consuming for me to correct your evasions, obfuscations, and equivocations than it is for you to make them, so it’s a losing proposition for me in terms of my disposal time and mental resources.
Let’s settle this decisively in a live debate or not at all.
Calvin: “…it’s too easy to wiggle around, equivocate, ignore key arguments, misinterpret (deliberately or not) assertions…”
As this hasn’t taken place on my end of the exchange, I’m not too worried about this.
“It’s just more time consuming for me to correct your evasions, obfuscations, and equivocations than it is for you to make them, so it’s a losing proposition for me in terms of my disposal time and mental resources.”
If you can’t even propose setting up a discussion without lying about my conduct, that doesn’t exactly make me think a debate would be worthwhile…
Look, I put the link to my rebuttal in these comment threads because I wanted you and your readers to see a good takedown of your nonsense, and because it’s generally interesting and amusing to see how apologists for any political figure react when they’re confronted with reality.
My rebuttal’s currently the last word in the debate, so unless you come up with some substantive defense of your words or a substantive criticism of mine, I have no need to pursue this any further. Whether you want to stand by your hit piece, or feel incapable of defending it in writing, is entirely up to you.
Wes: So to be clear — you are rejecting my challenge for a live debate?
Calvin: If that’s the way you’d like to spin it, be my guest. If “wailtd” is representative of this audience’s objectivity and analytical skills, I’m not too worried about the hit to my rep.
I’m content that the record currently shows that your idea of debate is to cast wild accusations about how conservative your opponents are or aren’t, without even trying to back them up with evidence, and that you aren’t as offended by politicians lying about issues of war & peace as you are by bloggers who dare to notice.
If that’s the kind of blogger you want to be known as, be my guest. If not, you’re welcome to try doing something about it. The ball’s in your court.
Wes: That’s not “spinning it” any way, Calvin. I’ve challenged you to a live debate, and you have refused.
And if as you say, I am casting wild and baseless accusations, then in a live debate where you have a few minutes to cross examine me, you can pin me down and force me to defend my claims, or else they’ll appear just as you say they are- baseless and wild.
You see- that’s why I’d like to debate you. The person with the least credible arguments has the most to lose in a direct confrontation of ideas like that, so it’s telling that you have refused to debate me.
Now while *you* will spin this as my inability to defend my arguments against your rebuttals- the truth is that I am all too willing and able to do so in a live debate with you. You’re the one who’s chickening out here, Calvin. Let’s be honest.
Calvin: “Let’s be honest.”
Interesting choice of words from somebody I’ve already caught lying about me…..
(Bwa ha ha ha ha! Sorry — can’t help it. Notice how he skips everything I’ve said in the most recent comment except for the very last sentence? He neither concedes that I’m not spinning anything to say he’s refused to debate me, nor offers a reason why that is in fact “spin.” He simply grabs on to my words “Let’s be honest” as an opportunity to ridiculously accuse me of dishonesty yet again.)
Wes: Lol. Quit trolling dude. How have I lied to you?
Calvin: First, I said “about” me, not “to” me (there’s that legendary Paulite reading comprehension again). Second, your dishonesty is clearly exposed here:
### (original comments here)
So there you have it. Any rebuttals or arguments Calvin makes at this point are futile, because if they’re really that great and I’m really that wrong, he could make me “answer for” it in a live debate during a cross examination and force me to defend my assertions and answer any questions he has.
And no using the “time” argument. It takes (wastes) a lot of time to write lengthy posts back and forth, which I’m sure Calvin would perversely enjoy doing ad nauseam. It also takes (wastes) time to troll around and argue about my typos like “lied to” versus “lied about” in an endless comment thread. It would only take one hour to debate. And then the matter would be settled.
So that is my final word on this. If Calvin wants to debate me, he knows how to get in touch with me. Otherwise, I’ve got other things to do and I think his refusal to debate is just about the most eloquent argument that either one of us can make.Published in