Nico- said: but what if both of them basically did like that? Like most of the time hereBest way to win a debate is to make the other party repeat itself over and over. Because no one likes a broken record. Also, these "debaters" like to throw red herrings on everything |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
Nico- said: glorious poem Paella_ said: but what if both of them basically did like that? Like most of the time here Also, these "debaters" like to throw red herrings on everything Red herrings and slippery slopes. Also men made out of straw, so that the big bad wolf will blow it down easier done than said. *commits kowtow |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
Bernkastel said: DejWo said: This thread brings nostalgia of Immahnoob's threads,which were pretty much CD vs Immahnoob and at the end he was always like...  I think one of the reasons why Immahnoob was pretty popular despite having questionable beliefs and being a bottom tier debater was because for all his ignorance and stubbornness, he was somewhat humble. I can't recall him losing his cool much or resorting to ad hom attacks, regardless of how much he's abused or just being a straight up idiot. Hey, hey, at least Immahnoob knew what the beating heart of everything was. Now that he's banned this place has only gotten worse debatewise ;_; |
Nico- said: Bernkastel said: I think one of the reasons why Immahnoob was pretty popular despite having questionable beliefs and being a bottom tier debater was because for all his ignorance and stubbornness, he was somewhat humble. I can't recall him losing his cool much or resorting to ad hom attacks, regardless of how much he's abused or just being a straight up idiot. Hey, hey, at least Immahnoob knew what the beating heart of everything was. Now that he's banned this place has only gotten worse debatewise ;_; With 3 moderators retiring, you can only guess how shitty this place will become in the summer ... RIP CD |
 |
Nico- said: FloatingIdiot said: The reason I brought that up is because PJ demonstrated poor logic chops at that point in time, and got completely destroyed on the logical side of the argument. Why do you care about who you "defeat" in a cyber conversation? PJ holds a grudge against me and now acts like he has the authority to judge my logic, when he demonstrated his poor logical chops in a conversation with me. How is that not relevant? |
 |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: You're shifting the goalposts. The topic here is clearly logic, not Texhnolyze. I had abandoned the idea of Texhnolyze and really could care less about it because it was simply "how I felt". The reason I brought that up is because PJ demonstrated poor logic chops at that point in time, and got completely destroyed on the logical side of the argument. He correctly identified your argument as a red herring (i.e. ad hom). At that point if you were as logical as you say you are, you should have conceded or actually went back and addressed his counterarguments. In a formal debate, you'll get kicked out for doing what you tried to do. He doesnt even understand what ad hominem means. |
DejWo said: Bernkastel said: So meta. I don't know if that makes me happy or sad. CD Metagame? How do I play? |
| Now I see the secret of the making of the best persons. It is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth. -Walt Whitman A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -Robert A. Heinlein |
| No. There is too many annoying scumbags on here to take seriously. And nobody should take me seriously half the time either. But as a whole I really like the MAL community. |
 |
Bernkastel said: That's Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. It's common sense among actual debaters. Not a single person who knows anything about formal debating would disagree with those classifications, except maybe in very special circumstances. I know absolutely nothing about formal debating, but of course I think it's getting to that time to bring out Bern's mobile goalposts.  And then you appeal to the authority of "formal debaters"? Seems like one giant red herring because you don't have to be a formal debater to understand the rules of logic. You claimed it was "basic logic", which it was not. I just looked it up, and nobody even pretends like it is logic except for you. I love how Bern's World follows its own rules. FloatingIdiot said: The pyramid implies hierarchical superiority of a higher level over the other, when it is fairly easy to come up with counterexamples which either result in ties of floors, or in some cases actually reversals of floors. I can't see it as anything but at best a subjective representation of logic (if we are to use Wikipedia's definition that I quoted). That's because everyone who's actually studied logic knows validity and soundness represent two completely different things. You can go do some formal debating and see how your "rationality" stands against people who knows what they're talking about. More appeal to authority and goalpost teleportation, this time at the expense of focus on rationality, which is pretty much the core of logic. FloatingIdiot said: You're shifting the goalposts. The topic here is clearly logic, not Texhnolyze. I had abandoned the idea of Texhnolyze and really could care less about it because it was simply "how I felt". The reason I brought that up is because PJ demonstrated poor logic chops at that point in time, and got completely destroyed on the logical side of the argument. He correctly identified your argument as a red herring (i.e. ad hom). At that point if you were as logical as you say you are, you should have conceded or actually went back and addressed his counterarguments. In a formal debate, you'll get kicked out for doing what you tried to do. It wasn't an argument, which I explained in detail. Argument requires intent. My intent was just to communicate that I had no desire to respond to that and every desire to check out of that discussion until he recovered from his stroke. If you want to see a true red herring, it's your reference to formal debate, which this was clearly not. If it was a formal debate, I probably would have reluctantly went through the motions of actually responding to the stuff that he said, or whatever people do in formal debates. I'm assuming you bring up the formal debate setting in order to transpose the implication of every response being assumed an "argument" onto MAL. But you should be able to understand why that is extremely dishonest. |
|
| I wont argue, but I will gladly debate on something. If people say FSN UBW is shit, I will say it is not and explain why. I respect peoples opinions if they deserve respect. |
 |
ExplicitlyHuman said: He doesnt even understand what ad hominem means. ExplicitlyHuman aka hoopla is another salty user who hates me and holds a grudge. |
|
Waifu_Strangler said: You say that when every time you come back to MAL you end up raging that you'll never come back because someone called you a name...For me arguing on MAL is a form of entertainment. I don't take it seriously in fact I get pissed off when the other person is. inb4 "I wasn't being serious." |
 |
| I did in the beginning, but somehow I got more sarcastic. I wonder why... |
| I argue for amusement, seriousness is optional. |
| Not really anymore, not enough time or commitment. |
 "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
Nico- said: FloatingIdiot said: ExplicitlyHuman aka hoopla is another salty user who hates me and holds a grudge. He's LionCake. Yea wrong person. But by all means continue to think that I hate you if that makes you sleep better at night. |
| If the argument with someone intelligent who can back up his points, of course I'll take it seriously. Why shouldn't I? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: I know absolutely nothing about formal debating, but of course I think it's getting to that time to bring out Bern's mobile goalposts. And then you appeal to the authority of "formal debaters"? Seems like one giant red herring because you don't have to be a formal debater to understand the rules of logic. You claimed it was "basic logic", which it was not. I just looked it up, and nobody even pretends like it is logic except for you. I love how Bern's World follows its own rules. Formal debating is the epitome of good argument. If you don't know anything about formal debating, why do you think your arguments are good? Good arguments have to be rational too, not just logical. I assume my arguments are good until someone can actually give me a reason why they aren’t, outside of “you don’t know formal debating”. Rational vs. logical - what is even the difference? I would think I was both here. Do I need to remind you that originally this whole thing sparked because you and PJ had a disagreement on who won the argument. By any rational person who understands debating, PJ won. That's all there is to it. With all your talk about how damn “gifted” and special you are, the best you can try to do (?) is: A) misrepresent what actually happened in this thread as a “disagreement on who won” even though I specifically brought up logic B) following from A, arbitrarily decide that “formal debate rules” should settle the question of “who won” despite that not being the question C) self-appoint yourself as referee of this “formal debate”, where you decide to judge on everything but the demonstrated understanding of logic within that debate D) despite whether or not my post was an argument was my focus of contention, use your “formal debate” rules to completely evade the point of contention and instead give yourself the authority to treat the non-argument as an argument by rule of the laws you imposed upon the system E) use appeal to authority as justification for your ruling I think you're probably just getting lazy. This was even weak by your standards. |
|
ExplicitlyHuman said: Nico- said: He's LionCake. Yea wrong person. But by all means continue to think that I hate you if that makes you sleep better at night. Same difference. Both are haters, except you're slightly less dumb. |
|
| I guess so, at least I used to. Its entertaining in a way and sometimes I like to write. |
 |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: I assume my arguments are good until someone can actually give me a reason why they aren’t, outside of “you don’t know formal debating”. If your reasoning was actually good, you'll know what's wrong with the statement I underlined. I'm one step ahead of you. I wouldn't list it as an argument unless I deemed it to be rational and logical, and thus a good argument. But if someone showed why it was a bad argument and pointed to reasoning flaws, then I would allow room for myself to change my views. My assumption is out of practicality and the care of the thought I put into the argument, not an assumption of pure, unblemished reasoning because I said it. FloatingIdiot said: Rational vs. logical - what is even the difference? I would think I was both here. Difference is so big you can write books on it. Ok I looked it up http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-logical-and-vs-rational/ Is that good enough? When I said "rational" or "logical" in the past, you could substitute them for "logical and rational" almost every time. I'm just going to pretend that the last part of your post didn't happen because you're clearly not learning any lessons. I tried my best. |
|
| A lot of people here are just assholes. I cant really take them seriously. For people who actually try to write things out constructively and informatively why they believe something I am more likely to want to reply more serious. |
| The fact that the thread questioning about arguments HAD an argument on its own made me cum. |
 |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: I'm one step ahead of you. I wouldn't list it as an argument unless I deemed it to be rational and logical, and thus a good argument. But if someone showed why it was a bad argument and pointed to reasoning flaws, then I would allow room for myself to change my views. My assumption is out of practicality and the care of the thought I put into the argument, not an assumption of pure, unblemished reasoning because I said it. Ok I looked it up http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-logical-and-vs-rational/ Is that good enough? When I said "rational" or "logical" in the past, you could substitute them for "logical and rational" almost every time. I'm just going to pretend that the last part of your post didn't happen because you're clearly not learning any lessons. In what way were you more rational than PJ? He shredded your central argument into pieces while you called him names. Well at least you did mention PJ’s poor logical chops, so I’ll entertain you at the game which you just created with your freshly planted goalposts. This first thing. All I can say is: if only I had a “central argument”. I was just sharing my feelings, which is also why I consequently didn’t care to “defend” any of it because it was something that inherently bothered me, and no argument was going to change that. My ability to differentiate between subjective judgments derived from my own feelings and actual objective fact should count as some demonstration of rationality. In what way were you more logical than PJ? He correctly identified the fallacies you committed and his points were all logically valid. You on the other hand turned it into a semantic argument about what ad hom means... No, I correctly told him why it was not an “argument” and thus not “argumentum ad hominem”. It was “ad hominem”, yes. “Name-calling” if that phrase works for you. But name-calling has no intended logical purpose, so it should be ignored when actually judging use of logic. You even had the guts to write this to PJ: FloatingIdiot said: It's not technically an ad hominem because its intent was not to address your argument, but rather to explain why I wasn't addressing your argument. It was a tangential post directed at you, Did you know name calling is even worse than ad hom? In trying to justify not committing an ad hom, you stooped even lower than an ad hom. It actually makes you more rational to accept that it was an ad hom than straight up admit you were calling names. It is logically consistent with everything else I wrote and continue to write. In case if you haven’t noticed, I stand by my name-calling because that is what it was. It reflected my desire not to use logic at that moment, rather than poor logical chops, or attempt to use fallacy as an argument. Now this is just getting into the moral realm about what is "worse" or not. |
|
Bernkastel said: A court analogy would be you told the judges they were wrong about your conviction because you actually didn't commit robbery, you committed murder. Wow, you sure showed them they were wrong. Please learn how to make an analogy before ever doing so again. |
|
| Everyone be arguing on a thread about arguing; I can get used to this. |
   I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it  |
PerpetualTrance said: Settle down niggas. I'm the best debater here. Prove it |
Nico- said: PerpetualTrance said: Settle down niggas. I'm the best debater here. What is "ad hominem" then? It's the name Eminem went with when he turned homo |
PerpetualTrance said: ExplicitlyHuman said: Prove it I changed my mind. geniobastardo's the best debator You're right. You are the best debater. So good you somehow mispelled debater after spelling it right the first time. |
Nico- said: PerpetualTrance said: It's the name Eminem went with when he turned homo At least he didn't go by "Name Caller" I don't care. ExplicitlyHuman said: PerpetualTrance said: I changed my mind. geniobastardo's the best debator You're right. You are the best debater. So good you somehow mispelled debater after spelling it right the first time. misspelled* |
PerpetualTrance said: Shit. I am losing this debate already.ExplicitlyHuman said: You're right. You are the best debater. So good you somehow mispelled debater after spelling it right the first time. misspelled* |
ExplicitlyHuman said: PerpetualTrance said: Shit. I am losing this debate already.misspelled* You lost the debate the moment I changed my mind and you still said that I was right about myself being the best debater. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. |
Daconator said: To be fair, I wouldn't call that a debate. Prove it |
Daconator said: ExplicitlyHuman said: God.Prove it Prove him. |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: This first thing. All I can say is: if only I had a “central argument”. I was just sharing my feelings, which is also why I consequently didn’t care to “defend” any of it because it was something that inherently bothered me, and no argument was going to change that. My ability to differentiate between subjective judgments derived from my own feelings and actual objective fact should count as some demonstration of rationality. You're actually completely wrong on this. The only reason PJ had to actually give a counterargument to win was because the discussion was subjective. If it was truly objective, then he won't even need to lift a finger to be declared the victor. This is why debates are always about subjective things, otherwise 1 side auto-wins before the debate even starts. You actually don't understand what the term "subjective" entails, and it speaks poorly of your ability to think rationally. Keep on mumbling to the strawman. I'm sure he'll respond sooner or later. At no point did I want to have a debate with PoeticJustice about Texhnolyze, Attack on Titan, or whatever. As such, I did not approach it as a debate. Once you grasp this, things will be much easier. I was being dismissive of his stuff while sharing opinions with masterofgo, because masterofgo is a much more interesting person to talk to. Then PJ treated it like it was a debate so I played along when it got all logic-y and stuff. But I still had (and have) zero motivation to talk about anime with him. |
|
| when i debate yes I do, but I try to stay out of it unless it's something I'm really interested in. Also if it's something I've argued over dozens of times (like whether Jajajajah exists) I tend to just wait for later lol |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Daconator said: PerpetualTrance said: Him?Prove him. Sexist. You're the sexiest. |
FloatingIdiot said: BACKPEDALING INTENSIFIESBernkastel said: You're actually completely wrong on this. The only reason PJ had to actually give a counterargument to win was because the discussion was subjective. If it was truly objective, then he won't even need to lift a finger to be declared the victor. This is why debates are always about subjective things, otherwise 1 side auto-wins before the debate even starts. You actually don't understand what the term "subjective" entails, and it speaks poorly of your ability to think rationally. Keep on mumbling to the strawman. I'm sure he'll respond sooner or later. At no point did I want to have a debate with PoeticJustice about Texhnolyze, Attack on Titan, or whatever. As such, I did not approach it as a debate. Once you grasp this, things will be much easier. I was being dismissive of his stuff while sharing opinions with masterofgo, because masterofgo is a much more interesting person to talk to. Then PJ treated it like it was a debate so I played along when it got all logic-y and stuff. |
PerpetualTrance said: Daconator said: Him? Sexist. You're the sexiest. Prove it. |
ExplicitlyHuman said: PerpetualTrance said: You're the sexiest. Prove it. He's virgin. |
More topics from this board
» "IT'S KILLING TIME, BABY!"LenRea - 2 hours ago |
4 |
by Commit_Crime
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Am I the only one who doesnt like discord? ( 1 2 )Bensku - Sep 21 |
63 |
by kutuya
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Can MBTI (myers-briggs type indicator) change?sweetnothing1 - 5 hours ago |
7 |
by Nette
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» How can you stand the lopsided car infrastructure?Ezekiel - Oct 22, 2023 |
16 |
by KittenCuddler
»»
32 minutes ago |
|
» Tired of social relationshipsEmiliaHoarfrost - Yesterday |
23 |
by Zakatsuki_
»»
59 minutes ago |