This is the worst writing I've seen in a while

SSL443 said:
What argumentative properties of the discussion? It's been an uphill struggle just to get you to actually address the arguments I've been making. Can't really call it an argument when the opposite party is off tilting at windmills, while I'm over here wondering if language even conveys meaning anymore.

I'm not even sure what you're doing is a strawman fallacy because that would imply you actually understood the original argument sufficiently to construct one. Truly bizzare stuff.

VeryLTTP said:
Indeed, it's truly bizarre when you don't directly address my counterpoints and instead, go with the same argument by assertion ad nauseaum sprinkled with some ad hominem.

If you were really all about the arguments, then you wouldn't have been making personal potshots. Not to mention, it was not just me who called you out on going ad nauseaum so much in which (1) you have admitted to repeating the same points frequently and (2) copy/pasted one of your previous responses with minuscule modifications in one instance. However, instead of reflecting about it over and changing things up on your end, you just decide to handwave any disagreement as "not speaking the same language" or being an "uphill struggle".

Meanwhile, I'm here waiting for you finally chill out and take a deep breath. It's just a discussion on the internet.

SSL443 said:
I've copied my previous replies multiple times without modification, not just in one instance.

There's nothing I need to change on my end, you keep ignoring and misinterpreting everything I say. Not my problem.

Meanwhile, I'm here waiting for you to learn the difference between a personal remark and an ad hominem fallacy.

Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows...

VeryLTTP said:
And yet, here you are again repeating the same claim without supporting evidence. And this is coming from the person who was preaching that with your minimalistic diagram...

VeryLTTP said:
So there is indeed things you change on your end because insanity doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. When you (1) resort to the ad nauseaum fallacy several times and (2) claim that your points have been ignored when you haven't shown evidence of that, then that is overall an extremely weak argument. How about you actually go back and directly address my refutations?

VeryLTTP said:
And I trust that I know what an ad hominem is. Perhaps, you need to reconsider the quality of your vocabulary considering how badly you didn't use ad nauseaum correctly in a childish "Well, you did it tooo!" appeal to hypocrisy attempt.

SSL443 said:

If you like I can copy-paste the evidence for ease of perusal.

Repeating my argument because you didn't get it the first time is different than trying to refute yours by repeating mine over and over again. You can't even use your own darling logical fallacy correctly, which is kind of embarrassing.

I'll stop repeating my argument once you actually address it and I can move on to addressing a valid counter argument.

Sure about that?

Personal remark (for example only): You're retarded.

Ad Hominem: You think Shield Hereo is a good anime, therefore your argument is invalid.

See the difference?

VeryLTTP said:
Hitchen's Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You can make the same claims over and over again without evidence. I can just dismiss them without evidence.

VeryLTTP said:
Too bad that what you did is more of the latter than the former.

Evidence: "Your observation is a claim, nothing more, and it is based on flawed assumptions. So it is both an argument, wrong, and one you keep repeating to make yourself look superior because you put latin in italics."

SSL443 said:
Then we are at an impasse. Wew lad.

But the latter part is just an observation, not an argument.

VeryLTTP said:
Not quite. The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim.

VeryLTTP said:
According to the definition of what an ad hominem is, wrongo. Attacking the person rather than attacking the person's arguments is, by definition, an ad hominem attack.

SSL443 said:
Proof which was already provided, so.... impasse.

I never said that you putting latin in italics to look smart made you wrong - you are wrong for other reasons. Hence, no ad hominem.

VeryLTTP said:
In which this claim is also provided without evidence, so the burden of proof still falls on you and my Hitchen's Razor still stands.

VeryLTTP said:
Hmmm... it seems that you do not know what "attacking the person making the argument rather than attacking the argument itself" means... Could this be a case of moving the goalposts? Man, you are on fire with your fallacies today! :D

SSL443 said:
Evidence which was already provided, so the impasse still stands.

And you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

VeryLTTP said:
Claim without evidence, so burden is still on you. Sorry!

VeryLTTP said:
Ooh, another claim without evidence! A nice argument by assertion, lad! Care to do it once more to make it an ad nauseaum argument by assertion two-for-one deal?

SSL443 said:

Evidence is in this thread. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" but it's there. Sorry!

I don't need to provide evidence for something that is trivially true. If you want to continue misidentifying logical fallacies, there isn't anything I can do to stop you. At least you'll have won in your own mind.

VeryLTTP said:

Another claim without evidence. Sorry! It's just what it is!


And another claim without evidence. Great job with the two-for-one deal!

SSL443 said:

It's no skin off my back if you just want to sit here memeing back and forth but I will get the last word in, my bedtime isn't for hours.

VeryLTTP said:
I mean... I'm not the one who repeatedly makes the same claim without evidence.... after someone else already pointed out to you that do you made the same claim without evidence.

Just remember, the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim. You claim that there is proof, then you need to show the proof. You said that the evidence is in this thread and yet, you made no citations. Quite suspicious...

SSL443 said:
]
Well you didn't like it when I copy-pasted or quoted the evidence for your convenience so I don't know what to tell you.

Pedantry for the sake of pedantry is a nice tactic but it's not the first time I've confronted such methods.

VeryLTTP said:
What do you mean? It only helped bolster my case when you do that. I'm not complaining, at all :)

VeryLTTP said:
Hmm, fulfilling the burden of proof is pedantry, eh? Even more suspicious...

SSL443 said:

Then once again, we are at an impasse. You demand evidence but won't accept that it has already been presented.

We're not debating the existence of God here, Mr. Hitchens.

VeryLTTP said:
Hmm, the same claim of the existence of proof... without proof to show for it... Tsk tsk, pity...

VeryLTTP said:
Now that's an accurate example of a strawman fallacy :D

SSL443 said:

Maybe we can go for proof of the evidence for the evidence of the proof's proof's evidence?

Now that's an example of an assertion without proof! Gottem!!!!

VeryLTTP said:
But it's your claim, so it's your job, not mine. Good luck!

VeryLTTP said:
*CTRL + F + "God"*... You mean what you just posted is an assertion without proof? I agree!

SSL443 said:
Found the proof. Good luck!

No U!

VeryLTTP said:

Oof, and the claimant references the OP and a red herring jumps out of water right into his face!!


Ouch, no proof to show for it. Womp womp...

SSL443 said:
I think we both know the answer to that question. Judging from past experience.

VeryLTTP said:

"If there were actually proof", you say... You sound unsure that the evidence for your claim actually exists. Uh oh...

And when you say past experience, do you mean you making the same claims ad nauseaum without evidence? I mean I'm the one who's just pointing out at your fallacies while you make more of them like a machine gone haywire. Not my problem that you're malfunctioning...

SSL443 said:
Nicely dodged, veri gud, veri gud.

So that's a no. Very disingenuous, my dude.

VeryLTTP said:
I believe the one who's doing the dodging is the person who has failed to provide proof after being asked multiple times to provide it and instead, went on to make more claims without evidence to show for it.

Therefore, you are the disingenuous one since you're dodging the burden of proof that falls on you.

Sorry, if you can't back up your claims, then Hitchen's Razor is valid in this case.

SSL443 said:
Take care you don't cut yourself.

Repeatedly and doggedly asking for proof that has already been given and ignored is the height if disingenuity. My claims have been backed up so far they're in the next state.

VeryLTTP said:
Oof, making another claim without evidence... Just like clockwork. Let me guess, you claim that the evidence is there, but you don't show the proof. That is what we call disingenuous since you have failed to fulfill your burden of proof.

But hey, at least you're accompanying your ad nauseaum claim with grandiose language even though that has no bearing on the validity of it!

SSL443 said:

The real question of the day is when you'll notice you've been misspelling "ad nauseam".

VeryLTTP said:
Sounds like you can't back your assertion.

SSL443 said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20nauseam

https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/ad-nauseum-ad-nauseam/

SSL443 said:

Still doesn't change the fact that you can't even spell your favorite phrase you use to try to sound smart.

This is what they call "checkmate". Good game, my dude. Better luck next time. Peace.

SSL443 said:
But take heart; MUCH smarter people than you have spelled it wrong as well.

VeryLTTP said:
What you mean? I was referring to your assertion (that your points were ignored) whereas you're talking about your observation (of my misspelling of ad nauseam).

VeryLTTP said:
See, this is why I emphasized that observations are not arguments earlier on. I believe you checkmated yourself via not paying attention, lad.

SSL443 said:
It wasn't an assertion, it was an observation, obtained by reading the thread, which is clearly more than you can be bothered to do.

We can play semantic games all you want. Conveniently everything you say is an "observation" whereas everything I say is an assertion and thus bound by the rules of argument. Nice try, but lame.

VeryLTTP said:
Nope, it's an assertion because you haven't pointed out exactly where the evidence is.

VeryLTTP said:
Nah, don't blame me for your failure to pay attention. Not sure why you're complaining since you already "won" your fictional game, right?

SSL443 said:

And you have conveniently sidestepped the question as to whether it would make any difference if I actually provided said "evidence". Most suspicious.

"Burden of proof" means that evidence is readily available, doesn't mean I'm obligated to spoon-feed it too you (even though I already did previously).

Pay attention to what? That you're applying a blatant double standard to the discourse and moving the goalposts at every opportunity? Who is it that's trying to "win" here?

Edit: I just noticed that you contradicted yourself, too. You claimed that everything you say is an assertion, but I already pointed out how you pointing out at my misspelling was an observation.

VeryLTTP said:
Because that's irrelevant to the fact that you still haven't supported your claim with evidence. It was a diversion tactic on your part. Very suspicious indeed...

In which you also need to support the claim that the evidence is readily available. Making a claim on top of a claim does not make a viable substitution...

You mean this double standard that I pointed out in my edit? Looks like another incident of failing to pay attention on your part...

Edit: I just noticed that you contradicted yourself, too. You claimed that everything you say is an assertion, but I already pointed out how you pointing out at my misspelling was an observation.

SSL443 said:
You seem very bent on catching me in some kind of logical trap as though that will invalidate my argument. It won't. Maybe you can look up on google what kind of fallacy that is.

That aside; demanding evidence of evidence is just being willfully obtuse at this point. If you were actually interested in my point of view or having a discussion in good faith, you would re-read the thread (as I have done). Since you're not, I will await further inanely triumphal claims of yet more fallacies that you googled, hopefully not misspelled as well.

VeryLTTP said:
I would say the person making the ad nauseam fallacies is the one who's more bent... because if your argument is strong, then it can be supported with additional or alternative arguments.

VeryLTTP said:
And let me guess, strawman fallacy? I mean, did I actually claim that because you used so many fallacies, your argument is invalid?

VeryLTTP said:
You mean re-read and not fulfill your burden of proof... That's quite an interesting way to describe having a discussion in good faith considering that you pointed out as my misspelling as a blatant red herring so you could finally find that gotcha moment to finally win your fictional game of oneupmanship...

SSL443 said:
Why would I bother when you have yet to address my original argument?

That's literally the definition of a fallacy.

Do people need to cite their past statements when having a debate? No. But you have conveniently turned this into a meta-argument because you couldn't gain any traction with the original topic of discussion. If that's not trying to create a gotcha moment then I don't know what is.

VeryLTTP said:
Because your response to my refutation was a repetition of an argument that I already addressed, hence why I pointed out at your ad nauseam. And then, you went all "Well, you're using the ad nauseam fallacy, toooo!" and "Muh ignored argument!" because I called you out on that fallacy and your failure to corroborate your claim multiple times.

VeryLTTP said:
You claimed that I made a claim I never made. So it's a strawman. Case closed.

VeryLTTP said:
Sorry, but I wasn't the one who made that red herring. And if you're (conveniently) complaining about this becoming a meta-argument now, why didn't you put a stop to it? In fact, you were rather enjoying it and elated when you "won".

SSL443 said:
Except you didn't address it because you misread my post and responded to something I did not, in fact, say. We've been over this a few times already.

Pointing out a fallacy in an argument implicitly invalidates the argument. You can't worm out of it.

I can't stop you posting, can I?

Regardless, I was pointing out that, irrespective of the validity of your conclusions, you are making a stooge of yourself by not knowing how to spell the name of a fallacy, much less the definition of pretty much any of the fallacies you keep thinking you're catching me in.

VeryLTTP said:
That's all in your head because that's is definitely not true. Again, same mistakes. You make a claim without evidence.

VeryLTTP said:
Sorry, but you dug yourself in a hole. Since you failed to show where I claimed that you making fallacies invalidates your argument, you claim is unproven and can be doubted reasonably.

VeryLTTP said:
What do you mean? You're the one who proudly proclaimed that you will have the last word. Perhaps you lack self-restraint and don't realize that less is more.

VeryLTTP said:
And in that attempt to make me look like a stooge, it backfired on you because (1) you made a red herring and (2) you didn't pay attention that I emphasized the difference between an observation and an argument/assertion earlier.

SSL443 said:
I don't need to provide evidence of statements made in the same discussion. You've established this rule as a means of moving the goalposts.

Then you don't know what the definition of "fallacy". Ironic.

Really? Then why are you still here?

I didn't attempt to make you look like a stooge, you did it to yourself quite nicely.

VeryLTTP said:

A baseless, unsupported accusation, but hey, it's your right to not fulfill your burden of proof...

VeryLTTP said:
Irrelevant to the topic. You could not substantiate your claim that I claimed that your fallacies invalidate your argument.

VeryLTTP said:
Because it's really funny seeing you desperately trying to get the last word while being unable to substantiate your claims and instead, make red herrings to "win" a fictional game you made up in your mind.

VeryLTTP said:
You mean you did it to yourself again by making a claim without evidence. You love using the argument by assertion, don't you?

Turtles_Hunter said:
I'm laughing because a few weeks ago, someone tried to persuade me it was "the one good" isekai/mmo when I said it seemed very similar to the SAO, an overhyped at best decent anime that will recieve hate because it was of the LN/manga fanbase will never admit they can't even recognized a well written from a badly written part. That you can have a good story in those, a fucked adaptation won't be good because the original material is good.