Idiotic Debating Tactics

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PVS
i know there was a thread on this, but alas they changed the search function and i cant find it.

what are the stupidest tactics for debating you have seen?
no names please, just state it, and if giving an example do not paste a debate from another thread. just give a hypothetical example.

example:

one which has been reoccuring very often is what i will refer to as "run with the analogy". this is a tactic where, when an opponent shoots out an abstract analogy to illustrate their pattern of logic, the poster will ignore that it was simply an analogy and run with it, accusing the opponent of making a direct comparison...all the time completely dodging the point, imho very much on purpose.

poster 1: you shouldnt just get pregnant without knowing what you're getting into. parenting is a heavy responsibility. to go about it in a rush and without proper planning would be like running through traffic blindfolded.

poster 2: omg how can you compare parenting with running through traffic? how stupid. only an idiot would compare the two (on and on)

i can think of a million of them, but lets hear your observations.

oh yeah, most important: please do not quote logical fallacies. those who would understand already know them, and those who dont know are most likely too set in their own silly ways to ever care to learn them, as they are the often the ones who gleefully commit them.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by PVS

what are the stupidest tactics for debating you have seen? no names please, just state it, and if giving an example do not paste a debate from another thread.
just give a hypothetical example.



Here is a good one:

zOMG!!!!!1111

PVS
laughing out loud i love you too













!!1111

Capt_Fantastic
I guess my most idiotic debating tactic is when I actually debate with an idiot.

Alpha Centauri
I will agree with that (The "zOMG!!!111" thing, and leet also), regardless of who says it or why. I think it just needs to end, stop, cease. It's like the over-use of smileys, really. I also agree with what Capt said. Sometimes I give people on here far too much time, I shouldn't.

The one I hate most is when you actually provide a fact and the opposing debater says "I don't agree.". Then when you say something like "It's not up to you, it's a fact.", they say "Your opinion isn't fact.".

It's really stupid.

The classic "People shouldn't have sex if they don't want kids" was quite hilarious/disturbing.

-AC

botankus
The analogy one is good.

I've always thought that using an synonym of "Stupid" to describe the other poster or their cognitive capabilities is a cop-out and to me, means that the debator is simply out of material. Examples: Moronic, Idiotic, Ignorant (ooh, that one is #1 on this list and real popular among the persistent ones who have little backbone to their argument), and so on.

Example:

"That last post clearly displays your moronic ignorance, as only an idiot would think that the sky is blue!!"

which can be cleaned up and re-phrased as:

"I don't think the sky is blue."

Or better yet, use subtle, condenscending humor to berate them.

PVS
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The one I hate most is when you actually provide a fact and the opposing debater says "I don't agree.". Then when you say something like "It's not up to you, it's a fact.", they say "Your opinion isn't fact.".

ah yes, the old fact/opinion switch

poster1: *states opinion dressed up as fact...often including the word "FACT!".

poster2: *presents factual proof that they are wrong*

poster1: fine. lets just agree to disagree. you have your opinion and i have mine.

poster 2: um...no, this is proven fact, thus you are believing an absolute lie.

poster1: you should respect other people's opinions (on and on, back and forth)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I will agree with that (The "zOMG!!!111" thing, and leet also), regardless of who says it or why.

as for your's and WD's opinions, i both respect and dismiss them stick out tongue

PVS
Originally posted by botankus
The analogy one is good.

I've always thought that using an synonym of "Stupid" to describe the other poster or their cognitive capabilities is a cop-out and to me, means that the debator is simply out of material. Examples: Moronic, Idiotic, Ignorant (ooh, that one is #1 on this list and real popular among the persistent ones who have little backbone to their argument), and so on.

Example:

"That last post clearly displays your moronic ignorance, as only an idiot would think that the sky is blue!!"

which can be cleaned up and re-phrased as:

"I don't think the sky is blue."

Or better yet, use subtle, condenscending humor to berate them.

third person insult/left handed slap. thats what i choose to call it.
and anyone with half a brain would call it that.

i see this alot. its the cheapest of copouts...and quite gutless imho. if you're going to insult someone, have the balls to do it. dont hide behind gramatical loop holes to avoid banning. this type of attack is far too encouraged on too many forums.

jaden101
hahaha...this is absolutely brilliant...i actually cant believe what i'm reading

botankus

Shakyamunison

botankus
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
anal retentiveness.

Is that gay bashing I see in your post?

jaden101
the main film forum is pretty good for the idiots...

the ones who's reviews consist of

potc2

omg...this was soooOOOOOOoooOOoooOO good...johnny depp is hot

actually now i think of it...there's plenty of that in the music forum as well

and when you dare question them they attack in verocious packs of there fellow cloned idiots

botankus
To further annex my previous post, don't forget the guys who leave the www.dictionary.com address for your convenience.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by botankus
Is that gay bashing I see in your post?

laughing I think not. laughing But good example.

Bardock42
Oh hello Shakyamunison.

Here's what bothers me: People that change their opinion with basically every post they make, I could try to give a funny example...but I suck at it, I guess you get the point anyways.

Oh, hi Shakya. How are you today?

---

Then there is of course the funny ignoring posts or reply to half a page of interesting facts with "No" or "no expression"

---

And the random capitalization of words. Quite an interesting way to debate as well.

PVS
agenda-site link spamming.

you know, someone posts their "proof" on an unproven/dead issue by posting a link to some agenda-based site. you point it out and after much denial, they decide to spam you to death with other links to affiliated agenda-based sites. i will call this the "shock and awe link technique".

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I guess my most idiotic debating tactic is when I actually debate with an idiot.

Yes but whom is more idiotic. An debating idiot or an idiot who uses ad hominem attacks on an arguing idiot instead countering his argument.

Bardock42
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Yes but whom is more idiotic. An debating idiot or an idiot who uses ad hominem attacks on an arguing idiot instead countering his argument.

A debating idiot.

PVS
one of my favorite techniques: someone who reads the baiting rhetorical trap question...and gives an answer laughing out loud

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh hello Shakyamunison.

Here's what bothers me: People that change their opinion with basically every post they make, I could try to give a funny example...but I suck at it, I guess you get the point anyways.

Oh, hi Shakya. How are you today?



stick out tongue You never understand my point, so I try to clarify, and you say I'm changing. roll eyes (sarcastic) I admit that I am not the best communicator, but you know what I'm talking aboot. laughing

botankus
Maybe it's just me, but I still haven't figured out the whole meaning behind the no expression smilie. Does that mean you read the post and think nothing of it, or does that mean you're a freakish mute?

Bardock42
Originally posted by PVS
one of my favorite techniques: someone who reads the baiting rhetorical trap question...and gives an answer laughing out loud

Thank you, thank you...

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by PVS
ah yes, the old fact/opinion switch

poster1: *states opinion dressed up as fact...often including the word "FACT!".

poster2: *presents factual proof that they are wrong*

poster1: fine. lets just agree to disagree. you have your opinion and i have mine.

poster 2: um...no, this is proven fact, thus you are believing an absolute lie.

poster1: you should respect other people's opinions (on and on, back and forth)



Yeah, that shit's pretty annoying, ey. Sometimes I think that poster1 knows that he's been shown-up, but prolongs the argument for whatever reason. erm

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Thank you, thank you...

He was not talking to you. roll eyes (sarcastic)

PVS
Originally posted by botankus
Maybe it's just me, but I still haven't figured out the whole meaning behind the no expression smilie. Does that mean you read the post and think nothing of it, or does that mean you're a freakish mute?

its a crutch for the weak no expression

it makes them look dead serious and thus correct no expression

i dont know how their logic works, but thats the way it seems to be no expression

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by botankus
Maybe it's just me, but I still haven't figured out the whole meaning behind the no expression smilie. Does that mean you read the post and think nothing of it, or does that mean you're a freakish mute?

I think it has several meanings like "That wasn't funny.", "What's your point?", and "That sucked."

Bardock42
Watch out botankus, I shall give you the perfect usage of the "no expression" smilie.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He was not talking to you. roll eyes (sarcastic)

no expression

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Watch out botankus, I shall give you the perfect usage of the "no expression" smilie.



no expression

banana_nod

Mindship
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I guess my most idiotic debating tactic is when I actually debate with an idiot.

laughing out loud
That almost ends the thread.

Personally, the Most Idiotic Debating Tactic (MIDT) I come across is when one just keeps forging ahead with their IDT, ignoring what the other person is saying.

Best examples of this are found in the Evolution vs Intelligent Design threads. Despite the evolutionist presenting the advantages of science, the evidence so far found, the fact that ID presents no evidence, has no advantage, that all the IDer is doing is criticizing the scientific POV...the IDer just keeps on doing what they're doing, as if no opposing POV had ever been presented at all.

Closely related to this is the claim that "there are no facts" / "we can't be certain of anything" (there are countless variations on this last-resort theme). It's a beside-the-point / distraction tactic because it works both ways, which again, the IDer simply ignores.

botankus
I say the first person to slip up and use one of the tactics in a real-life argument within this thread owes everyone else 20 bucks.

PVS
how about the slippery slope of irrelivence? a chain of concequences dreamed up by the debator to illustrate the dangers of not agreeing with their POV.

the typical: allow gays to marry and farmer ted will marry his 9 goats.

when confronted and asked just how they reached this conclusion, they can only tie the consequence and cause together with one thought: "they are both WRONG/EVIL/UNNATURAL...(not agreeable to me, thus directly related and completely wrong)

Redneck Boy
is this nother one of those there pro gay threads?

PVS
Originally posted by Redneck Boy
is this nother one of those there pro gay threads?

well...yes it is whob, so kick back and relax....unless you're not ready to come out yet?

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Yes but whom is more idiotic. An debating idiot or an idiot who uses ad hominem attacks on an arguing idiot instead countering his argument.

The person who thinks everything is ad hominem just because they have a shit debate and need an excuse.

Oh, that wasn't an option.

-AC

Bardock42
Originally posted by botankus
I say the first person to slip up and use one of the tactics in a real-life argument within this thread owes everyone else 20 bucks.

Okay, lets do that, one of the more idiotic debating tactics is to open a thread that is related to an occurrence in another thread but to make it seem unrelated, therefore making fun of the opponent without them having a real chance to counter (okay, it's a really smart "Idiotic Debating Tactic"wink


Well, PVS, I'm waiting for those twenty bucks.

PVS
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, lets do that, one of the more idiotic debating tactics is to open a thread that is related to an occurrence in another thread but to make it seem unrelated, therefore making fun of the opponent without them having a real chance to counter (okay, it's a really smart "Idiotic Debating Tactic"wink


Well, PVS, I'm waiting for those twenty bucks.

its too late. you cant dictate in hindsight. thats not fair mad

no moneyz 4 u!!!1111 ...damn...*pays $20*

and yes, i had inspiration from another thread, but at least respect that i made every effort to keep them anonymous

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, lets do that, one of the more idiotic debating tactics is to open a thread that is related to an occurrence in another thread but to make it seem unrelated, therefore making fun of the opponent without them having a real chance to counter (okay, it's a really smart "Idiotic Debating Tactic"wink


Well, PVS, I'm waiting for those twenty bucks.

laughing Good job Bardock42. thumb up

PVS
ok, the gloves are off. what about the philosophical thread killer?


someone starts a thread on "why do we exist?"

PTK: how do you know we exist? you cant prove it, so this debate is pointless


stick out tongue

Bardock42
Originally posted by PVS
ok, the gloves are off. what about the philosophical thread killer?


someone starts a thread on "why do we exist?"

PTK: how do you know we exist? you cant prove it, so this debate is pointless


stick out tongue

Yeah, hate those people.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The person who thinks everything is ad hominem just because they have a shit debate and need an excuse.

Oh, that wasn't an option.

-AC

And don't forgot about the idiots who think people are idiotic if he's merely disagreeing with said idiot's opinion.

Bardock42
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And don't forgot about the idiots who think people are idiotic if he's merely disagreeing with said idiot's opinion.

This sentence strikes me as strangely weird. But I shall not point out why.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And don't forgot about the idiots who think people are idiotic if he's merely disagreeing with said idiot's opinion.

When I'm in the room, those dudes are idiots. Especially Bardock, and the earlier incarnations of AC. Many dicks.

Regret
I have to say that the ones that bug me are these:



and they are talking to an atheist or non Bible person. Or they just give the scripture, no explanation as to why they used it. Now this response is fine if both people believe the Bible, but not if the recipient does not. There are examples outside this too. The Atheist that denies that the person's opinion on their own religion is valid, the person that tells the other person that they know more about that person's religion etc. I am not talking about when the subject is not their religion, I see plenty of people use their personal belief as support for a stupid stance on a thread like evolution vs. ID, that is just asinine.

_______________________

The second one is the opportunist debater. They go silent on a subject in a thread after someone presents a rebuttal and then use the same statement on another thread and think you'll forget, or thinks they don't need to respond for their statement to be valid.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I will agree with that (The "zOMG!!!111" thing, and leet also), regardless of who says it or why. I think it just needs to end, stop, cease. It's like the over-use of smileys, really. I also agree with what Capt said. Sometimes I give people on here far too much time, I shouldn't.



The classic "People shouldn't have sex if they don't want kids" was quite hilarious/disturbing.

-AC Originally posted by botankus
To further annex my previous post, don't forget the guys who leave the www.dictionary.com address for your convenience.

Originally posted by Mindship
Best examples of this are found in the Evolution vs Intelligent Design threads. Despite the evolutionist presenting the advantages of science, the evidence so far found, the fact that ID presents no evidence, has no advantage, that all the IDer is doing is criticizing the scientific POV...the IDer just keeps on doing what they're doing, as if no opposing POV had ever been presented at all.

Closely related to this is the claim that "there are no facts" / "we can't be certain of anything" (there are countless variations on this last-resort theme). It's a beside-the-point / distraction tactic because it works both ways, which again, the IDer simply ignores.

Originally posted by PVS
how about the slippery slope of irrelivence? a chain of concequences dreamed up by the debator to illustrate the dangers of not agreeing with their POV.

the typical: allow gays to marry and farmer ted will marry his 9 goats.

when confronted and asked just how they reached this conclusion, they can only tie the consequence and cause together with one thought: "they are both WRONG/EVIL/UNNATURAL...(not agreeable to me, thus directly related and completely wrong) Originally posted by PVS
agenda-site link spamming.

you know, someone posts their "proof" on an unproven/dead issue by posting a link to some agenda-based site. you point it out and after much denial, they decide to spam you to death with other links to affiliated agenda-based sites. i will call this the "shock and awe link technique".



A whole new thread just for Me???

ZOMGLOL11111

Well, I would just like to thank the academy for even nominating me, but I can't forget AC, PVS, Bardock, Styletime, Siegmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Hillary Clinton, Tom Gavin, and of course, that fanaticaly FAB-u-LOUS friend to all... Captain Fantastic.

Please take a moment to visit my sponsors: www.dictionary.com


no expression


Save the whales and the trees!
Kill the babies and the old people!

(brought to you by natural-born homosexuals from genetic soups and piles of mud)

paid for by the baby Jesus.TM

Alpha Centauri
The irony is, I didn't create it and only one part was about you.

It was a classic, though.

-AC

Bardock42
Originally posted by sithsaber408
A whole new thread just for Me???


No, not for you, sweety.

PVS
Originally posted by Bardock42
This sentence strikes me as strangely weird. But I shall not point out why.

he didnt think that out enough before posting, did he?

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And don't forgot about the idiots who think people are idiotic if he's merely disagreeing with said idiot's opinion.

Point proven. I knew you'd fall for it, so easy.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by sithsaber408
A whole new thread just for Me???

ZOMGLOL11111

Well, I would just like to thank the academy for even nominating me, but I can't forget AC, PVS, Bardock, Styletime, Siegmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Hillary Clinton, Tom Gavin, and of course, that fanaticaly FAB-u-LOUS friend to all... Captain Fantastic.

Please take a moment to visit my sponsors: www.dictionary.com


no expression


Save the whales and the trees!
Kill the babies and the old people!

(brought to you by natural-born homosexuals from genetic soups and piles of mud)

paid for by the baby Jesus.TM

What do you call that? 'Comedy'?

Nellinator
I thought it was funny.

PVS
i thought it had nothing to do with the topic.

and no sithsaber, you never crossed my mind. sorry erm

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Nellinator
I thought it was funny.

Funny 'haha' or funny 'Oh my god, I'm dead'?

BackFire
When people think what they're saying is fact when they've failed to back it up in a sound manner and prove that what they're saying is factually, undeniably, true. Thinking that saying it's a fact is enough to prove it.

Also, when people think that they'll impress people by having a long post when it's not even necessary, adding filler and a bunch of crap that doesn't even matter makes my dick soft.

PVS
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Funny 'haha' or funny 'Oh my god, I'm dead'?

funny as in "oh look, i just shoved a railroad spike through my eye socket to dull the pain from having read that post...funny"

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by BackFire
Also, when people think that they'll impress people by having a long post when it's not even necessary, adding filler and a bunch of crap that doesn't even matter makes my dick soft.

That's so true it actually made my dick hard. FACT.

Do you want me to prove it though?

BackFire
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
That's so true it actually made my dick hard. FACT.

Do you want me to prove it though?

I do. You know I do.

PVS
Originally posted by BackFire
When people think what they're saying is fact when they've failed to back it up in a sound manner and prove that what they're saying is factually, undeniably, true. Thinking that saying it's a fact is enough to prove it.

related: the psychic truth sayer. "abortion is evil and YOU KNOW IT!"

PVS
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
That's so true it actually made my dick hard. FACT.

Do you want me to prove it though?

Originally posted by BackFire
I do. You know I do.

*gasp* what will bardock say? blink

BackFire
Nothing, he'd be too busy masturbating.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by PVS
funny as in "oh look, i just shoved a railroad spike through my eye socket to dull the pain from having read that post...funny"

I like this funny third option.

Originally posted by BackFire
I do. You know I do.

Oh yeah? Well...well...well, I just said it, so it is true.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by sithsaber408
A whole new thread just for Me???

ZOMGLOL11111

Well, I would just like to thank the academy for even nominating me, but I can't forget AC, PVS, Bardock, Styletime, Siegmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Hillary Clinton, Tom Gavin, and of course, that fanaticaly FAB-u-LOUS friend to all... Captain Fantastic.

Please take a moment to visit my sponsors: www.dictionary.com


no expression


Save the whales and the trees!
Kill the babies and the old people!

(brought to you by natural-born homosexuals from genetic soups and piles of mud)

paid for by the baby Jesus.TM

You forgot to post a picture of yourself with your girlfriend...which no one gives a shit about.

Bardock42
Originally posted by BackFire
Nothing, he'd be too busy masturbating.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. IT'S FILTHY AND AGAINST THE LAW OF GOD. YOU ARE SICK. ....continue.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You forgot to post a picture of yourself with your girlfriend...which no one gives a shit about.

Hahaha, is that the 'cool' couple who were virgins - and proud of it - before they got married?

I love it when people boast about sexual prowess.

BackFire
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You forgot to post a picture of yourself with your girlfriend...which no one gives a shit about.

I would if she was naked.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Hahaha, is that the 'cool' couple who were virgins - and proud of it - before they got married?

I love it when people boast about sexual prowess.

Well, in his defense, I thought the post was humorus. Humorus like a bible thumping tumor. However, my only objection is the use of fabulous to describe me. I mean, don't you think Fantastic is enough. To use both is redundant. Like repeating bible verse.

Regret
Had to post another one.

Those people that want evidence for every little statement.

e.g.

"Could you give me some references for this Gravity you speak of"

There are some things that are fact. The reference is, at times, too lengthy to fully place references on a post. Also a partial reference list will not always satisfactorily show evidence of something. I did a few literature reviews on subjects that are fact that took a huge amount of bibliography space.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Regret
Had to post another one.

Those people that want evidence for every little statement.

e.g.

"Could you give me some references for this Gravity you speak of"

There are some things that are fact. The reference is, at times, too lengthy to fully place references on a post. Also a partial reference list will not always satisfactorily show evidence of something. I did a few literature reviews on subjects that are fact that took a huge amount of bibliography space.

You don't know it is fact for sure.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by BackFire
I would if she was naked.

You'd shit on her if she was naked? I don't think that's in the Bible.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, in his defense, I thought the post was humorus. Humorus like a bible thumping tumor.

Is that a typo? Did you mean to type 'humous? In that it'll have the consistency of toothpaste and leave you with bad breath in the morning?

RedAlertv2
One thing I like is when someone is proven wrong, instead of continuing the debate or admitting they were wrong, they bail out and are never seen in the thread again.

BackFire
Another one I'm seeing a lot of lately, is the MISuse of logical fallcies. These ****ing things are popular lately. And you can tell most of the people who bring them up just typed in "logical fallacy" into google and searched one of the sites for a fallacy they can try and apply to something that was said againt them. It results in lame (but funny) misuse of the terms. Also makes my dick soft...unless it's a hot chick doing this, in which case I'm not even listening to what she's saying, I'm busy thinking "I wonder what her vagina looks like".

BackFire
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You'd shit on her if she was naked? I don't think that's in the Bible.

It is, somewhere towards the back. Might be one of the deleted scenes that will be in the special extended edition.

crazylozer
Summed up:

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Point proven. I knew you'd fall for it, so easy.

-AC

And what have I fallen for, may I ask?

I was merely stating and reminding of the kind of person i considered an utter idiot, debate-wise.

I'm assuming that you construed my comment as an indirect shot like your initial comment was? If so, you can sleep soundly tonight knowing that it wasn't one.

PVS
Originally posted by BackFire
Another one I'm seeing a lot of lately, is the MISuse of logical fallcies. These ****ing things are popular lately. And you can tell most of the people who bring them up just typed in "logical fallacy" into google and searched one of the sites for a fallacy they can try and apply to something that was said againt them. It results in lame (but funny) misuse of the terms. Also makes my dick soft...unless it's a hot chick doing this, in which case I'm not even listening to what she's saying, I'm busy thinking "I wonder what her vagina looks like".

actually, they most likely typed "lojikal falasy" and then google responed
"did you mean logical fallacy?"

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
In that it'll have the consistency of toothpaste and leave you with bad breath in the morning?

I don't know, I don't brush my teeth. I only act on base animal instinct and brushing my teeth isn't one of them. But the shit breath part I totally follow.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And what have I fallen for, may I ask?

I was merely stating and reminding of the kind of person i considered an utter idiot, debate-wise.

I'm assuming that you construed my comment as an indirect shot like your initial comment was? If so, you can sleep soundly tonight knowing that it wasn't one.

Just accept it, champ. Happens to the best of us (not to me, but still, I'm trying to keep your morale up.).

-AC

PVS
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...Happens to the best of us (not to me...

so you declare that you are not among "the best of us"?
do i detect a hint of humility or did you not think that through stick out tongue

Nellinator
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm assuming that you construed my comment as an indirect shot like your initial comment was? If so, you can sleep soundly tonight knowing that it wasn't one.
This is stupid debating. Leave this part out and you sound like less of an a**.

FistOfThe North
My balls itch.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
so you declare that you are not among "the best of us"?
do i detect a hint of humility or did you not think that through stick out tongue

Both, that way I can't lose, like Parker Lewis.

(I was actually implying that he's not among that particular group. Hence why it doesn't happen to me, and happens to him. Because it doesn't actually happen to the best of us. Execution was admittedly poor, haha.).

-AC

FistOfThe North
Odd. My girl uses implications alot. So did every other woman in my life which, for years, made me adamantly think it was just a feminine thing to do so,. but I was wrong. Thanks for the clear up.

And fcuk belonging to any "particular" group. I prefer having tuna on rye, just like now.

Alpha Centauri
Pop one, man. Like...chill out duuuude.

-AC

crazylozer
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Odd. My girl uses implications alot. So did every other woman in my life which, for years, made me adamantly think it was just a feminine thing to do so

Hey AC, I think he's implying that you're a girl!

Add deliberately editing quotes to the list of idiotic debate tactics >_>

KharmaDog
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but the act of a member completely ignoring a point (even if posted several times) or a question that shows the error of their train of thought or position always fascinates me.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Hahaha, is that the 'cool' couple who were virgins - and proud of it - before they got married?

I love it when people boast about sexual prowess.

No, as stated, that pic was of my wife's(stop saying girlfriend, I've been married nearly a year now) friend and her husband, who were indeed the happy, cool, virgins in question.

I've posted other pics of myself in other threads before, and am nowhere near the level maturity that Em and Tony have, having let myself live through all kinds of shit, sexual or otherwise.Originally posted by BackFire
I would if she was naked.

Fat chance BF. big grin

Victor Von Doom
The one when they do the thing what is the bad debating.




Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just accept it, champ. Happens to the best of us (not to me, but still, I'm trying to keep your morale up.).


So nothing, then.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The one when they do the thing what is the bad debating.

VVD, if that statement were to be followed by this smilie " mad ", it would have been more on the mark.


But since I haven't been around for a while, I'll let it slide.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by KharmaDog
VVD, if that statement were to be followed by this smilie " mad ", it would have been more on the mark.


But since I haven't been around for a while, I'll let it slide.

I find smileys bring me out in a rash.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I find smileys bring me out in a rash.

But why? They're ever so cute and expressive.

Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

BackFire
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.


Teehee, funny.

Alpha Centauri
Cos they'll be moving around and that.

-AC

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by BackFire
Another one I'm seeing a lot of lately, is the MISuse of logical fallcies. These ****ing things are popular lately. And you can tell most of the people who bring them up just typed in "logical fallacy" into google and searched one of the sites for a fallacy they can try and apply to something that was said againt them. It results in lame (but funny) misuse of the terms. Also makes my dick soft...unless it's a hot chick doing this, in which case I'm not even listening to what she's saying, I'm busy thinking "I wonder what her vagina looks like".

Hmmm. When a logical fallacy is combined with reproductive organs I think it would be fair to say we get a "logical phallus-y"

One thing I dislike in a debate is when an individual proves incapable of providing an actual counter so instead they act of beneficent and patronising and act as if that equals a debating win.

Example: person one: Fact. Fact. Fact. So in conclusion fact equals fact etc

Person two: That's all right, just because you can't prove your point people wont think less of you. I'll finish up now as my point doesn't need anymore proving. Keep up the effort! lol.

MyOwnMuse
Originally posted by PVS
actually, they most likely typed "lojikal falasy" and then google responed
"did you mean logical fallacy?"

My favorite misspelling of that term ever was "logical phallacy", which I was being accused of using. Ummmm......?

Edit: Oi, I was beaten by the person above me for a post on logical genitalia. Now I am teh silly!

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

Pithy.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Cos they'll be moving around and that.

-AC

A swing and a miss.

There seems to be some latent hostility here.

Alpha Centauri
Nah, just joking.

Seriously, though. Hahaha, the epileptics...tattooing?! I've heard it all now.

In a nightclub as well, how can they see?

-AC

BackFire
It's funny, and it makes you think!

Adam_PoE
"Evolution is only a theory," as is Relativity, but you do not question whether or not gravity exists.

"Both Evolution and Intelligent Design should be taught in schools," as if all possibilities merit equal consideration.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Evolution is only a theory," as is Relativity, but you do not question whether or not gravity exists.

"Both Evolution and Intelligent Design should be taught in schools," as if all possibilities merit equal consideration.

How is that idiotic? confused

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How is that idiotic? confused

Because they display a clear bias often based upon ignorance and are illogical and unpractical.

In the first case they take great pride in spitting all over evolution because "it is only a theory it hasn't been proven 100%. It is only a theory" - all the while forgetting that things like gravity are also theories, ones which they actually accept, despite the "theory" being attached to the end. The word theory seems to, with a certain crowd, carry connotations of "false, unproven, unstable, unlikely" when it is usually the exact opposite.

As to the second - you have evolution, which is supported by a ton of evidence and is of practical use to many career fields, then you have ID which has practically no evidence and is relevant to practically no career paths. It seems clear why each do not merit equal time in the class rooms.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura


As to the second - you have evolution, which is supported by a ton of evidence and is of practical use to many career fields, then you have ID which has practically no evidence and is relevant to practically no career paths. It seems like why each do not merit equal time in the class rooms.

...I swear it's like you guy's live in a different world, Complex specified information, irreducible complex, fined tuned universe, MSR,Telelogical argument, and the information theory. those are just some of the evidence backing ID and somehow there's no information OK.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
...I swear it's like you guy's live in a different world, Complex specified information, irreducible complex, fined tuned universe, MSR,Telelogical argument, and the information theory. those are just some of the evidence backing ID and somehow there's no information OK.

ID's quality of evidence is of far less stable quality then the evidence on the side of evolution. I am aware with the claims made by both sides, and what both bring to the table, and the fact is from a scientific perspective ID really does not have a lot going for it, teleologics, irreducible complexs and the little beyond hypothesis, whereas evolution is well beyond such a stage due to evidence.

But people can argue the complexity of the human eye all they like and probability and such but the second point remains: the evolutionary theory is of practical use to a number of scientific and scholarly careers. ID is not. School hours are a scarce commodity, and ID design does not offer any real tangible benefit to a child's education.

Yet people use it in a debate one of two ways - the freedom of speech kind of way "it has just as much right to be taught as anything else" and the "it is a valid alternative" kind of way, both of which fail to stand up in a serious debate.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
ID's quality of evidence is of far less stable quality then the evidence on the side of evolution. I am aware with the claims made by both sides, and what both bring to the table, and the fact is from a scientific perspective ID really does not have a lot going for it, teleologics, irreducible complexs and the little beyond hypothesis, whereas evolution is well beyond such a stage due to evidence.

But people can argue the complexity of the human eye all they like and probability and such but the second point remains: the evolutionary theory is of practical use to a number of scientific and scholarly careers. ID is not. School hours are a scarce commodity, and ID design does not offer any real tangible benefit to a child's education.

Yet people use it in a debate one of two ways - the freedom of speech kind of way "it has just as much right to be taught as anything else" and the "it is a valid alternative" kind of way, both of which fail to stand up in a serious debate.

Far less stable as opposed to evolution and it's slew of hoaxes in an attempt to propagate it's indoctrinate. and relies on reinterpreting definitions of words. a good example of this is the word Macro Evolution which states that breeds will eventually become a new species through the gain of traits via Mutations. this has NEVER been proven, rather flukist just go around claiming every instance of speciation is Macro-Evolution and don't go indepth with their argument. they basically show you something and say it supports their argument, but tell me when has speciation ever occurred due to gain of traits because of a mutation?

And you bring up school hours being precious, when you have Darwnist like heckel forging sketches that were used for 100 years.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Far less stable as opposed to evolution and it's slew of hoaxes in an attempt to propagate it's indoctrinate. and relies on reinterpreting definitions of words. a good example of this is the word Macro Evolution which states that breeds will eventually become a new species through the gain of traits via. this has NEVER been proven, rather flukist just go around claiming every instance of speciation is Macro-Evolution and don't go indepth with their argument. they basically show you something and say it supports their argument, but tell me when has speciation ever occurred due to gain of traits because of a mutation?

It is of course a coincidence that whales have a skeletal structure that seems to strongly indicate they once were land animals, or that the Dugongs closet anatomical/genetic relative is the elephant. It is a coincidence there is such strong evidence that homo sapian is related to the ape family and prior homo species. It is a coincidence the evidence discovered linking birds and therapods. It is a coincidence the number of species out there (mainly amphibious and aquatic) that showed evidence of mutating into a species distinct from the one they used to be.

This seems to be to me an example of questionable debating skills. You use words like "flukists" and go on about hoaxes and imply that the scientific communtity was implicit in their falsity, while obmitting the fact most were disproved by evolution supporters, an act which didn't actually damage the theory at all. You are showing a lack of depth. Go to any university and you will be able to sit in on a biological class where they are discussing evolution and you will find depth and plenty of evidence.



Yes, I bring up schools and there precious hours. The kind of thinking behind this argument ends up begging the question where it will stop - I guess you will have to split up history into three sessions - the normal history based upon the work of historians, Biblical history where everything is from a biblical perspective, and conspiracy history, where normal history is retold from the conspiracy stance.

The way pro ID has been used in debates about it in the classroom is usually very illogical and unpractical.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It is of course a coincidence that whales have a skeletal structure that seems to strongly indicate they once were land animals


-Based on how many early whale fossils, the fact is there exsist barely any early fosssils.

-There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.




Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

,or that the Dugongs closet anatomical/genetic relative is the elephant.


Again showing simialrities, so tell me where is the species is the link between these two organisms?






Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

It is a coincidence there is such strong evidence
that homo sapian is related to the ape family and prior homo species. It is a coincidence the evidence discovered linking birds and therapods. It is a coincidence the number of species out there (mainly amphibious and aquatic) that showed evidence of mutating into a species distinct from the one they used to be.

Right because humans and apes are close to 97% genetical similar, did you know humans and oysters are 97% genetically simialr where's the common ancestor their, hell many times has "Unknown Ansector" appeared when in the family tree of certain species?

And please direct me to one living transitional form, If darwin was right there should exsist millions of transitional forms


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

This seems to be to me an example of questionable debating skills. You use words like "flukists" and go on about hoaxes and imply that the scientific communtity was implicit in their falsity, while obmitting the fact most were disproved by evolution supporters, an act which didn't actually damage the theory at all. You are showing a lack of depth. Go to any university and you will be able to sit in on a biological class where they are discussing evolution and you will find depth and plenty of evidence.

I call you flukist, because evolutionist are so high and mighty that any claim that disagree's stems from lack of knowledge. Lack of understanding of biology so answer this question for me. If a species gains survival traits as a result of natural selection. how do they survive natural selection without them?

Example: if a population was suffering from malaria, how would they survive if none of them had the trait responsible for their very survival in the first place?


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Yes, I bring up schools and there precious hours. The kind of thinking behind this argument ends up begging the question where it will stop - I guess you will have to split up history into three sessions - the normal history based upon the work of historians, Biblical history where everything is from a biblical perspective, and conspiracy history, where normal history is retold from the conspiracy stance.

The way pro ID has been used in debates about it in the classroom is usually very illogical and unpractical.

Can you use on biblical quote that I have used in my arguments?
And I hardly think whatn my views on conspiracy's hold any ground in this debate, instead of debating my facts you attack my character how predictable of a flukist in kmc.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Can you use on biblical quote that I have used in my arguments?
And I hardly think whatn my views on conspiracy's hold any ground in this debate, instead of debating my facts you attack my character how predictable of a flukist in kmc.

We are getting off topic, and out of respect to PVS we should try to focus here. You can raise any number of the evolutionary threads, where the questions you just asked have been covered a dozen times.

As to your question there, in debating terms, you are taking something out of context in order to claim you have been wronged and thus seize the moral high ground (while calling me a "flukist".)

Did I say you quoted the Bible? No. I was referring to the impracticality of the debating methods of those who advocate ID be taught in class rooms; usually they are completely unable to come up with a way this could practically be done, nor tangible reasons why ID be given equal or greater time then evolution. My reference to history extrapolated on this: where does it stop? Almost every class type a child attends has a number of less reputable, less supportable alternatives. If we cut down time for evolution for ID, why not listen to the conspiracy advocates and cut down normal history in order to allow "non-traditional" historical interpretations. And people have suggested that before.

And I also stand by the other point that started this. The absurdity of attacking something because of the "theory" label.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
We are getting off topic, and out of respect to PVS we should try to focus here. You can raise any number of the evolutionary threads, where the questions you just asked have been covered a dozen times.

Answered how by someone spamming talkorigins, or undermining anothers intelligence through Flukist tautology?



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

As to your question there, in debating terms, you are taking something out of context in order to claim you have been wronged and thus seize the moral high ground (while calling me a "flukist".).
I call you a flukist because that is what darwinism is centered, a series of random accidents and change of circumstance lead to lifeless matter to become highly advance systems with intelligent organism that are irreducibly complex, full of complex specified information, happened by a slim (And I mean slim chance). If you choose to take it the wrong way, that's your fault not mine.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Did I say you quoted the Bible? No. I was referring to the impracticality of the debating methods of those who advocate ID be taught in class rooms; usually they are completely unable to come up with a way this could practically be done, nor tangible reasons why ID be given equal or greater time then evolution. My reference to history extrapolated on this: where does it stop? Almost every class type a child attends has a number of less reputable, less supportable alternatives. If we cut down time for evolution for ID, why not listen to the conspiracy advocates and cut down normal history in order to allow "non-traditional" historical interpretations. And people have suggested that before.

And I also stand by the other point that started this. The absurdity of attacking something because of the "theory" label.

And again you fail to differentiate between IF and creationism. ID does not support any biblical analogy. furthermore ID definitely deserves more of a chance because like I said before it doesn't rely on Hoaxes. oh and for the record the only reason why those hoaxes were revealed was because of pressure given by a few individuals against the evo camp itself.

Your basically implying it's idiotic to debate against darwinism, since it is beyond scrutiny.

Regret
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I call you a flukist because that is what darwinism is centered, a series of random accidents and change of circumstance lead to lifeless matter to become highly advance systems with intelligent organism that are irreducibly complex, full of complex specified information, happened by a slim (And I mean slim chance). If you choose to take it the wrong way, that's your fault not mine.

I like to refer to the Guide for the chances of this occurring:

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Answered how by someone spamming talkorigins, or undermining anothers intelligence through Flukist tautology?

Funny. From what I remember in those threads it is usually a couple of anti-evolutionary posters cutting and pasting the same thing over and over again from blatantly unscientific and overly biased websites. And that is another debating method I dislike. I prefer reading a persons actual opinions, not having to drown in 50,000 words cut from "IDkillsevolution.com"



Tch. Once again I point out I didn't connect the Bible and ID. Not sure how you keep reaching that conclusion. And likewise I am not sure what book you have been reading, but evolution does not rely on hoaxes.



Take something out of context. Or completely make it up. I honestly don't know how you reached that conclusion. You are the one who said not to debate it due to "spamming talkorigins, or undermining anothers intelligence through Flukist tautology?" I didn't say that at all. I enjoy talking about it. But I will not applaud those whose debating technique consists of attacking it based upon it being a "theory" (poor debating.)

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Regret
I like to refer to the Guide for the chances of this occurring:

laughing laughing laughing

I Knew this was coming, because there exsist a probability of it occuring, despite how low it is. It happened laughing You don't feel nthe need to explain why or how, hell you don't feel the need to defend your mechanism. Out of respect for the thread were going off topic so I'll stop, But man that was funny.

Regret
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
laughing laughing laughing

I Knew this was coming, because there exsist a probability of it occuring, despite how low it is. It happened laughing You don't feel nthe need to explain why or how, hell you don't feel the need to defend your mechanism. Out of respect for the thread were going off topic so I'll stop, But man that was funny.

Wasn't supporting or detracting from the positions...just thought I'd post that because it seemed to fit...not to mention I love that paragraph wink

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Funny. From what I remember in those threads it is usually a couple of anti-evolutionary posters cutting and pasting the same thing over and over again from blatantly unscientific and overly biased websites. And that is another debating method I dislike. I prefer reading a persons actual opinions, not having to drown in 50,000 words cut from "IDkillsevolution.com"

And talkorigins is scientific?
I don't remeber in any of the discussions that I was involved in, that particular site was mentioned. but talkorigins sure comes up alot.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Tch. Once again I point out I didn't connect the Bible and ID. Not sure how you keep reaching that conclusion. And likewise I am not sure what book you have been reading, but evolution does not rely on hoaxes.

Piltdownman, fake archeotypx fossils from china, nebraska pig tooth, heckels fake skecthes I could go on.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Take something out of context. Or completely make it up. I honestly don't know how you reached that conclusion. You are the one who said not to debate it due to "spamming talkorigins, or undermining anothers intelligence through Flukist tautology?" I didn't say that at all. I enjoy talking about it. But I will not applaud those whose debating technique consists of attacking it based upon it being a "theory" (poor debating.)


Like in this thread where people debated intelligently:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=401052&highlight=evolution+vs+intelligent+design

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And talkorigins is scientific?
I don't remeber in any of the discussions that I was involved in, that particular site was mentioned. but talkorigins sure comes up alot.

I don't even know what talkorigins is, I am guessing it is a pro-evolution website.

As to my one, I made it up. Why? Because you seem a bit hyper sensitive today. If quoted all those religiously motivated ID sites that actually turned up in those arguments you would accuse me of ignorantly linking ID and religion, which is exactly what happened often in those threads - from the ID side. How many times did I read a whob and co. post to see it had something to do with some religious chappie saying evolution is wrong and ID is right?



Uh huh. And how long after Darwin first proposed his theory did the first of them crop up? And how many were the life blood of evolution before being disproved? And how many still are? It has been said before - yep, plenty of fakes, which has made scientists far more careful these days.




Uh huh. So first we have Whob., who could write a book on bad ways to debate, mass posting and going on about Paley, who most modern day ID theorists agree is outdated. Whob., in his posts, shows an astounding lack of understanding of either the ID theory or the evolutionary theory.

Then someone gets to commenting on Whob's actual sources:




I am afraid, unless you have a specific post that proves the poor debating methods of pro e.'s all I am seeing is the point I made earlier.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't even know what talkorigins is, I am guessing it is a pro-evolution website.

As to my one, I made it up. Why? Because you seem a bit hyper sensitive today. If quoted all those religiously motivated ID sites that actually turned up in those arguments you would accuse me of ignorantly linking ID and religion, which is exactly what happened often in those threads - from the ID side. How many times did I read a whob and co. post to see it had something to do with some religious chappie saying evolution is wrong and ID is right?






Uh huh. So first we have Whob., who could right a book on bad ways to debate, mass posting and going on about Paley, who most modern day ID theorists agree is outdated. Whob., in his posts, shows an astounding lack of understanding of either the ID theory or the evolutionary theory.

Then someone gets to commenting on Whob's actual sources:




I am afraid, unless you have a specific post that proves the poor debating methods of pro e.'s all I am seeing is the point I made earlier - that it was often the ID lobby that used dodgy sources and resorted to the doddy act of mass posting from some other (unscientific) site.


I dunno what's up in kmc that one person has to represent a particualr gruop. If it's not Whob Representing ID, It's deano Representing conspiracies.




Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Uh huh. And how long after Darwin first proposed his theory did the first of them crop up? And how many were the life blood of evolution before being disproved? And how many still are? It has been said before - yep, plenty of fakes, which has made scientists far more careful these days.

Right, even though Abiogenesis was disproved it certainly stops Flukist from using it today...
roll eyes (sarcastic)

GCG
Originally posted by PVS
ah yes, the old fact/opinion switch

poster1: *states opinion dressed up as fact...often including the word "FACT!".

poster2: *presents factual proof that they are wrong*

poster1: fine. lets just agree to disagree. you have your opinion and i have mine.

poster 2: um...no, this is proven fact, thus you are believing an absolute lie.

poster1: you should respect other people's opinions (on and on, back and forth)



I just can see poster#1 calling arrogance on that.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I dunno what's up in kmc that one person has to represent a particualr gruop. If it's not Whob Representing ID, It's deano Representing conspiracies.

You posted Whobs. thread where Whob was quoting popular ID theory throughout which Whob. was by far the most irrational and insulting poster in it. It is not my fault I use him as an example when he is the most vocal and when you actually pull up his threads - especially as he proves some of what I was saying about the way certain people approach certain debates dealing with a certain area.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

If it was done an infinite number of times, then eventually someone would end up drawing either the Mona Lisa or a nice water-colour.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

If it was done an infinite number of times, then eventually God would end up drawing either the Mona Lisa or a nice water-colour.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

If it was done an infinite number of times, then it would still look shit every damn time.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

You do.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

Don't be insulted, but your mother's a stinking whore to a pimpin' donkey who rides her roughshod.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

So...How've you been?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyone who can't express tone without an accompanying emoticon deserves to be tattooed by an epileptic at a nightclub.

I was bored a long time ago, so that's it for me.

Wonderer
Originally posted by PVS
i know there was a thread on this, but alas they changed the search function and i cant find it.

what are the stupidest tactics for debating you have seen?
no names please, just state it, and if giving an example do not paste a debate from another thread. just give a hypothetical example.

example:

one which has been reoccuring very often is what i will refer to as "run with the analogy". this is a tactic where, when an opponent shoots out an abstract analogy to illustrate their pattern of logic, the poster will ignore that it was simply an analogy and run with it, accusing the opponent of making a direct comparison...all the time completely dodging the point, imho very much on purpose.

poster 1: you shouldnt just get pregnant without knowing what you're getting into. parenting is a heavy responsibility. to go about it in a rush and without proper planning would be like running through traffic blindfolded.

poster 2: omg how can you compare parenting with running through traffic? how stupid. only an idiot would compare the two (on and on)

i can think of a million of them, but lets hear your observations.
oh yeah, most important: please do not quote logical fallacies. those who would understand already know them, and those who dont know are most likely too set in their own silly ways to ever care to learn them, as they are the often the ones who gleefully commit them. PVS, I think you are overly obsessed and attached to opinions and arguments. You must be very proud of your opinions, right? I would sugest that you give other people the space and justification to post their own opinions, how stupid they may be. Just like you give me the space here to post my own stupdi opinion! eek!

Wonderer
Originally posted by PVS
i know there was a thread on this, but alas they changed the search function and i cant find it.

what are the stupidest tactics for debating you have seen?
no names please, just state it, and if giving an example do not paste a debate from another thread. just give a hypothetical example.

example:

one which has been reoccuring very often is what i will refer to as "run with the analogy". this is a tactic where, when an opponent shoots out an abstract analogy to illustrate their pattern of logic, the poster will ignore that it was simply an analogy and run with it, accusing the opponent of making a direct comparison...all the time completely dodging the point, imho very much on purpose.

poster 1: you shouldnt just get pregnant without knowing what you're getting into. parenting is a heavy responsibility. to go about it in a rush and without proper planning would be like running through traffic blindfolded.

poster 2: omg how can you compare parenting with running through traffic? how stupid. only an idiot would compare the two (on and on)

i can think of a million of them, but lets hear your observations.
oh yeah, most important: please do not quote logical fallacies. those who would understand already know them, and those who dont know are most likely too set in their own silly ways to ever care to learn them, as they are the often the ones who gleefully commit them. PVS, I think you are overly obsessed and attached to opinions and arguments. You must be very proud of your opinions, right? I would sugest that you give other people the space and justification to post their own opinions, how stupid they may be. Just like you give me the space here to post my own stupdi opinion! eek!

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Wonderer
PVS, I think you are overly obsessed and attached to opinions and arguments. You must be very proud of your opinions, right? I would sugest that you give other people the space and justification to post their own opinions, how stupid they may be. Just like you give me the space here to post my own stupdi opinion! eek!

Originally posted by Wonderer
PVS, I think you are overly obsessed and attached to opinions and arguments. You must be very proud of your opinions, right? I would sugest that you give other people the space and justification to post their own opinions, how stupid they may be. Just like you give me the space here to post my own stupdi opinion! eek!

You stated your opinion twice, so what does that say about you?
You stated your opinion twice, so what does that say about you?
You stated your opinion twice, so what does that say about you?

Wonderer
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You stated your opinion twice, so what does that say about you?
You stated your opinion twice, so what does that say about you?
You stated your opinion twice, so what does that say about you?
Thanks for pointing that out, my good man. But I think that was the website in error. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once. I meant to state it only once.

PVS
Originally posted by Wonderer
PVS, I think you are overly obsessed and attached to opinions and arguments. You must be very proud of your opinions, right? I would sugest that you give other people the space and justification to post their own opinions, how stupid they may be. Just like you give me the space here to post my own stupdi opinion! eek!

are you still bitter about that spotlight i put on your hypocrisy in some other thread?
its not healthy to hold a grudge, you know. when you do so, you allow someone
to live in your mind, rent free. a wise person once told me that, so i pass it on to you




oh yeah: smile


...all better?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Regret
I like to refer to the Guide for the chances of this occurring:

And the truth was revealed

DarkC
The repeated use of winks and rolleyes smileys.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by DarkC
The repeated use of winks and rolleyes smileys.

wink wink wink roll eyes (sarcastic) roll eyes (sarcastic) roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing

Bardock42
Yeah, indeed, kinda like Shakyamunison uses them.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Well, oh-my-god, everyone is just, like, sooooo ironic.

Apart from Bardock. He's going for uber-irony. Go him. Yeah.

Imperial_Samura
no expression Damn. The use of this smiley. It isn't even a debating tactic. It is just irksome sometimes for a topic to be rolling along and suddenly someone posts one of those. Damn it, if you don't have anything to contribute just don't. We don't need "I have nothing to contribute" smiley.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Well, oh-my-god, everyone is just, like, sooooo ironic.

Apart from Bardock. He's going for uber-irony. Go him. Yeah.

What does "uber" mean?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, indeed, kinda like Shakyamunison uses them.

Another one is people who have to sense of humans.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Another one is people who have to sense of humans.

Shakyamunison
Or people who quote, but never say anything.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or people who quote, but never say anything.

Must be my need to sense of humans...

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Bardock42
What does "uber" mean?

Like 'cheese', or something...

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Bardock42
Must be my need to sense of humans...

That might be a useful superpower, if somewhat lame. You'd be able to tell if other posters where human or robots or Aliens or Whob....

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Like 'cheese', or something...

I like cheesed irony...

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Shut up, Bardock. You're an idiot.

I just noticed a deliciously idiotic tactic in Gay marriages - yes or no? thread. It is also a tactic used repeatedly across the forum; if someone doesn't argue according to how cretin members want, they decide to crown themselves victorious in the debate. It is especially true to those who believe only factual scientific evidence can support an opinion.

When it is coupled with something as pretentious as this:

"Thank you, this is what I've been asking for. Instead of opinion I wanted scientific studies from the other side. I'll read over them tonight."

I cringe until my left arm falls off.

Don't do it, you beautiful people.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Shut up, Bardock. You're an idiot.

I just noticed a deliciously idiotic tactic in Gay marriages - yes or no? thread. It is also a tactic used repeatedly across the forum; if someone doesn't argue according to how cretin members want, they decide to crown themselves victorious in the debate. It is especially true to those who believe only factual scientific evidence can support an opinion.

When it is coupled with something as pretentious as this:

"Thank you, this is what I've been asking for. Instead of opinion I wanted scientific studies from the other side. I'll read over them tonight."

I cringe until my left arm falls off.

Don't do it, you beautiful people. Originally posted by PVS
no names please, just state it, and if giving an example do not paste a debate from another thread. just give a hypothetical example.

I love you floo...but you called me an idiot....

botankus
20 bucks.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Bardock42
I love you floo...but you called me an idiot....

I meant 'iPod'. You're an iPod.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I meant 'iPod'. You're an iPod.

I'll pm you my PayPal account. I could really use that $20. laughing

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I meant 'iPod'. You're an iPod.

In the sense that you want to play me?

You sicko.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
No, I just want to hold you tightly in the palm of my hand as I fiddle with your knobs.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
No, I just want to hold you tightly in the palm of my hand as I fiddle with your knobs.

Deal.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
We're not playing cards here. This isn't a will you-won't you type thing. I am touching your dials right now. It's great, and there's not a thing you can do about it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
We're not playing cards here. This isn't a will you-won't you type thing. I am touching your dials right now. It's great, and there's not a thing you can do about it.

...can Ipods be raped?

I mean I know Ipods can be used to rape somebody (shut up AC), but, you know what I don't mean?

Arcana
The only thing I know about debating is that I'm a sucky debater...

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Bardock42
...can Ipods be raped?

I mean I know Ipods can be used to rape somebody (shut up AC), but, you know what I don't mean?

I always thought USB stands for 'U Sexy Beast', so yes...beasts with two backs can be made.

Explain to me again about iPod usage though...

Alpha Centauri
Bardock is actually a mental case.

-AC

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>