Originally posted by MC Mike
RTO, it makes you look like you think you are better than the people you are debating. To me, I think it's your choice wether or not you post those smilies, but it is my opinion that you should cut down on them a bit. 😬
Boring old text. If you guys can stand it... then..... whatever. Now i gotta use grammar.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
wow.... so your logic is that if there are smilies therefore it is not worth reading 🙄 very logical. So its ok for him to attack me but i can't defend myself?
See thats the thing right there - he never attacked you, he disagreed with you - YOU are the one that attacked him, called him ignorant and tried to degrate him somehow using the pathetic smilies.
You need to learn what having a debate means - its not that everyone who disagrees with you is shit and doesnt know anything.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
See thats the thing right there - he never attacked you, he disagreed with you - YOU are the one that attacked him, called him ignorant and tried to degrate him somehow using the pathetic smilies.You need to learn what having a debate means - its not that everyone who disagrees with you is shit and doesnt know anything.
no, you seem to have not read his earlier comments. Give me a proper point and i will acknowledge your side as just. Until then i will only respond with my counterpoints, and the other side only tries to degrade my points because they lack any form of response. Exactly what you are doing with attacking my use of smillies. what relivence do smiliies have to anything other then assumption. Which by far is the most inaccurate form of deductive reasoning.
By your grand knowledge of debate, please tel me the difference bettween deductive and inductive reasoning.
personally, i hate the "😐" smiley. you overuse that alot, and
it does seem rather belittling. of coarse, that is how i translate and
it may not be what you intend to project.
please dont take that as an attack, its just an observation.
bickering and smileys aside, its nice to debate with a bush supporter who actually pays attention to the issues, and doesnt just repeat "flip flop" and "four more years" and other mindless rambling.
I told you what i think, and I wasnt even refering to you to begin with, i was talking to Zanthor. You;re the one that asked why i didnt read your post, i gave you the answer, what do you want from me now? Eh?
I still dont take you seriously, i probably never will, so lets not waste each others time.
"By your grand knowledge of debate, please tel me the difference bettween deductive and inductive reasoning."
Inductive reasoning is when an argument comes to a probably conclusion rather then an absolute one.
Deductive reasoning is the oposite, the conclusion is included in the premise and thus inevitable.
Originally posted by BackFire
"By your grand knowledge of debate, please tel me the difference bettween deductive and inductive reasoning."Inductive reasoning is when an argument comes to a probably conclusion rather then an absolute one.
Deductive reasoning is the oposite, the conclusion is included in the premise and thus inevitable.
✅ Inductive is using a generalization to come to a narrow resolution.
Deductive is taking a narrow fact and making a generalization.
Both are inaccurate at a certain extent, but deductive is more reliable on most points.
Originally posted by BackFire
Hurray for argument class.Whatever the case, knowing the definition of a few argumentative terms doesn't mean you automatically know how to argue, nor does it mean that those who don't know said terms DON'T argue as well as those who do know.
yes, but lil claimed that i knew nothing of debate and assumed that because i used many smillies even after we have spoken many times she tried to place me as avoiding the arguement and threw the ideals of advocacy... i proved otherwise.
for she used deductive reasoning.
She didn't claim that you knew nothing about debating, simply that you weren't following the proper format of debate. At the time you were an "arguer as a harrasser" (another little term for ya). Belittling Zanthor by patronizing him with smileys laughing at his points and calling him ignorant to lower his credibility to get your point across rather then only adressing his points, which is what you should be doing in a real debate.
You claim that he was insulting you first, but by lowering yourself to his level and insulting him back you achieve nothing but...well....lowering yourself to his level. (Assuming he did attack you, which I didn't see, but I did miss a number of posts in this thread so who knows.)
Of course, this isn't a real debate so who gives a shit.
Originally posted by BackFire
She didn't claim that you knew nothing about debating, simply that you weren't following the proper format of debate. At the time you were an "arguer as a harrasser" (another little term for ya). Belittling Zanthor by patronizing him with smileys laughing at his points and calling him ignorant to lower his credibility, to get your point across rather then only adressing his points, which is what you should be doing in a real debate.You claim that he was insulting you first, but by lowering yourself to his level and insulting him back you achieve nothing but...well....lowering yourself to his level. (Assuming he did attack you, which I didn't see, but I did miss a number of posts in this thread.)
Of course, this isn't a real debate so who gives a shit.
You missed a lot then. I was laughing because what he proved was a circular arguement against himself.
actually its "reductio ad absurdum" 😛 i have took a advocacy class 😄