The art of debating

Today I'll show examples of wilful ignorance and hypocricy from KMC's PVS:

Originally posted by PVS
you were following the conversation AC. first people including myself brought up whob's and whirley's thread killing via smilies and other spamtastic bullshit when they knew they got owned.

Right.

Originally posted by PVS
then you switched the topic as a cute jab at me, which i really dont mind btw, since what you, lana, and bardock find funny means little to me. no offense intended but thats the truth.

It wasn't a jab at you, wilful ignorance number one. Everytime I make a point that INCLUDES you, you automatically assume I am zooming in at your chest with laser sight or something. Janus clearly realised I was speaking about all those who use leetspeak in such a way. Why can't you? Oh that'll be the wilful ignorance.

Originally posted by PVS
the fact is that you connected one stated point to your point. that was the intention. but i guess when the statement is taken alone you can fake it and say you never made that connection, and i'll give it to you. 🙂 <----see?

I more or less said leetspeak in that manner was immature and not funny, almost as bad as people who used it originally and "seriously". You just happened to be providing the examples in the thread, I don't hold you up as the only person who does it, but...you are one, so therefore you're included.

Wilful ignorance example two.

-AC

i also hate "LOL" and "ROFL" hence why i mock it. i mean, i dont hate it EVERY time, just when you know damn well that they are steamed up and gritting their teeth, as opposed to laughing out loud or rolling on the floor. another weak defense mechanism.

Hmm....don't you guys think we're over analyzing each other?

^Oh look! a logical fallacy.

(..whatever...)

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Hmm....don't you guys think we're over analyzing each other?

Certainly not in an analyzing thread.....

I also hate "ROFL", if only because it reminds me of the name Rolf.

"Lol" I can...tolerate I guess, but when it gets into "Lololol" it needs to stop. If it's abbreviated words like "OMG" then I can tend to overlook it, because people also use "BTW" or "IMO".

All this "OMFG" and "ROFLMAO", disturbing.

-AC

my next observation...

tireless rebutting

the act of attempting to win an argument by

picking apart every single sentence of someone's post

in an attempt to give the illusion that they are

squashing every single word spoken by an opponent

when in actuallity they are simply conducting childish mocking and giving meaningless jabs

but its difficult to notice since nobody really reads these types of ego maniacle battles

simply because its usually not even focused on the topic but rather

on the opponent

and as each rebuttal is posted, the posts become exponentially longer

when someone else has the energy and care to engage in this pointless manner of squabbling

and all the time they fail to see that the topic has been killed and the thread is now all about them

-PVS

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I also hate "ROFL", if only because it reminds me of the name Rolf.

"Lol" I can...tolerate I guess, but when it gets into "Lololol" it needs to stop. If it's abbreviated words like "OMG" then I can tend to overlook it, because people also use "BTW" or "IMO".

All this "OMFG" and "ROFLMAO", disturbing.

-AC

What's wrong with Rolf...my uncle is named Rolf.....

Originally posted by PVS
my next observation...

the act of attempting to win an argument by

in an attempt to give the illusion that they are

when in actuallity they are simply conducting childish mocking and giving meaningless jabs

simply because its usually not even focused on the topic but rather

and as each rebuttal is posted, the posts become

and all the time they fail to see that the topic has been killed and the thread is now all about them

-PVS

Wilful ignorance example three, hypocricy example *pick a number*

-AC

twas a general statement. now lets drop it since i know the end result of carrying on will be my inbox flooded with tearful PM's.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I read your post and understood it. You said:

Since you didn't ask me anything in your post first directed at me. I made a two independent questions (which you did not answer) To answer your question...you didn't. Now would answer my question (Then why bother in the first place?) or do you reply to a question with another question? (no need to answer this one)

Now, either you're deliberately trying to be annoying (which I find extremely pointless) or you do not read my posts.
You claiming you have read and understood a post should consequently lead to an answer/reply that is built on this understanding. This you did not do.

Your questions were:
"Then why bother in the first place? If you already assume the other person won't listen to you?"
You're commiting the fallacy circulus in demonstrando, you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach.
Here you post the claim that I ALREADY assume the other person won't listen. This I can't possibly conclude before a debate has even started.

Where did I say I ALREADY ASSUME the other person won’t listen before I "bother"?

Originally posted by The Omega
Now, either you're deliberately trying to be annoying (which I find extremely pointless) or you do not read my posts.
You claiming you have read and understood a post should consequently lead to an answer/reply that is built on this understanding. This you did not do.

Your questions were:
"Then why bother in the first place? If you already assume the other person won't listen to you?"
You're commiting the fallacy circulus in demonstrando, you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach.
Here you post the claim that I ALREADY assume the other person won't listen. This I can't possibly conclude before a debate has even started.

Where did I say I ALREADY ASSUME the other person won’t listen before I "bother"?

I'm trying to deliberately annoy you? Heck! I'm not the one who started the whole little thing. I wasn't even addressing you in the first place. I was addressing doc.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=401512&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=6

Who is trying to annoy who?

I ask you a simple question that by now I find utterly pointless to answer. I did answer you question with this:

WrathfulDwarf To answer your question...you didn't.

Not good enough for you? Oh, well.

I'm not into the business of splitting hairs here....If you enjoy it so much knock yourself out. As I said before.

WrathfulDwarf

Hmm....don't you guys think we're over analyzing each other?

^Oh look! a logical fallacy.

(..whatever...)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's probably been funny once, ever. It never will be again and any chance it had to be resurrected as funny were killed off when everyone decided to start thinking "It'll be funny if I say it too."

Can I have that point back when you're finished with it?

Might want to use it again.

Can you clean it first though?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Willfull ignorance also seems like a contradiction in terms.

Indeed. I prefer to call it wilful stupidity.

I prefer to call it 'shoes'.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I prefer to call it 'shoes'.

I prefer to wear shoes.

*enhances the mood by singing sinatra's 'strangers in the night'*

Some people just don´t want to do a clear debate, they are more interested in winning the debate than actually trying to see a reason in what is being debated. When this happens there is no more honesty in the debate, just attemps to make their point look right... be it with smilies, misleading, playing logic games, ignoring arguments... it is easy to distort something. People should be more reposnsible for their point of views.

We just should try to avoid situations like this.

I don't like arguing with people.......It's scary...

WrathfulDwarf> Where did I say I ALREADY ASSUME the other person won’t listen before I "bother"?
You are asking me this, I can't answer a question that claims I assume something which I do not.

i love when people go out of their way to attack others ad hominem/ad nausium and drag the thread off topic for some pointless battle, and then after all their flamimg they make some announcement like "now can you please get back to topic???" and assume their own innocence...assuming their 'at the man' tactic goes belly up...so really its a win/win in their own mind.