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?
😛 You never understand my point, so I try to clarify, and you say I'm changing. 🙄 I admit that I am not the best communicator, but you know what I'm talking aboot. 😆
Originally posted by PVS
ah yes, the old fact/opinion switchposter1: *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. 😬
Originally posted by botankus
Maybe it's just me, but I still haven't figured out the whole meaning behind the 😐 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 😐
it makes them look dead serious and thus correct 😐
i dont know how their logic works, but thats the way it seems to be 😐
Originally posted by botankus
Maybe it's just me, but I still haven't figured out the whole meaning behind the 😐 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."
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I guess my most idiotic debating tactic is when I actually debate with an idiot.
😂
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.
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 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
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"😉
Well, PVS, I'm waiting for those twenty bucks.
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"😉Well, PVS, I'm waiting for those twenty bucks.
its too late. you cant dictate in hindsight. thats not fair 😠
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
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"😉Well, PVS, I'm waiting for those twenty bucks.
😆 Good job Bardock42. 👆