I have to say that the ones that bug me are these:
Judges 13:6
6 ¶ Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:See I told you it was a fact
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.
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
😐
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
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
😐
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'?
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.
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!"