Idiotic Debating Tactics

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How is that idiotic? 😕

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [B] 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?[/b]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".).

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.

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:

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

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"

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.

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.

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

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.)

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

😆 😆 😆

I Knew this was coming, because there exsist a probability of it occuring, despite how low it is. It happened 😆 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.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
😆 😆 😆

I Knew this was coming, because there exsist a probability of it occuring, despite how low it is. It happened 😆 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 😉

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

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?

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

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.

Like in this thread where people debated intelligently:

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

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:

1. First off, this guy was an author in 1802 and he is a Creationist, whose views are not based on anything close to the scientific method. His words are basically shit now as far as science goes. But anyway, Richard Dawkins refutes him with 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Check it out.

2. Michael Behe has been refuted multiple times, even by a fellow Christian scientist, Kenneth Miller. Ironic how that one works. Even other Christians don't believe his crap.

3. You cite this source 3 times. Doesnt really make it any more credible. Besides, the link doesn't work. Dembski has a degree in mathematical philosophy, not science. His arguments are based on statistical speculation, not the scientific method. As for statistics, even if something has a 0.000001% chance of happening, the chance still exists.

And these 'scientists' you refer to early in your post aren't scientists at all. They get their degrees in theology and philosophy from Christian institutions.

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.

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...
🙄

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.

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 [B] Whob Representing ID, It's deano Representing conspiracies.[/b]

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.

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.

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?
[b]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. [/B]

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?
[b]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. [/B]