Pseudo Badness?

Originally posted by BackFire
Sorgo, I'm going to skip over the needless statements because our posts are getting to long. Just assume what I would have posted would be funny.

Escapism. Nice!

If you cannot debate properly, you need to stick to being funny and JUST funny, brother.

First and foremost, Wikipedia is certainly not a valid source for anything, as anyone can edit any of the pages. Also, you seem to be thinking that for a fallacy to be applicable, it must be identical to one of the examples. That's not how it works. Those examples were merely for teaching purposes, the most base and obvious forms of the fallacy. It can and does apply to what your posts were, a continuations of your arguments. The appeal to pity fallacy still applies to you, because, while yes it wasn't contained within the direct argument, it was done to try to further hinder their argument and strengthen yours, your discussion was still going on, it was still based on whether the word was proper or not, as such, it's applicable.

No, no, no.

A) If Wikipedia is edited, it's original article is previously returned to it's former state within fifteen minutes. The edits do not last so the information is possibly valid. By the way, the articles on each fallacy is accurate.

B) So are examples of HOW THE FALLACY WORKS. I did NOT apply my statement about mutual respect to the relevant debate. This is something you must realize.

Here is what I would have to say for the fallacy to apply, Backfire:

"Your point does not apply, because I am a nice guy and I get picked on."

I said:

"Well, I often get attacked by other members in threads and I'm merely defending myself. People aren't very nice to me because blah blah blah."

Someone said "You say this! You say that!" I gave them the reason for me saying this during these specific scenarios. That is NOT pity. You DO NOT understand the fallacy at all. Stop insisting that you do because it's so embarrassing.

No, it was not done to hinder the argument. You didn't even read the whole damn argument. You don't know what lead up to it.

You're being ignorant through this whole debate.

That previous post didn't look all that funny to me.

Also no, there were no insults towards you that I've seen from either Puzzle or Strangelove. Please quote them. As it is, all I've seen is you attacking others for disagreeing with you in a rather civilized manner.

When I was in a DISCUSSION with AC, I was making a point that IN THE PAST I had been insulted for no reason when I was displaying respect and being courteous to people.

When I look back, I insulted a few times yes. I admit to it even being a bit uncalled for, but I'm fed up. If you'd been keeping track in the earlier days when I first got here, Puzzle would come into my threads and bash me and my threads for no reason. He called me a homosexual frequently as well, but this is no excuse and I should not have insulted him but I was fed up for him defending Strangelove when I had BLUNTLY proved Strangelove wrong. His prejudice was bothering me.

Even so, I was still sticking to the relevancy of the debate and you call me a bad debater? Your perception is off. You quote when I call people names but you fail to review my arguments, as you admitted yourself.

Right? Yeah.

Puzzle said you were baiting, you responded by calling him a "Biased moron". Where was his insult that angered you so and justifies your insult?

Once again, you're being selective. You're going to love this irony right here: You're showing a bias yourself. You once again failed to read exactly what happened. Would you like me to systematically explain this to you, SINCE YOU HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE READING PROPERLY?

He said I was baiting him as an excuse to escape the debate. I explained to him how he was just avoiding it because I countered it, and he dismissed me as baiting. 😐

I called him a biased moron because he was being ... a biased moron. He was taking Strangelove's side AFTER I PROVED STRANGELOVE WRONG.

If you can't get it, I don't know WHAT should be done with you.

Puzzle later also said "He's right it's not proper English" Too which you replied "Can you really be this stupid...?" Again, where is his insult? I don't see it. You then went on to say "Are you truly THAT stupid..." Also, your claim that you weren't insulting them but "questioning their intelligence" is nonsense.

Well, no it isn't. Read above. I said it was uncalled for, but when I ask if him if he is truly that stupid, I'm questioning his intelligence. How's that nonsense?

You saying "Are you truly THAT stupid" is a loaded question. It implies that he IS stupid, but the degree of how stupid is questionable. That was just a lazy excuse.

No, it doesn't imply anything so stop making assumptions. I did not CALL him stupid. I asked him if he was. You getting it?

Finally, strangelove said "You don't want to entertain your laughable debating skills" Too which you said he wasn't a man. Once again, where's his insult to you? It doesn't exist. If they are there, please provide proof of your claim. I believe you are lying, or your seeing things that aren't there for your own convenience. Your justification of "They insulted me first" is shit, as far as I can tell, seeing as I've not seen one actual insult from them aimed at you, where as I've seen several from you aimed at them.

Now you claim that I committed Appeal to the Majority. I've never heard of this one. I assume you mean Appeal to Popularity. If that's the case, then you are indeed wrong. Appeal to Popularity is when you say an argument is right because many believe it to be true. I did no such thing. I simply said you insulted others and myself, which you did. Has nothing to do with people agreeing with me, it has to do with the actions you've committed. Simply bringing up something you did to others isn't Appealing to Popularity.

No, there is no such thing. In latin, it is "Argumentum ad populum" and that doesn't even mean "Appeal to popularity."

Another well known name is "Appeal to the majority".

Well, I apologize. I misread your statement. I thought you had committed that particular fallacy but you did not. I'm sorry.

I also didn't put words in your mouth. You claim that you aren't denying that you insulted people. But in the same post, you denied it, saying that you were "questioning their intelligence". That's denial, right there.

I didn't deny it. I was questioning his intelligence by asking him if he was stupid. Read above, I feel I'm repeating myself.

Ad Hominem was committed. Again, you're thinking that it must be identical to the examples or else it's not true. That would be wrong, there are many variations to these, it doesn't have to be done in the exact wording of the examples, they're just there to simplify the fallacy so people can understand it. You insulted them during your arguments, even before it ended, such as when you called Puzzle a biased moron. That WAS while the discussion was going on, and that IS Ad Hominem, you were attacking him to try and weaken his statement. It's very simple.

No, you do not know what Ad Hominem means. Stop using these fallacies like you actually know what you're talking about. You really don't. I called him a biased moron because he was being biased and I thought he was being a moron at that time. Ad Hominem is discrediting someone because they contain a disadvantage or exploiting their disadvantage as a person to aid a point. What I did was completely different.

Example of Ad Hominem:

""You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

Yeah, you pretty much don't know anything about Logical Fallacy.

Finally, I'll say again, I don't need to read every single post of yours to know that you insulted people, and yes, calling someone stupid IS bad debating - Fact. Ask any professor or anyone with any knowledge of the rules of debate, it's bad form.

It is bad form, but it's not evidence that I cannot debate. It is evidence that I can get frustrated at certain times. That's all you've proven. You have not proved how much of an unskilled debater I am at all. You do, because if you don't, it basically proves ignorance, that's all.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
C) They did not admit they were wrong. They just tried to say that I was being stubborn, but they did not admit it. They insisted on running because of an overdeveloped pride.

D) They couldn't. For whatever reason, THEY COULD NOT. Why? They didn't. They ran off. I proved them wrong. Easy to understand, no?

I hope, just for the record, this isn't referring to me. IF it was, I ran nowhere, and you know this. We both got tired of going on and on because the discussion became about what you think about me, and it's stupid to debate simply because you have an opinion of me.

If you weren't referring to me, then my bad.

-AC

Originally posted by Sorgo X
C) They did not admit they were wrong. They just tried to say that I was being stubborn, but they did not admit it. They insisted on running because of an overdeveloped pride.

D) They couldn't. For whatever reason, THEY COULD NOT. Why? They didn't. They ran off. I proved them wrong. Easy to understand, no?

"Running off" is not equal to proving someone wrong. I'm just tired of you. But you are unwilling to accept that, so you make up a bullshit story about me "running off" and being "proven wrong." Prove that I'm wrong. Prove that I ran off. Maybe, like I said, I just don't want to deal with you. You are not an authority on me, so unless you have hard facts your lengthy exhortations don't mean shit.

I knew someone exactly like you in high school. During debates where he was clearly wrong, he would shout others down, insult others' intelligence, and exhaust the issue to the point where we just stopped caring. And when we gave up, he would claim victory. The parallels are striking.

this thread is so petty.🙄

look dear peoples.

this is a cyber based interaction with virtual strangers. unless you have somehow ended up developing a close bond with the person sitting at the computer on the other end of the conversation in this case, nothing he or she says should matter. You don't know them. You will most likely NEVER know them.

If you want relationships that MATTER, get your ass up off the chair and step out into the REAL world. Then if someone irks you, you have the natural right to come to terms with it.

WHO the **** cares what some horny teenager with a stick up his ass types to you across cyber space? let them in all their patheticness BE.

nothing less. nothing more.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I did not admit I was wrong because I did not believe I was wrong. Simple as that.

Just because you don't believe you're wrong doesn't mean you aren't wrong. Sorry, dude.

"Running off" is not equal to proving someone wrong. I'm just tired of you. But you are unwilling to accept that, so you make up a bullshit story about me "running off" and being "proven wrong." Prove that I'm wrong. Prove that I ran off. Maybe, like I said, I just don't want to deal with you. You are not an authority on me, so unless you have hard facts your lengthy exhortations don't mean shit.

Read down and you'll see how you were wrong. Prove that you ran off? I watched you submit the argument and leave the thread. Sorry if you don't like the words I choose, but too bad.

They mean shit. You're just too arrogant to accept it. You complain about how forward and arrogant I am most of the time and how much I press things but you're the same way. You're enveloped in pride.

I knew someone exactly like you in high school. During debates where he was clearly wrong, he would shout others down, insult others' intelligence, and exhaust the issue to the point where we just stopped caring. And when we gave up, he would claim victory. The parallels are striking.

I'm sorry, but you just explained yourself. Believe me. I proved you wrong. You had NOTHING TO SAY about my argument and you got fed up with losing so you walked off.

What do thing happens when two boxers are in the middle of the fight and one is smashing the other one and the losing boxer just walks away saying "Ugh, I'm tired. I can't put up with you anymore."

Care to explain?

No, you're just mad because you CANNOT admit defeat. Show me one example where you have admitted defeat, because I know you haven't won every argument, so show me.

You said that the word I used was not a legitimate word in the English language. You were wrong. It is officially a legitimate word in the English language. That's it. The debate is OVER and I am the victor on this occasion. Easy as one, two and three.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
this thread is so petty.🙄

look dear peoples.

this is a cyber based interaction with virtual strangers. unless you have somehow ended up developing a close bond with the person sitting at the computer on the other end of the conversation in this case, nothing he or she says should matter. You don't know them. You will most likely NEVER know them.

If you want relationships that MATTER, get your ass up off the chair and step out into the REAL world. Then if someone irks you, you have the natural right to come to terms with it.

WHO the **** cares what some horny teenager with a stick up his ass types to you across cyber space? let them in all their patheticness BE.

nothing less. nothing more.

Please, don't get mad at my patheticness and ageism is prejudice. Assumptions are the foundation for ignorance.

Disperse.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I hope, just for the record, this isn't referring to me. IF it was, I ran nowhere, and you know this. We both got tired of going on and on because the discussion became about what you think about me, and it's stupid to debate simply because you have an opinion of me.

If you weren't referring to me, then my bad.

-AC

No, I wasn't referring to you.

It's all good. It's a fair assumption.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
this thread is so petty.🙄

look dear peoples.

this is a cyber based interaction with virtual strangers. unless you have somehow ended up developing a close bond with the person sitting at the computer on the other end of the conversation in this case, nothing he or she says should matter. You don't know them. You will most likely NEVER know them.

If you want relationships that MATTER, get your ass up off the chair and step out into the REAL world. Then if someone irks you, you have the natural right to come to terms with it.

WHO the **** cares what some horny teenager with a stick up his ass types to you across cyber space? let them in all their patheticness BE.

nothing less. nothing more.

Sad thing is you made the most sense. The real sad thing is it only took your one post ..

Originally posted by Sorgo X
Please, don't get mad at my patheticness and ageism is prejudice. Assumptions are the foundation for ignorance.

Disperse.

What’s wrong Sorgo? She doesn’t feed on your “continuing attention debate” .. You should wear a sign that says attention whore. This lady makes you look like a sad little boy. You better call somebody. Oh, that’s right …

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I hope, just for the record, this isn't referring to me. IF it was, I ran nowhere, and you know this. We both got tired of going on and on because the discussion became about what you think about me, and it's stupid to debate simply because you have an opinion of me.

If you weren't referring to me, then my bad.

-AC

Originally posted by Sorgo X
No, I wasn't referring to you.

It's all good. It's a fair assumption.

My only assumption of you Sorgo is that you’re an attention whore that hasn’t stfu since you started this pathetic thread. You want a good debate? Go to the GDF, for Christ sakes. Why ***** about the OTF? You can actually be with the man you look up to an admire all the time, AC. Have a nice day.

Sorgo, I skipped much of your post because there was a lot of needless and irrelevant statements, I was pressed for time and could only respond to the major points, not every little quoted jab, you understand. Debating properly doesn't mean quoting/retorting every single paragraph, regardless of whether or not it's actually relevant. Granted, this wasn't necessarily your fault, I did the same just for shits and giggles. On that last post, I didn't have the time to, and I wanted to retort while the argument was still fresh in my mind before going to class, even though I had finite time, you understand.

Once again you don't have to explicitly say "My argument is valid because people were mean to me" for it to be considered Appeal to Pity. Even if you don't say the "MY argument is valid because..." part it could still be considered appeal to pity simply by you trying to bring about Pity to yourself in a thread which was mostly you arguing about things, at what could be considered the tail end of your argument makes it applicable.

As for Wikipedia, the key word is "Possibly valid". It may be, but it could also be incorrect. Wikipedia isn't usually looked at as the sole source for information in a debate, because the author of whatever article your quoting is too up in the air for it to always be sound. It's fine if it's just one of many sources, but if it's your only source, you're going to have problems because it's validity and authenticity can be questioned very easily.

Ad Hominem is vague, it encompasses a large range of actions. Anything from blatant insults like what you were doing, to something like the example you gave, though really, the example you gave could also be known as Poisoning the Well.

Also, I'm not being biased at all, nor selective, I'm calling it like I saw it in THIS thread, you insulted puzzle, he did not insult you. It boils down to Puzzle disagreeing with you, and doing so rather civilly, saying he thought you were wrong and the such, then you saying he's a biased moron. I understand you feel you were right and that you gave evidence supporting your position and were frustrated that they were ignoring that evidence, but that doesn't inherently make it okay for you to start slinging insults at them. No matter how strongly you feel about them being wrong and you being right.

Finally, you saying "Are you truly that stupid" is a loaded question and does imply something. It doesn't matter if it was intended or not, it does, that's how it comes across. It says that he is stupid, but the magnitude is what's in question. As such, it's a loaded question because it implies something that is inescapable, kinda like "Does your dad know you're gay?" Yes or no, answering it directly with a yes or no answer inherently implies that he's gay, it presumes something about the person it's aimed at, that he's gay. Your "Are you truly that stupid" does the same thing. It presumes that he's at least a little stupid no matter what. Had you taken out "that" and made it "Are you truly stupid", it would not have been a loaded question.

I'm genuinely curious here, where did you learn about these fallacies? Did you take a class? Or were you "self taught" by reading websites and such?

Lastly, your admittance that your insults towards them was uncalled for in this thread and that you went overboard is a refreshing change. I'm glad you can admit that, it's big of you, no bs here, it is. As is you admitting you misread my statement that you called Appeal to the Majority. During this thread you continued saying that you weren't above admitting you were incorrect or mistaken, though I hadn't seen it, I was skeptical because of your attitude, I'm glad that you were genuine about that, a pleasant surprise.

I should do the same, me saying that you are a bad debater was poor wording. What I should say, you were debating poorly in that instance.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
Just because you don't believe you're wrong doesn't mean you aren't wrong. Sorry, dude.

Prove that you ran off? I watched you submit the argument and leave the thread. Sorry if you don't like the words I choose, but too bad.

They mean shit. You're just too arrogant to accept it. You complain about how forward and arrogant I am most of the time and how much I press things but you're the same way. You're enveloped in pride.

I'm sorry, but you just explained yourself. Believe me. I proved you wrong. You had NOTHING TO SAY about my argument and you got fed up with losing so you walked off.

No, you're just mad because you CANNOT admit defeat. Show me one example where you have admitted defeat, because I know you haven't won every argument, so show me.

You said that the word I used was not a legitimate word in the English language. You were wrong. It is officially a legitimate word in the English language. That's it. The debate is OVER and I am the victor on this occasion. Easy as one, two and three.

Who the **** are you and what have you done with Backfire?

Originally posted by Secretus
Who the **** are you and what have you done with Backfire?

He's giving me oral sex right now. Shall I get him?

Oh wait...he needs to go spit something out and clean up...he'll get back to you.

This is AC, by the way. I love dick.

-AC

Originally posted by BackFire
He's giving me oral sex right now. Shall I get him?

Oh wait...he needs to go spit something out and clean up...he'll get back to you.

This is AC, by the way. I love dick.

-AC

I ****ing 😆 'd .. Don't tell AC

Backfire is a gayboy.

Originally posted by Secretus
Sad thing is you made the most sense. The real sad thing is it only took your one post ..

I have said that many times throughout this thread and others. At the end of it, if you don't know someone better than "Person from KMC." their opinion of you shouldn't matter.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Backfire is a gayboy.

I have said that many times throughout this thread and others. At the end of it, if you don't know someone better than "Person from KMC." their opinion of you shouldn't matter.

-AC

What about "Person from KMC who blows guys"? As I know you.

I'm not denying that. But if I don't think I'm wrong, why would I admit that I am?

You should when you are. If you believe you are not wrong, and it's clear that you are ... What do we call that, Strangelove?

I did what I did for this reason. Talking with you goes absolutely nowhere. So I said my piece, I read yours, and then I'm done. Because neither of us ever budge. So there's no point in continuing.

On this occasion, It wasn't about budging. You said that these words were not legitimate, they sounded "idiotic" and that they were not proper.

A) They are legitimate words in the English language. You're wrong.

B) If you think they sound idiotic, then that's your opinion.

C) They are proper words. They are proper words that can be used from the English language.

How am I arrogant? I have never once been called arrogant in my life. I'm the most self-effacing person I know. So please, show me how I've been arrogant.

You probably ARE the most self effacing person you know, but you're arrogant.

Arrogance is overbearing pride and I think you're overly proud. You cannot admit defeat for the sake of your pride. It's that simple.

Your rhetoric is extremely biased. "Believe me, I proved you wrong." why should I believe you? "You had NOTHING to say" Actually, I did, I just didn't feel like saying it. "You got fed up of losing, so you walked off" Actually, I just got fed up with you.

If you felt it would be so easy to defeat me and counter my points, why didn't you say it? There is no reason for you to hold back, unless your points were worthless.

I'm biased? Really? Show me where.

It's not about believing me. What you said was wrong. I proved it. I explained why and I even posted resources that were apparent previous to our debate.

Show me where you think I should have admitted defeat and I'll decide for myself whether I was wrong or not.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
Oh f*ck.

No other word is legitimate, then. Every word in existence was created because someone used it and over time, it became popular and was labelled as an actual word.

Inexistent is a word whether you like it or not. I don't care how stupid you think it is, go look in ANY dictionary you find and search for the word. It is an ENGLISH WORD and there is no such thing as a classification for "Legitimate words" like you seem to think.

Originally posted by Strangelove
You are taking it to an extreme. I am not saying that all words are illegitimate. If there are two words that mean exactly the same thing, then the word that came first is 'legitimate.' I mean, say inexistent and then non-existent. Which one sounds right?

Like the word you used before: "irrelevancy" A noun form of the adjective irrelevant. Except there is already one of those. Irrelevance. And it's rather obvious that it came first. And irrelevancy just sounds idiotic. Same with "ironical," which I also mentioned before.

You follow me? I use "legitimate" because I can't really think of a word that fits better.

So it came first. This makes the other modernized word illegitimate and adds to your point how? Irrelevancy sounds idiotic. Wow. This enforces your point, doesn't it?

Then you asked me which one sounded right. THEY BOTH DO!

Want to know why, Strangelove?

THEY'RE BOTH LEGITIMATE WORDS FROM THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, That's why.

Allow me to elaborate. I am of the opinion that words such as 'inexistent,' 'ironical,' 'irrelevancy,' and the like are not proper English.

Elaborate? That's nice, but you said they weren't legitimate. They are. That means I proved you wrong because I stated they were and I backed up.

Oh really? Why aren't they proper words, Strangelove? I'm dying to hear this.

Using definitive language such as "They are not legitimate words" and even the use of the word 'legitimate' was incorrect.

Exactly.

It is my opinion and nothing more.

Great.

Just shut the **** up. 🙄

Originally posted by Sorgo X
You should when you are. If you believe you are not wrong, and it's clear that you are ... What do we call that, Strangelove?

On this occasion, It wasn't about budging. You said that these words were not legitimate, they sounded "idiotic" and that they were not proper.

A) They are legitimate words in the English language. You're wrong.

B) If you think they sound idiotic, then that's your opinion.

C) They are proper words. They are proper words that can be used from the English language.

You probably ARE the most self effacing person you know, but you're arrogant.

Arrogance is overbearing pride and I think you're overly proud. You cannot admit defeat for the sake of your pride. It's that simple.

Elaborate? That's nice, but you said they weren't legitimate. They are. That means I proved you wrong because I stated they were and I backed up.

Great.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sorgo, I skipped much of your post because there was a lot of needless and irrelevant statements, I was pressed for time and could only respond to the major points, not every little quoted jab, you understand. Debating properly doesn't mean quoting/retorting every single paragraph, regardless of whether or not it's actually relevant. Granted, this wasn't necessarily your fault, I did the same just for shits and giggles. On that last post, I didn't have the time to, and I wanted to retort while the argument was still fresh in my mind before going to class, even though I had finite time, you understand.

Whoa, that is so verbatim to your last post. Look:

Originally posted by BackFire
Sorgo, I'm going to skip over the needless statements because our posts are getting to long. Just assume what I would have posted would be funny.

Back up what you say. Anyone can say anything. Back up what you say. Why was it needless? Why was it irrelevant? I could dismiss your posts as the same and come up short. I'm not that lacking, though.

Once again you don't have to explicitly say "My argument is valid because people were mean to me" for it to be considered Appeal to Pity. Even if you don't say the "MY argument is valid because..." part it could still be considered appeal to pity simply by you trying to bring about Pity to yourself in a thread which was mostly you arguing about things, at what could be considered the tail end of your argument makes it applicable.

No, that's NOT true. You have to clarify. You have to make it CLEAR in order for the fallacy to enter effectively. I wasn't using what I was discussing to APPLY to my argument or to use as a point. This means I didn't commit the fallacy. You're wrong, Backfire. Please STOP. It's embarrassing.

No, that was not part of the debate. That was me discussing why I was acting so outrageous and enraged towards certain members. I was answering a question. It was irrelevant to our debate and I never used it to affirm one of my points.

As for Wikipedia, the key word is "Possibly valid". It may be, but it could also be incorrect. Wikipedia isn't usually looked at as the sole source for information in a debate, because the author of whatever article your quoting is too up in the air for it to always be sound. It's fine if it's just one of many sources, but if it's your only source, you're going to have problems because it's validity and authenticity can be questioned very easily.

Well, in this case, the information is valid and a solid resource for these types of logical fallacies. Go ask any logician and they'll review your debate and tell you how bad your comprehension and awareness of logic is. I studied logic in various books regarding the laws and rules of logic and how it works. I also studied philosophy and rationality. I favored logic the most. I know what I'm talking about here and I'm telling you; There wasn't a fallacy regarding my statements about why I was enraged.

Ad Hominem is vague, it encompasses a large range of actions. Anything from blatant insults like what you were doing, to something like the example you gave, though really, the example you gave could also be known as Poisoning the Well.

You used logic incorrectly AGAIN!

Specific examples of "Poisoning the well", which can be considered a synonym to Ad Hominem itself:

"Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
This is an argument between science and religion. "

With Ad Hominem, I would have had to have mentioned my point and then affirmed the fallacy by exploiting the disadvantage.

For example:

"She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican."

"I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views."

"Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."

"Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."

With Ad Hominem, you simply have to show that you're biased and willing to exploit a factor to aid a debate. I did none of those. This means I didn't commit the fallacy.

^ Proper Logic.

Also, I'm not being biased at all, nor selective, I'm calling it like I saw it in THIS thread, you insulted puzzle, he did not insult you. It boils down to Puzzle disagreeing with you, and doing so rather civilly, saying he thought you were wrong and the such, then you saying he's a biased moron.

Yes, you're proving to be biased and selective. You're doing NOTHING but repeating yourself and in this instance you proved it. Once again, I thought at that time he was a biased moron. That was my opinion. I explained why he was being biased. YOU left that out. The rest of my post had the debate and the previous ones and the post ones to prove I was. YOU left that out. YOU'RE being selective.

I understand you feel you were right and that you gave evidence supporting your position and were frustrated that they were ignoring that evidence, but that doesn't inherently make it okay for you to start slinging insults at them. No matter how strongly you feel about them being wrong and you being right.

You're totally correct and I acknowledge that was wrong and I'm glad you understand where I'm coming from.

I agree with you in this particular post, but just because I insulted them does not mean I'm an unskilled debater. Like I stated previously, It only shows I have a temper and can post in bad taste sometimes. That's it.

Finally, you saying "Are you truly that stupid" is a loaded question and does imply something. It doesn't matter if it was intended or not, it does, that's how it comes across.

It doesn't matter how it comes across to YOU or anyone else. I said it. I know what I meant by it. If you can prove something, so be it. Implications mean ZERO.

It says that he is stupid, but the magnitude is what's in question. As such, it's a loaded question because it implies something that is inescapable, kinda like "Does your dad know you're gay?" Yes or no, answering it directly with a yes or no answer inherently implies that he's gay, it presumes something about the person it's aimed at, that he's gay. Your "Are you truly that stupid" does the same thing. It presumes that he's at least a little stupid no matter what. Had you taken out "that" and made it "Are you truly stupid", it would not have been a loaded question.

Exactly. The magnitude is in question. Regardless, you had said that I was NOT questioning his intelligence. I was questioning his intelligence which is why I asked him that question.

I'm genuinely curious here, where did you learn about these fallacies? Did you take a class? Or were you "self taught" by reading websites and such?

I read books, articles and some websites when I had a high degree of interest in logic, rationality and philosophy.

Lastly, your admittance that your insults towards them was uncalled for in this thread and that you went overboard is a refreshing change. I'm glad you can admit that, it's big of you, no bs here, it is. As is you admitting you misread my statement that you called Appeal to the Majority. During this thread you continued saying that you weren't above admitting you were incorrect or mistaken, though I hadn't seen it, I was skeptical because of your attitude, I'm glad that you were genuine about that, a pleasant surprise.

Thank you. I'm not going to lie. I know I messed up and my debating was in bad taste in this particular thread. I'm not going to lie or argue to cover it up. It just makes things worse, so I admit my wrong doings.

Let's move on.

I should do the same, me saying that you are a bad debater was poor wording. What I should say, you were debating poorly in that instance.

The thing is: I wasn't debating poorly. I was getting my point across. It's the technique I used that was just in poor taste. I should not have insulted him, but my point was included in this instance.

Originally posted by Puzzle
Just shut the **** up. 🙄

Well it being 'clear' is highly subjective. I'm not wrong just because you say I am.

You are. Those are legitimate words. You said they weren't.

I just admitted that the way I conducted my argument was wrong. So this was pretty useless.

'Kay, cool.

I admitted I was wrong at the end of my last post. So I just proved you wrong. And you are also completely wrong that I'm arrogant. You may think so, but it's just not true. Yes, I'm proud of myself, but not overbearingly so. You making judgments on who or what I am is quite useless, because you don't know me.

No, I don't know you but I do know pride. I know what it means and I know what it looks like. Sometimes, you CAN be excessively proud. I can be too. In this instance, It was my opinion you were being overly proud, and an abundance of pride is called "Arrogance".

corrected myself just now. So you're just wasting time.

Okay, cool.

I just admitted that I was wrong. You said I could never admit I was wrong. And by admitting I was wrong, I proved you wrong. Oh how sweet it is.

Gear down, big rig. I said I'd never SEEN you admit you were wrong. The fact that you are is good. I appreciate it. I honestly do, I'm not being sarcastic. I admit when I am incorrect because I'm not perfect. I'd expect you, as a mature person, to do the same. You don't have to do the same, but it would be most pleasant.

Just to be reassuring, do you mind showing me where you said you were in the wrong? That would be most appreciated.