Originally posted by Sorgo XI was wrong. There.
You are. Those are legitimate words. You said they weren't.
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".I know what arrogance is, thank you. And you can have whatever opinion you want of me. Just because you think it doesn't make it true.
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.When I make a mistake in my grammar or in my argument, I admit it. Every time. I've done so with you several times. But mistakes like that don't prove the entire argument to be incorrect. And in the arguments we've had, they were matters of opnion more than fact so there's really no wrong to be admitted.
Just to be reassuring, do you mind showing me where you said you were in the wrong? That would be most appreciated.Well, I suppose I didn't until just now. I conducted my argument incorrectly. And legitimate was completely the wrong word. When a word is in a dictionary, it's legitimate. I realize that. I'm still of the opinion that it's not proper, but that's my opinion and it really has no bearing on the argument.
I was wrong. There.
Hooray. 😐
I know what arrogance is, thank you. And you can have whatever opinion you want of me. Just because you think it doesn't make it true.
I never said It was true, but it is my opinion and I'm saying I know pride when I see it. Hell, you admitted a few minutes ago to being a little too proud sometimes.
When I make a mistake in my grammar or in my argument, I admit it. Every time. I've done so with you several times. But mistakes like that don't prove the entire argument to be incorrect. And in the arguments we've had, they were matters of opnion more than fact so there's really no wrong to be admitted.
I didn't talk about your mistakes in grammar or in an argument. I said you've never actually admitted to being wrong in a debate with me. Not to mention, I've never seen you admit a wrong doing in an argument with anyone else.
If so, why not show me where you've admitted it? Since you've done it several times.
Well, I suppose I didn't until just now. I conducted my argument incorrectly. And legitimate was completely the wrong word. When a word is in a dictionary, it's legitimate. I realize that. I'm still of the opinion that it's not proper, but that's my opinion and it really has no bearing on the argument.
Yep.
Err, it does back up what I said in that post, though. "Your posts are too long for me to reply fully" is basically what I said, meaning that I didn't have the time to do so. I didn't think it would be necessary to spell this out for you at the time. But fine, I'll do so now. Your post was too long for me to respond to fully at the time, so I choose the segments I saw as the most relevant and important to respond to.
Also, are you denying that there were many portions of our earlier discussion that were utterly pointless? There was a lot of screwing around, on my part and yours, I didn't have time to continue doing so, so I simply didn't retort those segments, nor the segments which I had nothing more to say. There were some where I said my bit, and you said yours and that was that, as far as I was concerned. I simply didn't have anything else to add to those segments. Continuing to discuss them would have become repetitive, in my opinion.
You are not authoritative on logic because you read some websites and books. I have taken classes on logic, spent months learning the different ways logic and fallacies can be applied and the different scenarios which are applicable to different fallacies. Fact is, books and websites don't have the space to explain every scenario, as is possible in a classroom setting. You can't ask a book a question and have it give an appropriate specialized answer about a certain scenario. Just because a specific scenario isn't spelled out in a book or article doesn't mean that it can't be applicable. Scenarios outside the ones shown in examples can be applied, simple as that.
You have a nasty habit of saying that you've proven things when you haven't, as if you have the authority to decide that. That isn't up to you to decide, you can continue spewing about it "I proved this, this has been proven, you're proving to be blah blah" but in the end it's all meaningless drivel that holds no water to anyone but yourself, if it makes you feel better to pretend you are an authority and have the power to say what is and isn't proven, so be it, just know it affects no one. If you truly did prove something -- proof meaning beyond a doubt -- it would be obvious.
As strangelove says, you saying something doesn't make it so, no matter how strongly you believe it.
As for Ad Hominem. Quite simply, any attack on a person during an argument can be considered Ad Hominem. I can't simplify that any further. You attacked people during your arguments with them, you committed Ad Hominem. The most simplistic and basic form. Again, you don't have to say "You're wrong because..." before an insult for it to be Ad Hominem. The examples do that for clarity, nothing more. They aren't mean to suggest that the statements have to be exactly like that. Again - Attacking someone, calling them stupid or whatever, during an argument is considered Ad Hominem. Feel free to disagree all you like, ask a professor in logic and they will probably tell you the same thing. It's Ad Hominem in it's most basic form.
However, with Appeal to Pity, I'll buy that, if it truly wasn't your intent to hurt others arguments and strengthen your own by saying you were previously put down, then so be it. I was mistaken if that's the case.
It doesn't matter why you thought he was a biased moron or what you said later in the post or in previous posts, what matters is in that post, you did say he was a biased moron (against the rules of the forum by the way, don't do it again, consider this a warning) when all he did was disagree with you. I repeat myself because you seem to fail to understand why this is a problem. You think because you thought you had just cause that it's okay, or that because later in the post you actually said something else - it doesn't change the fact that you called him a moron, and looked very pathetic doing so.
Finally, your "technique" as you call it made your debates poor in that instance. Logically, your argument may have been sound, but in the technical terms, it was not. No matter how you spin it, questioning people's smarts or calling them names is bad debating - Fact. Something else those books maybe didn't say, because they expect it to be common knowledge. Again, ask any professor and they will tell you that it is BAD debating to do that, regardless of whether or not the logic behind your argument is valid.
Originally posted by Sorgo XI never said that, I said I am proud of myself but not overbearingly so. That's the opposite of what you thought I said.
I never said It was true, but it is my opinion and I'm saying I know pride when I see it. Hell, you admitted a few minutes ago to being a little too proud sometimes.
I didn't talk about your mistakes in grammar or in an argument. I said you've never actually admitted to being wrong in a debate with me. Not to mention, I've never seen you admit a wrong doing in an argument with anyone else.I try not to get into arguments, so no, I guess you wouldn't see that.
If so, why not show me where you've admitted it? Since you've done it several times.Because I'm lazy?
Err, it does back up what I said in that post, though. "Your posts are too long for me to reply fully" is basically what I said, meaning that I didn't have the time to do so. I didn't think it would be necessary to spell this out for you at the time. But fine, I'll do so now. Your post was too long for me to respond to fully at the time, so I choose the segments I saw as the most relevant and important to respond to.
Thank you for explaining. You should have to explain it. Being vague doesn't help and it's not my job to try to figure out why you're not fully replying, Backfire.
If you do not contain the time at that moment, just tell me. No need to beat around the bush, bro.
Also, are you denying that there were many portions of our earlier discussion that were utterly pointless? There was a lot of screwing around, on my part and yours, I didn't have time to continue doing so, so I simply didn't retort those segments, nor the segments which I had nothing more to say. There were some where I said my bit, and you said yours and that was that, as far as I was concerned. I simply didn't have anything else to add to those segments. Continuing to discuss them would have become repetitive, in my opinion.
Sorry, but I do not wish to hear excuses. With debating, you either do or you don't. If you're fooling around and you just can't help yourself to debate properly, that is a personal problem with you.
But If you did not have the time to respond fully, I understand. Although a suggestion would be for you to wait next time.
You are not authoritative on logic because you read some websites and books. I have taken classes on logic, spent months learning the different ways logic and fallacies can be applied and the different scenarios which are applicable to different fallacies. Fact is, books and websites don't have the space to explain every scenario, as is possible in a classroom setting. You can't ask a book a question and have it give an appropriate specialized answer about a certain scenario. Just because a specific scenario isn't spelled out in a book or article doesn't mean that it can't be applicable. Scenarios outside the ones shown in examples can be applied, simple as that.
What do you study in classrooms? You don't study books? You aren't assigned to specific websites? You think classes make you more special?
You are sitting here accusing me of certain fallacies that I have not committed. So, your classes have done what for you, Backfire?
These fallacies are STRICT, they are not subjective. If you did take classes, you should know that certain aspects of logic aren't subjective, especially the fallacies. Logic itself can be subjective DEPENDING on the scenario. The fallacies? No, they're strict. There isn't anything more simple than what I have stated.
No, there ARE NOT scenarios outside of that example. You have to affirm it to your point in order to break the logic OF your point and the point itself. If you're in discussion and not referring to the argument, and you make a STATEMENT regarding a PAST issue, it is not committing the fallacy. Hell, It's not even related to the argument itself. Insulting someone by calling them a "Biased moron" during a debate is not Ad Hominem.
You have a nasty habit of saying that you've proven things when you haven't, as if you have the authority to decide that. That isn't up to you to decide, you can continue spewing about it "I proved this, this has been proven, you're proving to be blah blah" but in the end it's all meaningless drivel that holds no water to anyone but yourself, if it makes you feel better to pretend you are an authority and have the power to say what is and isn't proven, so be it, just know it affects no one. If you truly did prove something -- proof meaning beyond a doubt -- it would be obvious.
I have the authority. I proved that those words were legitimately English words, did I not? That puts the ball in my court. It makes it MY authority to prove such things.
As strangelove says, you saying something doesn't make it so, no matter how strongly you believe it.
It all depends. If I say the sky is blue, and you look and it's blue, what I say is what is apparent. With this, if he said that these words were legitimate, and I said they were and showed him they were legitimate, It makes it so.
As for Ad Hominem. Quite simply, any attack on a person during an argument can be considered Ad Hominem. I can't simplify that any further. You attacked people during your arguments with them, you committed Ad Hominem. The most simplistic and basic form. Again, you don't have to say "You're wrong because..." before an insult for it to be Ad Hominem. The examples do that for clarity, nothing more. They aren't mean to suggest that the statements have to be exactly like that. Again - Attacking someone, calling them stupid or whatever, during an argument is considered Ad Hominem. Feel free to disagree all you like, ask a professor in logic and they will probably tell you the same thing. It's Ad Hominem in it's most basic form.
I don't have to ask anyone, man. That's not Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is not simply insulting someone during an argument.
Even so, in order for the Ad Hominem to apply, I must just single handedly attack the opponent and ignore the debate. Even still, I must affirm the point with the exploit to make the fallacy initiate. Do you not get this?
I'll lay it out for you:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
Daniel says the car is purple.
John says Daniel is a moron.
Therefore Daniel's claim that the car is purple is false.
^ THAT IS HOW THE FALLACY WORKS. I did not dismiss his claim when I insulted him. I did not say his claim was wrong because he was a "Biased moron".
Puzzle agrees that these are not legitimate words in the English language.
Lucian calls Puzzle a biased moron.
Therefore Puzzles claim is wrong.
^ The conclusion to the fallacy NEVER happened. I never said his argument was false BECAUSE I thought he was a biased moron at that point. I replied to him and continued the debate after saying that.
That's not Ad Hominem. I'm sorry, but you're simply IN THE WRONG.
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
^ Never happened. Watch.
Puzzle: I believe that these words are not legitimate English words. I agree with Strangelove.
Lucian: Of course you'd say that. You're a biased moron.
Puzzle: What about the arguments I gave to support my position?
Lucian: They don't count. Like I said, you're a biased moron so you HAVE to say that they aren't legitimate. Further, you're just a biased moron so I can't believe what you say.
^ That happen? You see that happen? No, I insulted him and moved on into the argument.
Learn how fallacies work, please.
However, with Appeal to Pity, I'll buy that, if it truly wasn't your intent to hurt others arguments and strengthen your own by saying you were previously put down, then so be it. I was mistaken if that's the case.
Thank you. I respect that you'll man up and admit when you're mistaken. It shows alot for you.
It doesn't matter why you thought he was a biased moron or what you said later in the post or in previous posts, what matters is in that post, you did say he was a biased moron (against the rules of the forum by the way, don't do it again, consider this a warning)
I apologize for that, but where are all of his warnings for the numerous times he insulted me in the past? Really. I'm not using that as an excuse to aid me, because I acknowledge me doing it back was wrong, but my question is still valid.
when all he did was disagree with you. I repeat myself because you seem to fail to understand why this is a problem. You think because you thought you had just cause that it's okay, or that because later in the post you actually said something else - it doesn't change the fact that you called him a moron, and looked very pathetic doing so.
You're right. It was in bad taste. The point here is; You tried saying that because I did that, I was a poor debater, even when I did reply to what he said and my insult had nothing to do with my debate. It gave nothing to help my debate more and it gave my debate no LESS.
He also disagreed with me after I proved that what Strangelove said was incorrect. This proves a bias on Puzzle's part.
Finally, your "technique" as you call it made your debates poor in that instance. Logically, your argument may have been sound, but in the technical terms, it was not. No matter how you spin it, questioning people's smarts or calling them names is bad debating - Fact. Something else those books maybe didn't say, because they expect it to be common knowledge. Again, ask any professor and they will tell you that it is BAD debating to do that, regardless of whether or not the logic behind your argument is valid.
It is valid. My logic is actually sound in this case. My argument wasn't bad, I was just being rude. I should not have been, but I WAS!
Bottom line being, me saying that DID NOT change my argument. It did not add or take away from it, as I mentioned previously.
Don't dismiss your opinion as fact, by the way. You complained about that earlier.