I'm Done Debating

I tried opening a thread with the express intent of continuing a debate, but despite my best efforts, it was still closed. So, apparently a proper debate with the previous parties cannot be held without the debate degrading into something that is apparently worthy of being closed, even by the relaxed standards of this forum. For the time being, I shall discontinue my debates with the previous parties, since apparently a debate cannot be held without the thread being closed.

A note to whichever moderator/administrator closed the "A Continuation" thread

I would appreciate if you could state the exact reason for closing the aforementioned thread. If you are not willing to post the reason in this thread, I would appreciate it if you could tell me the reason in a PM. Thank you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I liked your debating style too...Either way it seems I have no choice but to end too, considering all the threads are being closed. Oh well...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why dont we have a debate about what is a

constructive debate
in this thread?

just a thought

groove on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

constructive debates.....seems easy enough...a demo follows

spookz: cmere bitch!
dankass: yes master

spookz:dont you ever argue with me again!
dankass: yes master

spookz: a=b!
dankass: yes master

spookz:shut the hell up!
dankass: yes master


*if anyone needs more pointers on the finer points of debating, feel free to ask

thanks
spook

 

spookz: i've just pebble dashed the toilet....now wipe ma ass...
Dank: which hand massa'?
spookz: tongue beeyatch....tongue....
Dank: yessa massa'........

 

A quick note before I begin. I still have not been told in any way, shape, or form why the "A Continuation" thread was closed. Since I do not know who closed the "A Continuation" thread, and I would rather not PM all of the moderators and administrators with my query, I will simply restate my initial statement.

A note to whichever moderator/administrator closed the "A Continuation" thread

I would appreciate if you could state the exact reason for closing the aforementioned thread. If you are not willing to post the reason in this thread, I would appreciate it if you could tell me the reason in a PM. Thank you.

What's the point? It's already pretty well defined. A constructive debate is one that has points that are supported by evidence, has clear separation of opinion and fact, and uses logic to lead to a conclusion.

Warning signs of an improper argument:

-Reliance upon vulgarities to emphasize one's ideas (A constructive argument uses logic and evidence to do achieve this end.)
-Liberal use of personal attacks in an attempt to weaken the arguments of those one is debating with. (Again, a constructive argument should be able to accomplish this goal with logic.)
-Reinterpretation of one's initial statements to exclude fallacies (This shows that the main idea was not well thought out initially, and the debater is simply "adjusting their argument to make it correct".)

Finally, a note to Wraith and spookz:

Logic would get your points across much more efficiently than the ... unorthodox posting style that you two are currently employing.

Right now both of your "arguments" could easily (and improperly) be attributed to a lack of intellect. However, if you were to properly use logic, points that you raise would be nigh irrefutable.

 

Dapthar--Just for the record

I was a total dick in our last (and only?) discussion. Sorry about all of that.

 

Re: Dapthar--Just for the record

I'm not holding anything against you as a result of that discussion. Don't worry about it.

 

I've seen a number of threads closed with no reason given. The thread in question didn't seem to cross the borders of decency so IMHO I think you deserve at least an explanation.

Personally Dapthar I wouldn't waste bandwidth on the other parties in question.
Dee Cee

 

dapthar

A constructive debate is one that has points that are supported by evidence, has clear separation of opinion and fact, and uses logic to lead to a conclusion.

i think it was goofy who said..."discuss not debate"..(something along those lines anyway

Right now both of your "arguments" could easily (and improperly) be attributed to a lack of intellect. However, if you were to properly use logic, points that you raise would be nigh irrefutable.

i would suggest you chill (the fuck) out. get out of "free thoughts" if you cant hack a bit of humor

since apparently a debate cannot be held without the thread being closed.

there was flamage. mods are volunteers. easier to close than do post deletions

Logic would get your points across much more efficiently than the ... unorthodox posting style that you two are currently employing.

you assume i had a point to get across here. do not do that. your problem is that you need a fat cock in the ass

Finally, a note to Wraith and spookz:

tedious. do not lecture me ever again bud. i was nice enough to be cool in closed thread. do not push your luck

 

thanks deecee

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well..
You were not the one I had in mind Spooky.
For the sake of my future peace and harmony I'll let her remain nameless

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dee Cee

 

Dapthar:

LMAO!! OH dear! Why is that every little upstart who dabbles in pop-philosophy in college, and learns a little about "Construction of logical arguements" and "Deductive/Inductive fallacies" etc...thinks they can out "think" the whole world.

Easy boy, pull that amateur "Logics" text book from your ass, and chill out.

would you like me to give you an in depth explaination of:
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Flattery
Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Ridicule
Appeal to Spite
Appeal to Tradition
Bandwagon
Begging the Question
Biased Sample
Burden of Proof
Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Composition
Confusing Cause and Effect
Division
False Dilemma
Gambler's Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Guilt By Association
Hasty Generalization
Ignoring A Common Cause
Middle Ground
Misleading Vividness
Personal Attack
Poisoning the Well
Post Hoc
Questionable Cause
Red Herring
Relativist Fallacy
Slippery Slope
Special Pleading
Spotlight
Straw Man
Two Wrongs Make A Right????

....no I didn't think you would. You gain a modicum of "knowledge" from a text book and you think that's it??!
Unlike you, not everyone needs to prove they've read a text book on an internet forum just to make their balls look bigger.

...go away and play with the little boys.

and a word of advice:

"Reticence is a sign of wisdom"

 

Dapthar.

Don't let these bitches discourage you, but yeah you prolly should chill on the "use logic thing" for you may have missed when it was realized by the other posters a LONG time ago that logic simply doesn't apply to some people. Sometimes we might feel we have to commicate with others the only way they'll understand it.

Well that and spookz's excellent point that you don't know the motivations of the other posters ass well.

While I think you're correct that logical arguments are kickass and all, they aren't always pertinent as not everyone reconizes the whole kickass part.

Don't go away, because smart people who try not to act like assholes are a rare fucking breed on this heah board. I think more would be good.

(note that I'm not including myself in that group as I will act like an asshole from time to time. get off me spookz,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Yes, but I would like their reasoning for doing so, not yours.

I guess I should stop overestimating you.

I don't see how putting an obese male chicken into a donkey would solve anything.

How intimidating. What exactly do you plan on doing if I lecture you again? Will you type your next post rather angrily?

Save the drama for the theater, it is useless here.

Or I could just give you the website where you plucked the list from, here: http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/fallacies.html. Besides, most of your "buzzwords" are self explanatory.

Would you like to continue this conversation with yourself elsewhere?

I never did such a thing. I simply made a suggestion. On the other hand, you seem to be harboring an inferiority complex, if your last post is any indication.

This statement is rather ironic, considering it is coming from someone who is so eager to demonstrate what little knowledge they have gleaned from internet.

I guess I wasn't here when that was decided. It seems I have inadvertantly run into a few of those characters already.

Leave based on what's happened here? Not a chance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, but I would like their reasoning for doing so, not yours.

"yes' as in you agree? anyway, good luck. start a thread (again?) in site feedback, send porfiry multiple msgs

I guess I should stop overestimating you.

hmm, lets look into what is being "overestimated" upon

*riple wants to debate "constructive debates"
*i respond with ""constructive debates.....seems easy enough...a demo follows".....which ends with this....."if anyone needs more pointers on the finer points of debating, feel free to ask"

now i'd characterize my post as a spoof. it was a stab at a bit of humor. perhaps self deprecatingly so.

you respond to that with...

Logic would get your points across much more efficiently than the ... unorthodox posting style that you two are currently employing.

Right now both of your "arguments" could easily (and improperly) be attributed to a lack of intellect.

what do you mean by this? why do you bother pointing this out if it is an "improper" application? it appears you project your fear of being misconstrued. why assume "popular opinion" is something that concerns me? nagging will not result in an favorable outcome for you. are you not aware that your repeated efforts might eventually antagonize some?

jeez! how could you even begin to characterize it as an argument? ( the brackets have been noted and ignored). what points do you imagine could be raised around a fantasy situation in which i demean the dankass?

However, if you were to properly use logic, points that you raise would be nigh irrefutable.

ok you seem to know the points. you claim logic as your method. spin my imaginary dialogue into something irrefutable

*i outta shove "well nigh" up your ass you pompous pig!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't see how putting an obese male chicken into a donkey would solve anything

no, this time i mean a real cock! up...your....ass! perhaps it would loosen you up!

How intimidating. What exactly do you plan on doing if I lecture you again? Will you type your next post rather angrily

this is interesting. i characterize it as a harangue! you "lectured" me in a previous thread. i concurred. however subsequent "lectures" may not be seen as such. this is my prerogative! (jackass)

please! feel free to harass me. if i cannot handle you or tire of the irritation, the sciforums "laws" can also work against you

so cmon crapthar, lecture away

 

On the other hand, you seem to be harboring an inferiority complex,

welcome to the gutter. stupid self-righteous punk!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes. (As in I agree with your interpretation and with the orginal statement.) Clear enough?

I mentioned earlier, I have no idea who closed the thread, it could have been Porfiry or wet1 or Banshee. I have little interest in private messaging all of them, and even less interest in pursuing the issue beyond this thread.

If I remove the "improper" my previous statement could be interpreted as an insult, which was not my intention.

I do not "fear" being misconstrued, I simply do not like to write in a manner that requires interpretation beyond a basic level. Essentially, aside from what I clearly indicate as having an alternate meaning, nothing else in my posts should be interpreted as a double-entendre.

If I applied your line of reasoning to another situation, I could say people "fear" hunger since some people don't like being hungry, which is obviously a false statement. Dislike and fear are not synonymous.

Let me put it concisely, so I will need not belabor the point any further. I do not know your nationality, where you're located, or have any idea how old you are. The only information I have is what you consciously choose to tell anonymous entities on a public forum. I assert that if you were not concerned with others opinions in the slightest bit, you would restrict your posts to the more Science oriented sections of this forum, and only answer or ask questions about particular subjects. The fact that you even reply to those whose subsequent post will be primarily composed of their opinion implies that you have some interest in their opinion. Thus, I conclude, that what you call "popular opinion" does concern you, even though individual opinions may not.

See the first line from the above paragraph.

Then you miss the point. The quotation marks indicated that I was using the term loosely.

Fine. But you asked for it. Here's what I saw as the main idea of your initial reply: gendanken is such a poor debater that she would be better off remaining silent.

Here's an outline of a decent argument supporting that point:

Claim: Constant use of vulgar language
Evidence: Practically any one of her posts.

Claim: Revisionist tactics
Evidence: Here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29002&perpage=20&pagenumber=5

Claim: Reinterpretation of earlier statements to claim misunderstanding.
Evidence:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27142&perpage=20&pagenumber=7

But then, this is only from my interactions with gendanken, you've been here since 2002, so there must be some more "pearls of wisdom" that you know of that could support the points above. You can fill in the rest.

Remember, you were the one who wanted the spin.

After this instance, I will not waste any further time on this point.

The primary defintion of cock is "An adult male chicken; a rooster." (from http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/C0443200.html).

An ass is "Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus" (from http://www.bartleby.com/61/93/A0469300.html).

Other usage is simply vulgar slang that has worked its way into dictionaries in an attempt to gain validity. Frankly, even the dictionary itself classifies the alternate definition you wish to use as "Vulgar Slang".

Yes, it is your prerogative to ignore any and all statements on a public forum.

I have no interest in harassing you.

Say what you want about my reply to Wraith, but it served its purpose; it halted his condescension routine.

 

/The primary defintion of cock is "An adult male chicken; a rooster." (from http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/C0443200.html).

/An ass is "Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus" (from http://www.bartleby.com/61/93/A0469300.html).

ROFLMAO. What you don't get is that's exactly how he meant it!!!

LOL.

Lighten up brother!

you have been warned.

(please, by lighten up I mean realize that sometimes threats are empty on purpose and can serve humorous purposes, like getting a fat cock in your ass, or randomly warning you about ridiculous bullshit)

 

Dapthar:

....my God, does your narcissism know no bounds??

....your own words I believe.

save the delusions of grandeur for when you're asleep and dreaming of actually being someone