The Jew

Its always interesting to see who gendy brings out of their closets.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sams rubbing all over her clit right now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

omg lolz....
Oh come on... you were like rubbing it!
It must be like some good luck charm or something...

So omg please like me.. ok

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Omg you are like totally mocking me omg like ok Im like totally about to cry cud you maybe like try 2 be nicer, omg like could anyone help me find the clit?

 

:roflmao:

Awesome !

 

One, the fact is that some arguments can't be won by regular humans. I mean this seriously.

Two, during a debate, it might turn out that Debator 1 is perceived as immoral by Debator 2. It is impossible to reasonably discuss with those one perceives to be immoral, so in such cases, Debator 2 will cut the debate short (which can be done simply by quitting in silence, but also by throwing a few more stones).

Three, the reason why we have Q fests seems to be that SAM thinks Q is also employing similar strategies as she does; ie. that his cheap shots and low blows are not his genuine stance, but merely a strategy. This way, the debate between them can go on until they are too exhausted to continue.

To me, this is a false dilemma.

Just because someone declares they have won an argument does not mean I have to agree with them. If in my estimation, they have not won the argument, then this is what matters to me, not their declaration of victory.

Winning an argument is what debates are there for. We are after the truth and when we try to arrive at it via debate, winning is what matters.

 

I object.
Debates are not for winning arguments, debates are for getting to the truth.
I consider SAM's tactics to be dishonest in a debate.

 

...the aggrieved?

Just a guess.

 

And how are you going to get to the truth in a debate,
unless you win the argument?

 

Yes. Pick your battles wisely.

 

You have doubts?

 

By being honest.

 

I find it hard to accept that Q's presented stances are what he really believes. He droppped a few hints here and there that made me reconsider his input, like the brain in a vat avatar or when he said he doesn't deal in truths. I might be wrong, of course.
But be that as it may, his militant atheist ways have actually diverted me from entering many discussions with him and those who hold similar stances as he does; which has spared me some time and energy - which I have used for better purposes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, he's pretty careful, so its hard to tell.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I should take a leaf out of your book.

 

For one, this is so idealistic, and unrealistic.
What does it mean to be "honest"?
I started a thread How come people lie? - check in there.
People normally have a mess of thoughts and intentions present in their minds, and to be "honest" would mean to communicate all of them. Which is impossible.
So for all practical purposes, we normally come up with narratives where each one action is said to have one cause - and this we then call "honesty". But which is really far from the truth.

Which brings me to my second point:
If one is seeking to arrive at the truth via debate, then one has to win the argument in order to arrive at the truth.
If you have a problem with the notion of winning arguments, then you need to rethink why you enter debates in the first place and what exactly is your stake in them.

 

What is the point of any debate if the debaters can't be trusted to be honest ?
Also, do you say that whoever wins the argument decides what the truth is ?
The winner is always right, even when he's not ???

 

In soviet Russia, forum shit on Jew!

 

As far as the debate is concerned, this is beside the point.
The debate is not about the debaters, but about the arguments they present. If you choose a debate as your way to arrive at trtuh, then you must take this into consideration.

If someone wins a debate, how could they not be right?
They must have won for some reason - their arguments have obviously defeated the opponent's arguments.
Again, if you choose a debate as your way to arrive at trtuh, then you must take this into consideration.

 

I'm sorry but I don't agree.
Thanks for your answers though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why are you sorry for disagreeing?