|
Author
|
Topic: I read that "there are no winners in this debate"
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 2 of 48 (251483)
10-13-2005 2:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeremy
10-13-2005 2:39 PM
|
|
Are there winners in debates? On this fourm? You bet. If you win, you get prizes and stuff.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Jeremy, posted 10-13-2005 2:39 PM | | Jeremy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 10-13-2005 3:22 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 3 of 48 (251492)
10-13-2005 3:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by robinrohan
10-13-2005 2:48 PM
|
|
Just to give you an example, there is this one poster, who goes by the name of Faith, who won so many debates she was awarded the prestigious position of "moderator" (like an umpire). Pretty impressive.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by robinrohan, posted 10-13-2005 2:48 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 10 of 48 (251527)
10-13-2005 6:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
10-13-2005 5:56 PM
|
|
Re: Win Conditions
A handy way to win is to toss out various names of fallacies. A couple of these and it's generally over. It is not necessary to explain in what way the opponent has employed the fallacy. A mere labelling will do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 10-13-2005 5:56 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Win Conditions
Asking politely if your opponent is "on drugs" is an excellent argumentative technique.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 6:13 PM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 15 of 48 (251570)
10-13-2005 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
10-13-2005 7:43 PM
|
|
Re: Winning and Acronyms
IMO--in my opinion.
IMHO--in my humble opinion
IMVVHO--I have no knowledge of what I'm talking about
ABE--added by edit
Bump--this term was explained to me, but I still don't get it
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2005 7:43 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 17 of 48 (251572)
10-13-2005 8:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
10-13-2005 8:35 PM
|
|
Re: Winning and Acronyms
A particular post is moved to a different position?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 10-13-2005 8:35 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 10-13-2005 9:24 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Winning and Acronyms
Oh, the whole thread. I get it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by AdminAsgara, posted 10-13-2005 8:37 PM | | AdminAsgara has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 36 of 48 (252913)
10-19-2005 12:29 AM
|
|
|
Other techniques
Another way to try to win an argument is to begin by stating that something is obviously something, and then later to deny it by changing the wording slightly. One might argue, for example, that the government of the Soviet Union was a "theocracy" that promulgated a belief in the "supernatural," and therefore a religion, and then deny it by stating, "I never said communism was a religion." This is called "baiting." You lead the poster on by pretending to agree that he or she understood what you were saying, and then you suddenly deny that his or her understanding was correct. That way you can accuse them of grossly misunderstanding one's subtle points. It's a very popular type of argumentative technique.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2005 10:14 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 43 of 48 (254109)
10-23-2005 12:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
10-22-2005 10:14 PM
|
|
Re: Other techniques
if you were some kind of ridiculous idiot that couldn't tell the difference between a system of government/economy and one country's particular implementation of it. That's what I thought: Undercover sophistry.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2005 10:14 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2005 10:40 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 46 of 48 (254265)
10-23-2005 5:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
10-23-2005 10:40 AM
|
|
Re: Other techniques
Always so personal with you, Rob. What's the deal with that? There was nothing personal intended, I assure you. Personally, I admire you, Crashfrog. In fact, I consider it a privilege to be insulted by you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2005 10:40 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2005 9:11 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 48 of 48 (254343)
10-23-2005 10:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
10-23-2005 9:11 PM
|
|
Re: Other techniques
I'm here to have fun discussions. I take the Devil's advocate a lot Me too. Crashfrog, believe me, when I said I admire you, it's true. Scout's honor. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-23-2005 09:05 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2005 9:11 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2