john9blue wrote:really? nobody on this forum changes their mind. if someone had to change their mind in order to qualify as a debater, we'd have about 3 debates a year in this forum.
It is rare for someone to go 180 on a particular topic, yeah. But little concessions and stuff like that happen all the time.
For instance, there was the topic where scotty was deifying Reagan. People kept bringing up fascist shit Reagan had done. Did Scotty say: "Yeah, fair enough guys, he screwed up there, but I still think he did good on the issue of blah" ? No he did what he always does, dug in his heels and defended each and every action taken by Reagan.
j9b wrote:they obliterated you with what? facts and evidence? or personal insults?
Both
Insults without evidence are useless, of course. But if the person is dishonest and stubborn just the evidence may be insufficient as well. Unfortunately we aren't perfect logical machines and we don't have infinite time and resources either.
Sometimes ridiculous positions need to be ridiculed.
john9blue wrote:disagree. if someone's position is so ridiculous and so illogical, then it should take you about 30 seconds to disprove it completely. oh, what's this? they responded to your rebuttal with one of their own? and it's not a personal attack? guess they have something to say! or... you can just laugh and walk away because their theory is absolutely RIDICULOUS, just like all other theories that you don't currently believe in.
So you believe all oppinions are equal, really? That the question of the nature of dark matter should be debated just as seriously as the question of whether there are little green men on Mars, or whether the moon is hollow, or whether aliens landed at Roosevelt ?
Do you think I would be unable to argue with you right now, for at least 5 pages, that the moon landing was faked?
Have you read any of the Lionz threads? Do you need any more evidence that it is possible to "provide rebuttals that don't have personal attacks" that are absolutely worthless ?
Lately you seem to have been repeating the point that just because some people speak/write about it, there must be a real argument to be had. I've already pointed this out to you:
Amazon holds thousand of books on Astrology. Does this make the assertion that huge bodies of gas and matter unimaginable distances away influence my love life any less ridiculous?
john9blue wrote:civility is both a sign of your own assurance in the soundness of your reasoning, and a method which makes it more likely that your opponent will listen to what you have to say. we aren't here to discover the great unknown truths of the universe, ffs, we are here to test our views by proposing and defending them against others who disagree with us. civility DOES matter in this scenario.
It matters but it's definitely not the most important thing. I would say it isn't even correlated with the quality of the argument itself.(excluding obvious trolls and the like).
It definitely is not reasonable to disregard someone's arguments because they lack your standard of civility.
j9b wrote:are you talking about this?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=139668&p=3048909#p3048909if you think this was my attempt at proving my devastating intellectual dominance, and not a fun challenge to others IN A TOPIC ABOUT INTELLIGENCE TESTS, then you need to examine my tone a bit closer
also, what the f*ck? i just graduated from a great university and i have a great job. who the f*ck are you to say that i'm not applying my skills in real life?
Can't believe it was that easy to get to you. Now I kinda feel bad.
Jeez man, you should have tougher skin if you're gonna call random people morons on the internet.
