CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This isn’t a logic problem, it’s your poor vocabulary problem.
If you have to punch/shoot someone in the face to protect yourself, and you are charged with assault/murder, you can claim self-defense in court and potentially be acquitted. This is because the courts, and everyone else but you, understands that aggressive action is sometimes required to protect yourself, which is a form of defense by definition.
You need to work on your vocabulary before you make attempts at logic big guy. But good effort.
Nom doesn't care about the meaning of words or logical thought, he cares about twisting words so that he can appear to be correct. Obviously if you take an action in order to protect yourself from an immediate threat it is a defensive action.
Nom doesn't care about the meaning of words or logical thought
Winston, if you are going to launch baseless smear attacks against me instead of addressing the logic in what I have been saying then I'm just going to ban you. Grow up, you tantrum-throwing imbecile.
Obviously if you take an action in order to protect yourself from an immediate threat it is a defensive action.
Shooting someone in the face is not what "protecting yourself" means. Do you even speak English? Shall I come around and "protect myself" from the immediate threat of your online cyberbullying by stabbing you in the eye? You stupid twat.
"Winston, if you are going to launch baseless smear attacks against me instead of addressing the logic in what I have been saying then I'm just going to ban you."
I already did this in your other gun debate and you failed to reply to my questions. I think anybody looking at these debates can see that all you've done is attempt to twist words to suit your ideological position.
"Grow up, you tantrum-throwing imbecile."
Didn't I just hear you say something about baseless smear attacks?
"Shooting someone in the face is not what "protecting yourself" means."
Except when necessary in order to protect yourself from an attacker. If somebody is attacking you and your only manner of stopping it is to pull the trigger, can pulling the trigger not be said to serve the purpose of self-defense?
"Shall I come around and "protect myself" from the immediate threat of your online cyberbullying by stabbing you in the eye? You stupid twat."
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that my words posed an existential threat to you. You might want to steer clear of debate sites, they often contain opposing opinions.
I already did this in your other gun debate and you failed to reply to my questions
OK, you're getting a ban for lying. You asked me the exact same loaded question twice and I answered it twice.
If somebody is attacking you and your only manner of stopping it is to pull the trigger, can pulling the trigger not be said to serve the purpose of self-defense?
I have already answered this question twice. This is now the third time you have asked it. My answers can be found here:-
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that my words posed an existential threat to you.
That is because you are purposefully trying to conceal the fact that what a person believes to constitute a threat is often highly subjective. Your cyberbullying is capable of causing me great emotional harm which may lead to suicide. Hence, following the same loaded language presented in your question, it would be defence if I stabbed you in the eye.
and committing a false equivalency that is beyond the pale.
So let me get this straight a moment. You conflate attack and defence, but I commit the false equivalency? How does that work again? Never mind. Don't tell me. It's fairly obvious that you have no idea what a false equivalency even is, and are simply dropping phrases which you think will make you sound refined, edgy and clever.
No you’re not. If you were you would reference a dictionary, just like the courts do. If you did, you would find that defense is a “means or method of defending or protecting oneself”. If all of that were the case, and you were reasonable, to you would arrive at the same conclusion that the courts do, that an assaultive act used as a means or method of defending oneself is an act of self-defense.
But you don’t want to use the dictionary as it does not serve you. You tried, but since you are not reasonable you did not arrive at the same conclusion as the courts. So now You are using a thesaurus. You are not relying on a definition, but an antonym.
So let me get this straight a moment. You conflate attack and defence, but I commit the false equivalency?
Your problem is that you failed to keep track of the difference between means and ends as they affect the meanings of defense and offense. Each can be either a means or an end.
Offense as an end does not mean the same as offense as a means to an end.
Defense as an end does not mean the same as defense as a means to and end.
It is slightly nuanced, but nuance is where most equivocation gets its purchase.
Consider:
-Passive aggressive people use defense (a means)/defensive postures as a means of defense (an end) or as a means of offense/attack (an end).
-Offense can be a means to accomplish defense (an end) or as a means to accomplish offense (an end).
Your problem is that you failed to keep track of the difference between means and ends as they affect the meanings of defense and offense. Each can be either a means or an end.
I don't have any problem. You however seem to have a problem with basic English language. Offence and defence are antonyms. They have opposite meanings. What you have just written is pure gibberish. Neither offence or defence are "ends" because they are not results. They are methods of achieving results.
This isn’t a logic problem, it’s your poor vocabulary problem.
Hi Amarel. If you continue to hide cheap ad hominem attacks behind the false pretence that you have reasoned them out then I will ban you from the thread. I opened this thread to mock you for not understanding the difference between the two opposites of attack and defence. Posting the dictionary definition of defence does not debunk my premise that you do not understand the difference between attack and defence. It outright confirms it, since none of the definitions you have chosen include the words, "shooting someone in the face", and yet you seem to be acting as if they do. That isn't debate. That's just you being a dishonest imbecile.
If you have to punch/shoot someone in the face to protect yourself
Then you are attacking a threat in order to neutralise it. A gun does not protect you from bullets, or from anything else. It is not a form of protection against injury. Shields and armour are examples of things which protect you from injury. You are wantonly turning language upside down and then accusing me of having a problem with the English language, which is especially stupid given that I have a degree in journalism and you are a fucking Hebrew.
“Shooting someone in the face” is not precluded from being a means to protect oneself, which means it is not precluded from qualifying as defense. Which is why it is a legal argument.
“Shooting someone in the face” is not precluded from being a means to protect oneself
But it is precluded from being a defence by the very fact that shooting someone is a form of attack.
Bullets don’t attack people.
You just said, not three sentences ago, that "shooting someone in the face is not precluded from being a means to protect oneself". So bullets protect people but they don't attack them? Are you even listening to yourself you brainless twit?
Whether or not shooting someone in the face is an attack depends on what that other person is doing.
You said ”whether an action of your own is offensive or defensive does not depend on the behaviour of someone else”, but this is absolutely false on all fronts including legally.
Bullets don’t shoot people. Bullets don’t protect people. Bullets are part of the means by which people shoot each other.
So bullets protect people but they don't attack them?
Bullets are a tool that can be used to attack, defend, target practice, etc.
Show us a bullet "attacking" anyone without a human involved.
Now tell us why you cannot codemn ISIS, gangs, etc's use of guns but would delightfully love to disarm everyone else. Cancel that. I'll explain it to you. You're a part of a brainwashed cult called Progressivism, which is intentionally named the opposite of what it actually is... "regressive".
Of course, we only want guns because we know fully well that terrorists, criminals, gang members, etc will have them and use them. If you could magically disarm all of them and destroy the simple knowledge available to build bombs and guns, we wouldn't need them, but alas, you cannot, thus? You're an ass clown living in a dystopian dream world that has no touch with reality. The point? You should go see a credible, non-progressive psychologist/psychiatrist and seek help immediately before it gets worse and we see you dangling from the ledge of a tall building getting ready to see if you can fly.
The whites started it, they made the first move, so now the blacks gotta corner they tails.
War is ugly, man. The fact that you don't bust a cap in the king just goes to show you how civilized the game of chess is. You know, the queen probably wouldn't even be involved if she didn't feel like her status made her some kind of immortal warrior Xena wannabe. You're kind of asking for it when you're pulling some kung fu on all the horses and men.
Chess is classical orchestral music civilized. Drink red wine by the fireplace civilized. Monocle civilized.
An armed society is a civilized society. A polite society. Right?
I like Texas. People respect the right to bear arms in Texas. I think Texas gets it. America? Ya'll are doing it wrong.
Apparently, the rest of you states think that carrying a sword isn't covered by the 2nd amendment. I guess they didn't have swords in mind back then when they wrote the 2nd amendment, never mind assault rifles!
I dunno what the dictionary says about defense, but in any case, what matters is the legal definition.. Here ya go.
In states WITHOUT stand your ground laws, self defense means that, when confronted, if you HAVE an escape route, you MUST take it.. In stand your ground states, you DON'T have to escape even though you could.. Instead, you can STAND your ground and shoot somebody. Personally, I don't call that self defense.. I call it murder..
In terms of personal defense/offense, lemme relate a story. I've got a big mouth.. Sometimes that's not so good.. So, one day I find myself at the end of a driveway with NO escape possible.. I can't remember what I yelled at this guy who was walking by, but he didn't like it, and walked right up to my open car window.. Now, nothing happened, but it scared the shit out of me.. Am I gonna SHUT my mouth from now on?? You gotta be kidding..
I dunno what the dictionary says about defense, but in any case, what matters is the legal definition..
I don't entirely agree, brother. The legal definition of anything changes dependent upon which country you happen to be standing in. The job of the law is not to decide what the meaning of words is. I understand entirely the point you are trying to make, so please don't get me wrong. It is just that my personal intention in opening this thread is to expose the way language itself is being abused in order to take the edge off how crazy some of these gun nut arguments are.
In states WITHOUT stand your ground laws, self defense means that, when confronted, if you HAVE an escape route, you MUST take it.
I believe this makes good sense because escaping unequivocally is a defensive response to confrontation. In fact, it vexes me when American gun nuts wax lyrical about situations where the only method of escape is attacking the person who is confronting you. I would wager that in 99 percent of situations there is an escape route to be found. It isn't as if we're talking about being parachuted behind enemy lines here. Usually, the hidden heart of objection for the gun nuts is their own pride. They would sooner kill than take a dent to their ego by running away, and I believe the ultimate reason for this is because, with a gun, killing someone is often the easier option.
In stand your ground states, you DON'T have to escape even though you could.. Instead, you can STAND your ground and shoot somebody. Personally, I don't call that defense.. I call it murder..
I'm not sure I would go that far, but it certainly is a problem to start merging the lines between attack and defence. For example, in these type of states it is going to be much easier to legally justify using lethal force in situations where lethal force is not necessary. This type of law is deeply flawed in that it encourages certain types of cynical and duplicitous behaviour from the citizenry, such as provoking people you intend to shoot to create the confrontation which later becomes the basis of your defence.
In terms of personal defense/offense, lemme relate a story. I've got a big mouth.. Sometimes that's not so good.. So, one day I find myself at the end of a driveway with NO escape possible.. I can't remember what I yelled at this guy who was walking by, but he didn't like it, and walked right up to my open car window.. Now, nothing happened, but it scared the shit out of me.. Am I gonna SHUT my mouth from now on?? You gotta be kidding..
That's an interesting and pertinent anecdote, but let me ask you this: what if you had shot him and he only wanted to know the time of day? You see, this is the absolute backbone of the problem with relabelling offensive acts as defence. It is extremely difficult to accurately determine someone's intent with a snap judgement. It is extremely difficult to accurately determine intent even in a courtroom, so you can imagine how difficult it is in the type of situation you describe, where you only have seconds to make up your mind. Simply because a person might believe they are going to be threatened or attacked does not necessarily make it so. The "stand your ground" laws encourage citizens to leap to spurious conclusions which they are then permitted to solve with lethal force. They furthermore encourage citizens to exaggerate the scale of confrontations to later absolve themselves for using that lethal force. Remember this guy?
such as provoking people you intend to shoot to create the confrontation which later becomes the basis of your defence.
If someone comes in my house, I owe them nothing but a bullet. I didn't "provoke them" to break in and get their stupid ass blown into oblivion. They provoked me.
let me ask you this: what if you had shot him and he only wanted to know the time of day
Hello again, N:
The point isn't what I would have DONE.. It's what I COULD have done to keep myself safe. Having a guy scream at you through the window of your car when you can't escape and aren't armed, is terrifying.. It's much LESS terrifying KNOWING that I COULD defend myself..
Look.. I think it's time we round the guns up. But, not because gun owners are nuts.. It's because SOME of them are nuts, and that's reason enough..
Having a guy scream at you through the window of your car when you can't escape and aren't armed, is terrifying.. It's much LESS terrifying KNOWING that I COULD defend myself..
Look.. I think it's time we round the guns up. But, not because gun owners are nuts.. It's because SOME of them are nuts, and that's reason enough
You must have skipped over the second amendment while demonizing others with the Constitution. So I have a question con. You can't legally get a gun, so you don't have one. A maniac steals or obtains a gun illegally. He comes in your house and shoots you dead. And that's how liberal mindless horseshit laws would work. But at least you felt good about it before he raped your daughter, blew off your dog's leg, and shot you in the face.
The point isn't what I would have DONE.. It's what I COULD have done to keep myself safe.
With respect I don't think you are seeing the point. He also has the right to safety from the paranoia of a driver armed with a gun. Gun owners have a propensity to only ever see a confrontational situation in terms of their own rights, which is why so many people end up getting shot.
He also has the right to safety from the paranoia of a driver armed with a gun.
Hello again, N:
I don't disagree with that either.. Please re-read my reference to gun NUTS above.. A paranoid driver, by definition, IS a NUT.. Where you're mistaken, my friend, is when you conflate paranoia with all gun owners..
Some of them are highly trained warriors like myself..
Not if he kills the other guy and there are no witnesses. Then he is a law-abiding citizen who was under threat, just like you described him the first time. Or are the police going to prefer the narrative of the dead guy?
You deserve to have chocolate flavoured semen particles ejected into your face from the center of a white hole in the spatial supervoid of Stephen Hawkings butt crack you greasy crusted pubic follicle.
Fine. You want to call it attack if I wave a gun at someone to chase them off, or even shoot them, if they're threatening me or my family? I sure as hell don't owe you an apology, but I can't stop you either.
I ask, what do you propose as an alternative?
Do you think there is always a way to talk it out? Do you think every situation can end without violence? Do you think you owe someone else a guarantee of physical safety if they choose to attack you? What is your actual plan to deal with someone who wants to steal from you, rape you, or murder you? Because there are people in this world who want to do that, and don't need a reason. Do you plan to run? Curl into a ball and hope the problem will solve itself? Give them what they want and hope they won't kill you anyway? Why, exactly, do you propose that the life of someone trying to attack you is more valuable than yours? Because situations happen every day where people have to defend themselves with force (or "attack their attacker", if I have to speak in a language that you understand). There is no option B. Option B is to be fucking killed.
From where I'm standing, you only have the hope that such a situation will turn out OK for you. Hope is not a plan. I have an actual plan, and it involves the expenditure of ammunition.
But hey, if you have a better idea than either kill or be killed, I'm all ears. If not, feel free to ban me, 'cause I'm full of questions you don't have realistic answers to.
No, it's more like "I might be able to beat that guy at chess but if he has a gun he'll kick the board over and then make me agree he won - or else shoot me."
Only in America is there a population stupid enough to not understand the pretty basic difference between attack and defence.
So Europeans can't read versions of the dictionary that Europeans wrote? Interesting. No wonder the pilgrims ran away. They must have gotten tired of illiterate authoritarians redcoats.
The idea that offense cannot be defensive, and that defense cannot include offensive actions is so ridiculously narrow-minded that I am . . .
offended. ;)
The question comes down to whether one knows the intent and capability of one's opponent, and whether or not the opponent has determined that it is a zero sum game.
The chess analogy presupposes that the opponent is both intent on and capable of hurting/killing you and yours, and that escape/mitigation is not possible (due to the perceived intent of the opponent to hurt/kill you) making the situation zero-sum.
In that case, it is foolish to assume the desire to kill you is just a passing whim. The prudent person would behave as if at some point, whether now if I stand my ground, or later if I run, the opponent will continue attempts on my life until I am dead.
Checkmate/killing the opponent solves this problem.
On the other hand, if the opponent's intent and determination are unclear, or if it is clear that the opponent is incapable of doing harm, then there are other options that are not zero sum. In this case, the Chess Analogy is not apt.
HOWEVER,
We have far too many stupid people in our society. The average IQ is steadily declining. As much to the point, we have far too many people who refuse to respect the property of and safety of others. Shooting people who are intruding into private residences is a fair way to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are lines that are easy not to cross. One of them is burglary.
There is no reason for a resident to wait to find out if this is a burglar or a person with intent to rape and torture the residents.
As much to the point, there is no excuse for requiring people to leave their homes/property in order to protect the intruder from the residents' abilities to kill or maim the intruder.
There is no shortage of burglars and home invaders. We can afford for them to be shot and left to die.
Like I explained earlier, this exact adage is the beating heart of the American gun fallacy. It is a play on words which you have interpreted literally. It means that the best strategy when you are attacked is often to counter-attack rather than defend. It does not mean that defence is the same thing as attack. If I am playing chess and I am under threat, if I have the option to launch a stronger, more decisive counter-attack against my opponent then it is sometimes better to take it than to defend my own pieces.
The idea that offense cannot be defensive, and that defense cannot include offensive actions is so ridiculously narrow-minded that I am offended
It is not "narrow-minded" you backwards imbecile. Offence and defence are antonyms. They literally mean the opposite to each other. You say you are offended, but it is I who is offended by your inability to grasp basic common sense. You might as well claim that it is "narrow minded" to believe that black cannot be white and white cannot be black.
The question comes down to whether one knows the intent and capability of one's opponent, and whether or not the opponent has determined that it is a zero sum game.
I haven't posited a question you idiot. I've exposed the stupidity of your gun logic. Throwing a bunch of impressive-sounding words at the screen won't suddenly make your position logical. If both I and my opponent have guns pointed at each other (i.e. zero sum game) it does not preclude us from attacking one another.
Try to follow basic English. Offence and defence are antonyms. Offence and defence are not synonyms. Therefore, if you are doing one then you necessarily cannot be doing the other.
Regarding "The idea that offense cannot be defensive, and that defense cannot include offensive actions is so ridiculously narrow-minded that I am offended."
That was a joke based on multiple puns. I keep forgetting that most leftists are humorless, narrow-minded dogmatists, which is why you are such oppressive scolds.
That was a joke based on multiple puns. I keep forgetting that most leftists are humorless, narrow-minded dogmatists
Sure buddy. Obviously you threw that piece of comedy genius in there because it's perfectly normal to sarcastically mock your own 3,000 word essay two paragraphs in.
Try reading it again; maybe you will get it.
I honestly tried, but IMO it's convoluted, self-indulgent nonsense, lacking any grand point or even a proper structure. I have no idea what you were trying to say and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
You keep saying that you know what offense and defense mean, etc. so I assume that you are familiar with their multiple meanings, usages, and connotations.
It's perfectly normal to sarcastically mock your own 3,000 word essay two paragraphs in.
Actually, on this topic, it is perfectly normal to make fun of EVERYTHING ANYBODY says about it. The various arguments have all been made many so many times that they don't even need to be responsive anymore.
The sides are divided into Wingnuts and Hazelnuts for Christ's sake. How can you possibly think this is going to be a discussion without absurdity on both sides?
What makes the situation even funnier is that most folks (on both sides) don't even see the humor in the situations they describe in their examples.
Seriously N, there are more comfortable places for you to store lumber.
Nope. Sorry. I see no reason why you would begin by taking a position which you claim to mock in a later paragraph. That makes no sense to me and, even if it did, I still do not find it amusing, just bizarre.
Wow, I knew you were a leftist, but you must be extraordinarily far left to be so humorless.
The idea that offense cannot be defensive, and that defense cannot include offensive actions is so ridiculously narrow-minded that I am . . .
offended. ;)
Each of the following italicized words uses all the listed definitions simultaneously in the preceding sentence in order to comment on manners, law, and combat as they relate to the interminable gun debate.
Offense
-attack
-insult
-instance of breaking the law
Defense
-guard or protection from physical attack
-argument or justification presented in court
Offensive
- physically attacking
-rude, insulting
Defensive
-protecting from physical attack
-uneasy,
-anticipatory of being slighted or insulted
narrow-minded
-unwilling to accept other moral/ethical values or lifestyles
-unable to perceive more than what one is focused on
Offence and defence are diametrically opposed terms. The dictionary confirms this.
There was no ad hominem when Amarel pointed out that you have a vocabulary problem. Your statement is an example of this shortcoming. You use multi-dimensional words for abstractions as if they are flat and refer only to concrete nouns.
English Lesson 1 -- Denotation is often less than half of the meaning of the word in context. Connotation matters significantly.
That is why synonyms like Black, negro and African-American elicit such different reactions when applied to people.
Most dictionaries only catalogue and address denotation. Dictionaries of synonyms, dictionaries of antonyms, and related websites like opposite-dictionary.com almost exclusively deal with word relationships in terms of denotation.
English Lesson 2 -- The context in which a word is used matters when discussing relationships between words.
One might sensibly say that the abstractions of right and left are opposites, that they cancel each other out in the abstract. This can be true when dealing with concrete directions (e.g. a left turn can be the opposite of a right turn, and cancel it out.) However, that makes no sense in many applications. For example, my right and left hands are not opposites, but rather are complementary. They can coexist, work together, and never cancel each other out.
This is also the case between defense and offense.
English Lesson 3 -- Most words in English have multiple definitions. Problematically, compendia such as Thesauri, dictionaries of synonyms, and dictionaries of antonyms generally address primary definitions only, which induces simple thinkers and inexperienced writers to make basic language mistakes, like thinking because one set of usages are listed as opposites, all usages of the same words must be opposites.
Face it, black and white are not always opposites.
Make a note to yourself.
Learn to deal with the complexities and nuances of the English language so that your vocabulary problems will not continue to result in failing to understand the arguments of others, and continue to weaken your arguments.
You obviously have some deep-seated frustrations in understanding and responding clearly to the ideas of others, which seems to be why you so often resort to name calling.
The English language has more nuance in it than you know how to use, and your arguments suffer for it.
There was no ad hominem when Amarel pointed out that you have a vocabulary problem
Since you cannot and have not supported the claim that I have a vocabulary problem, you are defending an ad hominem attack with precisely the same ad hominem attack. This is both offensive and stupid.
You use multi-dimensional words for abstractions as if they are flat and refer only to concrete nouns.
So words have a shape and I am the one with the vocabulary problem? That's awesome. I bet you feel really clever surfing Thesaurus.Com and the various grammar sites don't you? The problem you have is that convoluted sentences and exotic gobbledeegook aren't a substitute for an actual argument. If you feel like producing an argument explaining why you apparently believe offence and defence are not diametrically opposed terms, then be a good chap and let us all know what it is instead of slandering my grasp of English. Thanks.
English Lesson 1 -- Denotation is often less than half of the meaning of the word in context. Connotation matters significantly.
I do not need English lessons. I have a first class university degree in journalism you pontificating windbag.
Since you cannot and have not supported the claim that I have a vocabulary problem, you are defending an ad hominem attack with precisely the same ad hominem attack. This is both offensive and stupid.
- 1 - Saying you have a problem with vocabulary usage in your arguments is no more an ad hominem than saying you have a problem with logic in your arguments. It directly addresses a relevant weakness in your argument, in this case a misunderstanding of the relationship between the words offense and defense as used in the statement "A good offense is the best defense."
- 2 - If you bothered to read my post, I supported the claim that you have a vocabulary problem by discussing the weaknesses in how you and your sources approach the relationships between words.
So words have a shape and I am the one with the vocabulary problem?
Yep. When I wrote, "You use multi-dimensional words for abstractions as if they are flat and refer only to concrete nouns," I was using the non-mathematical, non-spatial definitions of the words. A couple entries from the Miriam Webster Dictionary illustrate the point I was making with the statement with two additional examples.
multi-dimensional (adjective):
having or relating to multiple dimensions or aspects
"… a combination of services that result in a multidimensional approach to education …"
"...transforming them from heroes or villains into the kind of multidimensional characters you expect to find in good fiction."
and
flat (adjective)
6a clearly unmistakable: ·a flat denial
6b not varying :fixed ·
The problem you have is that convoluted sentences and exotic gobbledeegook aren't a substitute for an actual argument.
Your failure to understand what I wrote does not make it gobbledygook.
...instead of slandering my grasp of English.
It is not slander if it is true, therefore, in this case, it is not slander.
I do not need English lessons. I have a first class university degree in journalism you pontificating windbag.
While your degree may be first class, your educationin the English language clearly was not, despite the quality of your education in history. Obviously your degree did not include enough reading and study of the English language to enable you to grasp nuance in diction, nor to have enough depth in your vocabulary, however broad your vocabulary may be, to deal with words with large numbers of definitions.
Although you seem to understand most straightforward arguments, and are able to respond clearly enough, when the vocabulary has multiple meanings, you habitually select an inappropriate definition instead of the clearly intended one. What makes this funny in a sad way is that you immediately insult the people you misunderstand, as if the shortcoming is theirs, when in fact it is yours.
The post I am currently responding to is sufficient evidence of your need to learn the three English lessons I posted for you before you use the definitions of words as the core of an argument.
Learn to deal with the complexities and nuances of the English language
You are farcical. How about you stop copy/pasting completely irrelevant long walls of nonsense from grammar sites, interspersing it with insults, and pretending it is some form of counterargument? I genuinely don't understand what you believe you gain from doing this. Literally nothing you have written in your entire post refutes a word I have said. The dictionary confirms that offence and defence are diametrically opposed terms, so are you under the impression that your long essay refutes that premise? I am here to assure you that it does not.
Opposite for offence: "defense, defence, defending team"
How about this? Before you begin to feel qualified to talk about "the complexities and nuances of the English language", you first learn the basics? Like what opposites are?
The only things I paste are dictionary definitions.
The dictionary confirms that offence and defence are diametrically opposed terms
Not always. Often they are complementary terms. This is different than being opposites. In another post on the other side I addressed the difference in usage. Go read it again, if you like.
I explained clearly the flaw in your source, yet you repeatedly cite it, as if that does anything but support my point about you needing to learn English to a greater depth.
I genuinely don't understand what you believe you gain from doing this.
Obviously.
One of your problems seems to be that you demonstrably do not understand a lot of what you disagree with. That is probably why such a high percentage of your "rebuttals" start or end with insults, and often have them sprinkled throughout. You routinely mistake your inability to understand as a problem with the idea you think you disagree with, or with the person you then proceed to attack.
This brings us to one of your other problems. It must be very frustrating to be so lost all the time, especially considering that in this on-line manifestation, your social skills are sorely undeveloped.
Your rudeness indicates that even when you are trying to engage with other people's ideas, you completely misunderstand how to engage with people you disagree with on any level higher than that of a child. This is the cost of resorting to insults.
Your insults generally come out as some version or other of "I disagree, so you are a dumb-dumb poo-poo head!" Sure, the vocabulary of your insults is a little higher, but the maturity of the sentiment is exactly that childish. That is why I am so surprised to learn that you have a degree. I always assumed you were somewhere between 12 and 16 years old, not because of your ideas, but because of your manners.
Regarding what I gain from doing this, I am just trying to help you get better at this. All the knowledge you have takes a back seat to your poverty of manners and your poor understanding of the English language, or how to use it to your advantage.
I at least hope to see your insults improve. I was kind of proud of you for using "farcical."
The only things I paste are dictionary definitions.
Marcus, your lies are as transparent as they are boring to reply to. I have encountered every fallacy used by the wingnut right a hundred times before. The terminology you used is exclusive to academic grammarians. Hence, either you are an academic grammarian or you have been copy/pasting from the internet. We can then investigate further, by asking whether an academic grammarian would accuse someone of having a vocabulary problem simply because they are not an academic grammarian? Furthermore, would an academic grammarian pretend to be presenting a counterargument, or would they actually be presenting a counterargument?
The fact of the matter Marcus is that you are a liar.
Not always.
We are using offence and defence in a specific context. It seems like the only response you have to anything is some variation of the red herring fallacy.
I explained clearly the flaw in your source
Obviously you did not explain it clearly. That precludes us even having this conversation in the first place. You made purposefully vague references to three dimensional words, concrete nouns and much other gibberish, which is a classic far right fallacy known as "blinding someone with science". It is a form of misdirection, used to distract readers away from the fact that you are not actually refuting what has been said.
Obviously.
I think it's a mental health problem. I'll be honest.
One of your problems seems to be that you demonstrably do not understand a lot of what you disagree with.
You claim it to be demonstrable and yet you demonstrate absolutely nothing. You are using ad hominem attacks again, which I have already warned you about once. Furthermore, it is another textbook right wing fallacy to attack the "understanding" of anybody who exposes you as a liar. It is a blanket to be thrown over everything and anything idiots like you get caught doing. No sir, I didn't get caught with my big fat greedy hand in the cookie jar again. You don't understand. And so on, ad infinitum...
That is probably why such a high percentage of your "rebuttals" start or end with insults
So you insult me and then in your next sentence criticise me for using insults? Explain to me how it is even possible for a person to be so disingenuous and such a raging hypocrite? I'd like to understand that if possible.
This brings us to one of your other problems.
Your 3,000 word long ad hominem attacks are not my problem. The fact that you cannot stick to the topic is not my problem. You began by quoting two lines, and you have been unable to refute them with a thousand of your own. All you want to do is attack me, my understanding, my vocabulary, my personality and my politics.
In short, you want to do everything except address the topic. For this reason, and quite rightfully, you're being banned.
Each of the following italicized words uses all the listed definitions simultaneously in the preceding sentence in order to comment on manners, law, and combat as they relate to the interminable gun debate.
And you are claiming this was an attempt at humour? Are you retarded? What you have written here does not even make grammatical sense. It is a complete clusterfuck of the English language. If I understand your meaning correctly (and I'm really not sure I do), you seem to be saying that the same word, for example, "offense", has different definitions within the same context of your sentence. This of course is nonsensical and false, because the definition of words with multiple definitions is always relevant to context.
Honestly, what is it with right wingers that makes you so spectacularly dishonest? You would rather spin the world upside down than admit you were wrong about something. It makes you absolutely infuriating to argue with.
you seem to be saying that the same word, for example, "offense", has different definitions within the same context of your sentence. This of course is nonsensical and false, because the definition of words with multiple definitions is always relevant to context.
What you are failing to understand is what a pun is.
Yeah, it is basic humor, but I was using it to point out that you failed in an earlier statement to appreciate that offense and defense have multiple meanings, most of which prohibit them from being antonyms.
What you are failing to understand is what a pun is.
What you are failing to understand is that firing a massive barrage of red herrings at me is not a counterargument. It is in fact a purposeful attempt to deflect the conversation away from your lack of counterargument. Name-dropping vague terminology like "pun", or "denotation" in order to disguise your shockingly bad grammar is what I would expect from a cheeky schoolboy, not a grown man. Let me explicate this as simply as possible: your atrocious, convoluted grammar is not caused by my lack of understanding.
Yeah, it is basic humor
You disproved your own contention that you were joking when you wrote me a 3,000 word essay defending the argument you retard. I explained that attack and defence are antonyms, and you replied with 3,000 words about my "vocabulary problem". You pasted a wall of specialist grammatical terminology which you pulled off the internet, and then tried to mock me without ever actually refuting the quote you were attacking. This type of response is typical of people like you Marcus, because you are ego-driven and simply want to feel like you have had the better of an argument, even if you have not.
offense and defense have multiple meanings, most of which prohibit them from being antonyms.
Everybody is perfectly clear about what offence and defence mean in the context they are being used except you. What a shocking coincidence.
Name-dropping vague terminology like "pun", or "denotation"
If you think pun and denotation are vague, then I radically overestimated your understanding of the English language. These are VERY basic terms used when discussing language. American schools teach these terms in 2nd or 3rd grade, and 5th or 6th grade respectively. We teach them precisely because they are not vague, and because they enable discussion of how context affects meaning.
Everybody is perfectly clear about what offence and defence mean in the context they are being used except you.
Everybody?
Really?
There is a difference between offense as a strategy and offense as a tactic.
Offense is one possible tactic in the strategy of defense. Is that simple enough for you.
You disproved your own contention that you were joking when you wrote me a 3,000 word essay defending the argument
The two are not mutually exclusive.
3,000 words?
Try the arithmetic again.
Exaggeration is part of your problem. I think that is part of why you have these emotional outbursts that result in name-calling.
If you think pun and denotation are vague, then I radically overestimated your understanding of the English language.
Marcus, your ceaseless attempts at deception and/or distortion are just so childish. Whether the words "pun" or "denotation" are used vaguely or specifically has absolutely zero correlation to my understanding of the English language. If you type the word pun, wink at me and then leave, then that is being vague.
These are VERY basic terms used when discussing language.
The words themselves do not define whether they have been used vaguely you sophist idiot. The context which surrounds them is what determines whether they have been used vaguely. Stop stretching reality like it was silly putty you deceitful, infantile cretin.
Really?
Really. Everybody is fully aware that offence and defence are opposites except you.
There is a difference between offense as a strategy and offense as a tactic.
Yawn... There is a difference between sky blue and navy blue. But they are both still blue. Weird.
Offense is one possible tactic in the strategy of defense
Ahahaha! Right. And going up is one possible tactic in the strategy of going down. Twisting the English language around your indefensible reasoning is not going to work with me, I'm afraid. If your proposed tactics are offensive then your strategy cannot therefore be defence. These two words contradict one another.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
So you have an explanation for why you wrote a thesis in defence of something you claimed was a joke? I'd love to hear that sometime, mate. I bet it's comedic gold.
Exaggeration is part of your problem.
I have to be honest. At this point I'm just laughing whenever I read one of your sentences.
