#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
ISIS fighters are a bunch of SISSIes.
True.
Side Score: 22
|
Wait..., what? I'm a rebel.
Side Score: 19
|
|
1
point
|
2
points
3
points
1
point
4
points
2
points
1
point
But to be fair... Can resisting emotional arguments truly enlighten debaters? Emotion basically applies to everyone. I see the need to separate emotion from the mix when trying to reach an objective standpoint, but I think the importance of emotions (and anything subjective for that matter) is all too often downplayed. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I've figured it out. You spend so much time here, but do nothing but antagonize others and cultivate your false sense of superiority. It makes sense now; you're a CD hipster, walking around our little coffee shop/record store, narrowing your horn-rimmed glasses-framed gaze at our beverage and music selection in unfounded criticism. With this perspective, just about every post I've read by you makes sense. Well, your soy latte is still disgusting, and there is a reason that nobody listens to the bands you like- they're garbage. You think you're different and special, but you're just a sheep from a different flock. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Yep, you have pegged me dead on except for the these small details. I don't like coffee, I don't wear glasses, don't listen to music, and my criticism isn't unfounded. Thanks though for pegging me dead on. I'll just leave this here for you. Also, while a lot of criticism on this site isn't unfounded (whether directed at the atheists, the religious, or otherwise), yours is completely unfounded. This is because it's based on completely and blatantly fallacious premises. Perhaps you may stumble onto the right answer occasionally, but it won't really matter because you wouldn't be able to prove it or repeat it. Side: True.
1
point
I'll just leave this here for you. And I'll leave this for you as it is obvious you have never heard of it. http://www.google.com/ Also, while a lot of criticism on this site isn't unfounded (whether directed at the atheists, the religious, or otherwise), yours is completely unfounded. This is because it's based on completely and blatantly fallacious premises. Perhaps you may stumble onto the right answer occasionally, but it won't really matter because you wouldn't be able to prove it or repeat it. I'm sure that what you said is true to the narrow minded. As I have pointed out several times already, the world doesn't consist of just your opinions and views. There are other opinions and views. No opinion or view is blatantly fallacious just because it does not argee with yours. Side: Wait..., what? I'm a rebel.
1
point
Oh, was it sarcasm? My bad. I'm sure that what you said is true to the narrow minded. You're certainly one to talk regarding being narrow minded. I doubt there are many people on here less open minded than you are, friend. As I have pointed out several times already, the world doesn't consist of just your opinions and views. There are other opinions and views. Of course. Some good ones, Many warranting consideration, some very poor ones, and some so poor as to not be worth entertaining. Three guesses as to where I consider yours to rank in this particular instance? No opinion or view is blatantly fallacious just because it does not argee with yours. You attack a strawman, sir, for I wholeheartedly agree. I am not speaking of any random hypothetical opinion or view here, however- I am speaking of yours. Disagreeing with me isn't what makes it fallacious- faulty premises, irrational reasoning, cherry picking of facts, and the odd strategically placed blatant lie is what makes your view fallacious. Side: True.
1
point
Oh, was it sarcasm? My bad. I'm sure that what you said is true to the narrow minded. You're certainly one to talk regarding being narrow minded. I doubt there are many people on here less open minded than you are, friend. I find this to be hysterical because you claim to have an open mind and yet you took my words literally. How open is to have only one meaning to a person's words? I'm accused of taking things out of context and you're the one that doesn't know the context. Try looking for the actual meaning of words before inserting foot in mouth. Of course. Some good ones, Many warranting consideration, some very poor ones, and some so poor as to not be worth entertaining. Three guesses as to where I consider yours to rank in this particular instance? Considering your inability to understand the English language, guess where I rank your opinion. You attack a strawman, sir, for I wholeheartedly agree. I am not speaking of any random hypothetical opinion or view here, however- I am speaking of yours. Disagreeing with me isn't what makes it fallacious- faulty premises, irrational reasoning, cherry picking of facts, and the odd strategically placed blatant lie is what makes your view fallacious. Your troubles is that you are prejudice against me and therefore have no intentions of applying any reasoning behind any argument that post. "I am speaking of yours." Your words. It is not my arguments that have the faulty premise, but according to you it is me being here is that faulty premise. Thanks for being open-mind. Side: Wait..., what? I'm a rebel.
1
point
I find this to be hysterical because you claim to have an open mind and yet you took my words literally. How open is to have only one meaning to a person's words? I'm accused of taking things out of context and you're the one that doesn't know the context. Try looking for the actual meaning of words before inserting foot in mouth. Oh no, don't try and dodge that now :P You always do this, say things one way and when how much of an ass you are being is made inarguably evident, you claim you didn't mean it as you said it. You seem to have conflated the concept of having an open mind with that of being completely ineffective at communication. Considering your inability to understand the English language, guess where I rank your opinion. If that were the only factor, I expect you'd rank mine pretty highly. The context of the statement seems to imply otherwise, though. This is completely consistent with your character, drawing conclusions that are entirely separate from the actual data. Your troubles is that you are prejudice against me Going to stop you right there. No, I am not prejudiced against you. Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Nobody is being prejudiced against you; my opinion of you is based entirely on my personal experience with and observation of your statements, debate style, and overall positions on this board. ...and therefore have no intentions of applying any reasoning behind any argument that post. Oh come now, I've spent more time trying to reason through your little train wrecks than most here have ;) Your posts might actually stand if nobody tried to apply reason to them! It is not my arguments that have the faulty premise, but according to you it is me being here is that faulty premise. No, it's that your arguments are based on faulty premises. This is habitual for you, but you starting out from a reasonable premise isn't outside the realm of possibility. I just haven't seen it yet. You really ought to do some self-reflection rather than try and make a monster out of anyone who dares to disagree with you. Thanks for being open-mind. You is welcomed. Side: True.
1
point
Oh no, don't try and dodge that now :P You always do this, say things one way and when how much of an ass you are being is made inarguably evident, you claim you didn't mean it as you said it. You seem to have conflated the concept of having an open mind with that of being completely ineffective at communication. It's called having an open-mind. I know what I write can often be taken several different ways, as I write it this way. You without looking for any other meaning immediately take what I say literally. It may or may not be literal. I suggest you ponder what I write for awhile before posting or can continue to stick foot in mouth. If that were the only factor, I expect you'd rank mine pretty highly. The context of the statement seems to imply otherwise, though. This is completely consistent with your character, drawing conclusions that are entirely separate from the actual data. And go with the atheistical approach to things; If theory doesn't fit the facts, change the facts. ......my opinion of you is based entirely on my personal experience with and observation of your statements, debate style, and overall positions on this board. "Personal observation is insufficient. Confirmation and negativity biases are not simply a problem- they are an evolved (or created, if you insist) part of our reasoning. Everyone suffers from these. Your personal observation is only marginally accurate in respect to the data points that you have personally observed, and is not accurate in respect to the general population." thousandin1 http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Your posts might actually stand if nobody tried to apply reason to them! Is this your personal view? You really ought to do some self-reflection rather than try and make a monster out of anyone who dares to disagree with you. Monsters you believe in, it's just gods you don't? Side: Wait..., what? I'm a rebel.
2
points
It's called having an open-mind. I know what I write can often be taken several different ways, as I write it this way. You without looking for any other meaning immediately take what I say literally. It may or may not be literal. I suggest you ponder what I write for awhile before posting or can continue to stick foot in mouth. No, it's not. It's called grasping for straws. You've already made several points predicated on the literal interpretation of your statements, and only when they're shot full of holes do you say "I meant it a different way!" As is rather habitual with you. And go with the atheistical approach to things; If theory doesn't fit the facts, change the facts. I'm certain that this is a typo. No theist could seriously accuse the atheistic view of that. Even if it were true of the majority, it would be hypocritical. I'll say no more and I'll wait for you to revise your statement. "......my opinion of you is based entirely on my personal experience with and observation of your statements, debate style, and overall positions on this board." "Personal observation is insufficient. Confirmation and negativity biases are not simply a problem- they are an evolved (or created, if you insist) part of our reasoning. Everyone suffers from these. Your personal observation is only marginally accurate in respect to the data points that you have personally observed, and is not accurate in respect to the general population." thousandin1 http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ We shouldshunbusinessesthat#arg569318 Oh, look at you, don't you think you're clever? The context of that statement was in regards to generalizations; Personal observations of anecdotals are insufficient to draw conclusions regarding an overall population. For example, one's experience dating is insufficient to make observations of the preferred sex in general. This isn't applicable when we're using personal observation of a specific individual to draw conclusions regarding that specific individual. Generalizations may not apply to specific individuals at all, and personal exposure can demonstrate this. Observation of an individual tells you about the individual, but not the population. Is this your personal view? It is a view that I hold personally, but I'm hardly alone there, and the reasoning required to reach that view is essentially unassailable. Monsters you believe in, it's just gods you don't? Oh, another attempt to be clever. You aren't seriously suggesting that I am accusing you of some form of sorcery; that I assert you're actually transforming individuals who disagree with you into monsters, are you? If I had used 'demonize' instead of 'make a monster out of' would you then accuse me of theism, even satanism? Ridiculous. Side: True.
1
point
No, it's not. It's called grasping for straws. You've already made several points predicated on the literal interpretation of your statements, and only when they're shot full of holes do you say "I meant it a different way!" As is rather habitual with you. Go ahead list all those points that I have made. This is a Cartman tactic where no evidence is provided and just the word of an atheist. Let the up-votes roar in as evidence is not required just camaraderie. I'm certain that this is a typo. No theist could seriously accuse the atheistic view of that. Even if it were true of the majority, it would be hypocritical. I'll say no more and I'll wait for you to revise your statement. As I have stated several times already, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Think about it dim wit. You could do a Google search for what I said, since it is evident that you don't understand the origin or who said this statement. Oh, look at you, don't you think you're clever? The context of that statement was in regards to generalizations; Personal observations of anecdotal are insufficient to draw conclusions regarding an overall population. For example, one's experience dating is insufficient to make observations of the preferred sex in general. This isn't applicable when we're using personal observation of a specific individual to draw conclusions regarding that specific individual. Generalizations may not apply to specific individuals at all, and personal exposure can demonstrate this. Observation of an individual tells you about the individual, but not the population. Your the one that preached that a single individual isn't qualified to make any claims or generalizations and yet you made one about me. HYPOCRITE. It is a view that I hold personally, but I'm hardly alone there, and the reasoning required to reach that view is essentially unassailable. Everything is questionable. Unless you're all-knowing. Are you? Oh, another attempt to be clever. You aren't seriously suggesting that I am accusing you of some form of sorcery; that I assert you're actually transforming individuals who disagree with you into monsters, are you? If I had used 'demonize' instead of 'make a monster out of' would you then accuse me of theism, even satanism? Ridiculous. Where did I say anything about sorcery? What is ridiculous is the way you make up things and you think theist have a vivid imagination. Side: Wait..., what? I'm a rebel.
1
point
|