What is the most irritating thing someone does to you in debates?
Answer
Side Score: 14
|
 |
Answers
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
People who launch personal attacks on those who have posted opinions with which they disagree. Instead of presenting their own reasoned view which may highlight weaknesses in the opposition's standpoint and win the argument through professional persuasion they enter into a tirade of profanities and juvenile name calling. This of course is usually met with similar offense text with the result that the topic becomes secondary, if not totally irrelevant, as the debate degenerates into a slagging match between two or more adversaries. The ridiculous practice of members holding multiple accounts also degrades the integrity of the site as one never knows who's who and posts can be downvoted into oblivion. If that's a photo of you, I want a date immediately. Side: Answer
1
point
All those godists who dismiss decades of solid and proven science just because it contradicts a Bronze Age book of Hebrew Mythology and fables. Most of which was never meant to be taken literally, but rather, metaphorically. Delusion runs rampant with those hapless wankers. Cheers, mates. Side: Answer
1
point
Science disproves the literalist notion that all those metaphorical fables like god stopping the sun in the sky...wtf?....actually happened. Science proves to us that staffs don't turn into serpents. Serpents don't speak with and seduce humans....trumpets don't destroy concrete walls...dead carpenters don't rise from being dead for three days. Science relegated all those allegories into, well, just that...allegories. Side: Answer
|
2
points
Tough call. Every time I expose xMathFanx as a narcissistic, pontificating idiot (which is fairly frequently), he'll start deflecting like an angry badminton player. There will be red herring links, straw man argumentation, mythical treasure chests of counter-evidence at the end of a rainbow, and countless attempts to change the topic. Dermot's trick is Freudian projection. Whatever you prove him guilty of will be what he accuses you of in his next sentence, and it will usually be garnished with the most vicious personal insults his feral brain can muster. FactMachine will bring two (or more) accounts into a debate, and use one of them to pretend to agree with you, while he uses the other to attack you. It's kind of the political shill's version of good cop, bad cop. He also tries to impersonate other contributors a lot. He'll slightly change one letter in your name, download your profile picture, and then start writing posts pretending to be you. Bronto however incorporates all of these things when he is debating, to create a thick neo-Nazi stew of bullshit and smear, which he sprays over everything like a gangling shit demon. Never has a person existed who is more dishonest, more frequently wrong without caring less, and more uninterested in anything except feeling like he has beaten you in a debate. If bullshit and distortion were actual subjects in academia, then bronto would probably be their most renowned scholar. Side: Answers
0
points
|
