Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 126 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 98% |
Arguments: | 106 |
Debates: | 9 |
It's not actually concurrence if you've failed to understand the point.
He ends up with more money because he didn't volunteer away 100$ dollars.
Any abilities the person possesses, is a part of their character.
You used debt as an example. I agreed that negative numbers can represent debt, but then argued that one can not actually have negative money.
Ad hominem is not only in the form of an insult, it is any irrelevant response which is directed at the person's character rather than their argument. You could be giving the person a compliment in response to their argument and it would still be an ad hominem.
That is a non sequitur. Ad hominems and truth are not mutually exclusive.
What logically follows from that response, is that there is no way to explain anything to anyone who doesn't have the understanding already. Which is clearly false, based on the fact that we have many mentors for many different subjects which have successfully educated many people, by explaining something to the people that they had not had the understanding of beforehand.
Ad hominems only show how battered and wounded you are from a loss that was inevitable.
That's not what I said. My argument is that you can't know if numbers have an end or not.
What may be the cause for those suspicions? outlaw60's behavior could be easily fabricated by anyone since it's completley one tracked, but I don't really know the behavior of the other two.
It's quite likely that Hellno saw the topic and wanted to discuss it, but was impeded by the sudden disposal of the topic and carried on to remake a similar discussion board.
But he didn't even try to make that apparent and simply came here to troll.
I concur, that he is randomdude.
Um, yeah. But when the idiot you are talking to doesn't get it he will call it a red herring.
More Projection.
Actually, technically I did by adding the word again
So you admit that you didn't prove that my argument is based on reality. Gotcha.
Nope. That's why we have negative numbers. If it were still 20 yards, you could get a first down by running in the wrong direction
What's why we have negative numbers? What is this "first down"? And why is it the "wrong direction"? Answer the questions? No red herrings.
No, that is literally the debate question
The issue at hand wasn't the debate question, the issue at hand was your reasoning that you used to answer the debate question. Therefore red herring.
No, bulldip is calling the debate question a red herring.
Your use of it as an argument, is the red herring.
You are half right. Which is about half more than usual.
75% of the time. I'll wear that with pride.
|