|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Pet Peeves of Debating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I make no claim to innocence (nor admit to any guilt ), and with that said I offer up these pet peeves:
I just want to go on record as believing that anyone possessing these flaws is evil, that if you don't understand this you're stupid, and that if you disagree you're wrong and probably have BO. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheoMorphic Inactive Member |
i would suggest rewording the last part of the last sentence there... you didn't quite completely defy your first point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
i would suggest rewording the last part of the last sentence there... you didn't quite completely defy your first point. Oh, well, it was the best I could do at the time. Can I make up for it by violating the middle one twice: You obviously haven't contemplated my post deeply enough. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Typical moderator prejudice. You're obviously ignoring the facts here, to keep from shattering your precious little worldview.
quote: And the fish believe this too? Yeah. I thought so. Lemurs, lemurs, lemurs.
quote: You would think that. Jerk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
I think the Z-man personifies all my pet peeves, especially in posts like this one, where he tries Brian's patience with his time-tested techniques:
1) Facetious nonsense with obnoxious smilie:
Brian: What on earth is 'evolution man'! Zealot: Dunno.. he's a very mythical figure I believed in 2) Semantic bullshit with rhetorical question:
I dont even know what an Xian is! I know what a Christian is. I am a typical Christian ? 3) Insulting self-righteousness:
Only the pure of heart can see God. That might have been what was missing from your days as a Christian. But then you admitted to being a fool and liar. How you are still surprised you didn't find God I understand not. 4) Bizarre strawman metaphor delivered with scorn:
Hehe, you sound like a farmer that plants potatoes, big and small, round and odd shaped, then exclaims 'See , there is no GOD!' You still fail to explain where the seed came from, but heck that is not important! 5) Evading the question, with annoying smilie:
Brian:Maybe you can tell us a defintion of evolution from your intensive research? Zealot: I think you can find one on google. Beware, you might find more than one! Search for 'definition evolution' 6) Claiming victory by failing to convince opponent. Note use of 'Hehe' and bad spelling:
Hehe, knock yourself out! I've learn't a long while ago there is no budging on evolutionary theory on these forums! Sorry to dissapoint you ! ------------------The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
...people who claim their lack of knowledge or complete ignorance of a subject suggests that they have an open mind to the subject of debate and that their uninformed opinions thus either carry the same weight or are superior to those who actually know what they are talking about.
quote: ..people who completely distort what you say to make it look exactly like the opposite of what you said...So Percy, why do you persist in claiming you are innocent when you keep admitting you are guilty?..what are you? Konrad Lorenz???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Mammuthus writes: So Percy, why do you persist in claiming you are innocent when you keep admitting you are guilty?..what are you? Konrad Lorenz??? Why do you keep questioning answers with statements? The true subject of guilt encompasses all knowledge that debates with opinions of weighty innocence, even when you're talking and as Lorenz has confirmed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7044 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
1) People who use colors instead of quote brackets
2) People who try to emphasize their names in their posts 3) (especially) People who split up a single post into multiple posts across the thread. 4) (especially) People who not just dodge points, but openly admit that they're ignoring them on purpose. I can handle people who use broken logic just fine - I don't get frustrated. I also have no problem with people who don't do their research - that actually makes the debate more fun, when you get a chance to correct them. It's the style things that get to me. I would put "personal attacks" on the list, but I know I don't always manage to stay polite in the middle of a debate (it's something I'm working on ). ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 11-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
but I know I don't always manage to stay polite in the middle of a debate (it's something I'm working on ). Would you like some help with this Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
This Sonic guy is fast becoming a favorite of NosyNed. How many irritating debating habits can you isolate in the following?
"in order for a fox to become a dog or vice versa you would need about 25-35 or more intermediates for the fossil record to suggest evolution of this catagory. You would also need the DNA record to support the idea for it to become factual, which we dont have today.Dont try and tell me no you would not, I say you would because, if you look at the skin color ratio today, it is obviouse to say that eather white or black was first, I believe the theory is that black was first and lead to white, but if you were to look at the people today you would find over 30-40 complexions between black and brown and the same for brown to white. with this principle in mind, I would expect to find the same information in the fossil record concering fossils but we dont we just find black brown then white for example, sure brown would be a intermediate fossil and sure we may only have 1% of the fossil record but that would suggest 1% of that 1% would be intermediate fossils atleast, but we are lucky if we have .1% of 1% intermediates. Which means that those .1% claimed intermediates are not intermediates. In otherwords the fossil record does not support evolution to the magnitude of macro-evolution. Then we have the dna record which reports a huge difference between man and ape and whatever else. To many differences to say that macro-evolution occured, Macroevolution is theoretical and a guess at best. (note: this conclusion of mine does not say that macro-evolution didn't occur it just exemplifies that I dont agree with it.)" Pencils down! Okay, I counted a Straw Man, three Non Sequiturs, one Argument from Personal Incredulity, and no less than eight Unsupported Assertions! And I don't even know how to categorize the classic line 'a huge difference between man and ape and whatever else'. ------------------The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 11-24-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024