I read that "there are no winners in this debate"

it's so great.

you 'win' when you post a picture that obviously contradicts your opponents point.and he says he won't debate you anymore because you don't know what you are talking about. and then makes comments disparaging your posts in replies to others - an obvious sign that you hit the mark.redwolf (and the swing bridge structure for the sauropod neck and tail) comes to mind.heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Like sports and wars go, observe the offense and the defensive. Who's gaining ground with the offense and who's constantly defensive and going nowhere or loosing ground. In debate who's needing to resort to strawmen, repetitive, getting personal, intemperate, etc rather than hammering away, effectively refuting specific points of the counterpart.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

quote:

---

in this forum, you win when everyone else starts berating your opponent for being an imbecile. oh. and when you get a potm and your opponent does not. also, see the above descriptions. only very rarely do you get the real and true victory, when you create a convert. sometimes this is a good thing, and sometimes not; but what do you care, you're right.

---

Woops I meant to hit the preview and hit submit, so here's the edited response:I think the majority view factors in here. There seems to be a rather natural and predictable bias toward the majority, with some of the majority lending support to the coombody no matter who's the rightful winner. This is particularly experienced by the minority on this board, the minority being so few. It's not going to be particularly noticed by the majority, they not being on the receiving end of that bias. Most often on this board it's one minority debating a host of counterparts in a given debate situation.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-18-2005 09:54 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

which is really funny cause a common argument of people who claim to be right is that the other person can't be right just because they have a million people agreeing with them.ie just because 3 billion christians believe in 7 day creation...This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-18-2005 11:30 PM

Another way to try to win an argument is to begin by stating that something is obviously something, and then later to deny it by changing the wording slightly. One might argue, for example, that the government of the Soviet Union was a "theocracy" that promulgated a belief in the "supernatural," and therefore a religion, and then deny it by stating, "I never said communism was a religion."This is called "baiting." You lead the poster on by pretending to agree that he or she understood what you were saying, and then you suddenly deny that his or her understanding was correct. That way you can accuse them of grossly misunderstanding one's subtle points.It's a very popular type of argumentative technique.

quote:

---

which is really funny cause a common argument of people who claim to be right is that the other person can't be right just because they have a million people agreeing with them.
ie just because 3 billion christians believe in 7 day creation...

---

.......And the same could be said of those billions who've come to believe that all the energy and matter in the universe once occupied a submicroscopic area of space smaller than the proton of an atom.Edited title.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-21-2005 10:07 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

it was an example not a jibe.just because 300 gazoogle firstgraders believe the moon is made of cheese make you happier?This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-21-2005 10:09 PM

i'm a big fan of picture posting. you'll have to link me to that one, it sounds entertaining -- on a simialr note, in the current "omg anasazi petroglyph" thread i posted some pictures of why it does and does not look a sauropod -- it doesn't hold it's tail right, which dates the image.

---

אָרַח

http://EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravitythe picture link is broken but here is a similar pictureLittle Current Swing Bridge (click)there are also one sided ones
Old Iron Swing Bridge at Ketchum's Point (click)The really striking thing is the similarity in dimension to structure eh? The older designs have the structure tapered so that the weight at the ends is minimized (newer ones go for style and bulk the structure to make pretty). The original one I posted had nice tapers at both ends.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

.......And the same could be said of those billions who've come to believe that all the energy and matter in the universe once occupied a submicroscopic area of space smaller than the proton of an atom.

---

Or how about the billions who believe that the earth is moving around the sun!When you think about it, that is an amazing and hard to believe fact. So, if I can believe that, what is to stop me from believing other facts that seem fantastic?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Yeah, you know, I guess that might seem really confusing, if you were some kind of ridiculous idiot that couldn't tell the difference between a system of government/economy and one country's particular implementation of it.To anyone who's not an idiot, though, that's an entirely reasonable chain of argumentation. No, "baiting" is when someone invokes the spectre of Soviet oppression as a brush to tar all atheists. Remember? Like you did?

That's what I thought: Undercover sophistry.

ah yes, i recall that now.

Always so personal with you, Rob. What's the deal with that?