Actually he said it colloquially, as in a disagreement, as in a noun, not a verb. He was not talking about the act of arguing anything. He was talking about being in an argument with someone.

Arguing a case is a debate. That's exactly what lawyers do. They debate each other.

What happens when you srtop saying things like "I think, in my opinion, etc"? You are no longer in a discussion with someone. When you make assertions as opposed to give your thoughts and opinions(while labeling them as such), you're debating, not discussing, and thus if you can't prove your assertions, you've done nothing but waste everybody's time and be counter-productive. Debating is about nothing but ego.

It doesn't matter though because you were stating what somebody said, even if it wasn't how he was actually using it.

 

See my above post. ^

-S-

 

So, let me get this straight.

Asserting = debating.
Proving assertions = using facts.
Thus...
Use of facts = debating.
Debating = ego-driven discourse.
Thus...
Use of facts = ego-driven discourse.

This is absurd. Flat out ludicrous.

 

I share this opinion, Baller... Honestly, debates are not a waste of time.

 

Then you need to take the blinders off because she clearly is.

There is nothing in the world that should ever be debated. Discussing certain topics is even a waste of time. The morality of fox-hunting using horse and hound? Hunting is not about morality. The only true hunting is the hunting people did with spears and bows and arrows and other weapons that only skilled hunters/warriors used. End of debate.

If we were discussing quantum physics(which I never would because it's a waste of my time and it's something I admittedly know nothing about), I wouldn't be discussing anything if I couldn't correctly define it. If you can't use a technical term correctly, you shouldn't use it at all.

The very real threat? Honestly, what is it, nuclear war? I don't use fallacies, period. Fallacies are nothing more than the tactics of those who have no leg to stand on and can't just accept defeat.

These aren't my definitions. These are what the things I'm defining are. You might not agree with it but it doesn't really matter whether you do or not. The second you stop agreeing to disagree or using terms like "I think, in my opinion, etc" you are no longer discussing. Period.

 

Now you're getting it. This is why I gave up any pretense of ever trying to have a rational discussion with Monkey years ago. (Funny how we talk about years on this forum, innit.)

The only reality Monkey will acknowledge is that which he perceives to be true and anything that is outside of that is false. And I do mean anything. His perception is paramount. You can not talk or reason with someone like that.

-S-

 

You're right...if you look back, all I started out to do was correct what I considered to be an erroneous definition of a particular word. It's very difficult to carry on a rational discussion (or argument) when people insist on employing their own inventive word definitions. The essence of discourse is an agreed-upon vocabulary.

 

In this post I see: straw man fallacy, equivocation, and appeal to authority.

Where? The straw man comes when you ignore my argument about debating to instead tear down a premise I was not making - whether or not hunting is about morality. It comes again when you produce an argument about why you would not discuss quantum physics, rather than address the actual point I was making.

The equivocation comes when you deliberately misuse the phrase I used; specifically, "the very real threat."

The appeal to authority comes in arguing that the words are not being defined by you but by an implied 'higher authority'.

Your post is full of fallacies.

 

Case in point. Where in the world did THIS idea come from? How did this particular definition of "hunting" get implanted in Baller's brain and turn into absolute, indisputable fact?

 

I'm pretty sure you just used a fallacy right there.

But since you want to get it straight, I'll help you out.

Asserting something instead of giving your opinions, thoughts, etc and clearly labeling them as such = no longer discussing

proving assertions= using facts(as in, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt.. no correlations, no scientific studies, no likelihood or anything else.. nothing but this is 100% truth and I have just proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt).

Debating= ego driven-discourse
Use of facts (where's the not equal to sign?) debating. Use of facts = effectively ending any kind of debate.

A debate is not about truth. A debate is about making yourself out to be right, without actually having to be. Therefore, a debate is a waste of time.

Yes, they are.

 

Baller, if a debate doesn't accomplish anything perhaps you could correctly state that it was a waste of time... This doesn't mean that debating is worthless and no debates ever accomplish anything.

Seriously, it's like saying all catholic priests are pedophiles because some are...

 

Hahahahahaha.
This also brings up the point that he will argue with something using extremely vague comments that often time include the things he is arguing against.

"And other weapons," which is therefore a way for him to weasel out of being proven wrong, because other weapons could include anything from an m16 to a sock puppet.

 

To be honest, it just seems like he argues to argue, albeit poorly.
Making him a troll.

 

lol Ok, Baller... I have to go so I'll have to agree to disagree for now at least.

 

I don't think so.

I didn't ignore your argument. I proved that your example of something worth debating is not something worth debating. I again did not ignore the point you were ATTEMPTING to make but instead stated that somebody who misuses a technical term should not be using that term, therefore you're presenting a scenario that would not happen in a discussion, as a discussion does not use absolute statements.

I didn't misuse anything. I'm not using the word argument. You all are. You used argument colloquially, and I responded using it the same way towards you. Other people then completely ignored what you and me were saying to each other and tried to use definitions from a dictionary of the word argument to prove that I was wrong about what a discussion was. That, is a fallacy. You're also claiming I'm defining words and using my own definitions based on the fact that you don't agree with me. Not only is that hypocritical, it's also a fallacy.

An implied higher authority? No. More like by the many examples of debates and discussions, and how all of them are exactly what I said they are.

Nature. You could even say it's not hunting unless you don't use a weapon at all, but considering how inferior we are to the animals we "hunt", I think that'd be a bit difficult.

 

Inferior in what sense?
In the sense that we don't have claws?
I think it would be the most ridiculous argument ever to argue that humans aren't in every way superior to any other creature on Earth.

 

yeah the little pussy is off his meds again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

I have seen many of your retorts(name calling) that weren't respectful, and looked more desperate, a clutching at straws.
I am not disagreeing(entirely) with your post here, but things don't always work out this way IRW, and especially here on forums. I have seen your other posts on this thread, they don't speak much of reason.
You played the martyr game of badder neighbourhoods, and got too emotional

Mutual respect? I am not calling you names, nor `calling you out', You prove yourself to be too self centered and overly sensitive. This thread...`fuck off you, and you, and shut up you' etc, etc.
So much for respect of another's opinion. Granted that was a few days ago.

My opinion is just that, my opinion, and a response or two from someone can reveal to me their sources, of which I could if I had the time prove dubious. Suggestive studies and correlational studies for instance ie second hand smoke effects on non smokers'.

So, I am more `right' than, you, not too difficult to understand is it? If the respondent admits his or her sources, or paraphrases, quotes or links their sources.

Grade ten science, for anti smokers, for example. Those that base their opinions on merely suggestive studies build their agruments, conversations, discussions etc based on these types of inherently flawed studies set themselves up for rebuke or refute of theiir POV. QED

 

Definition and pinpoint of usage, please. Until then, I'll assume you're committing another strawman.

You are presupposing your definition is both universal and correct. I have seen no evidence to support this.

Nothing much to say here, save to point out that I am perfectly aware of what constitutes a fact.

Why not?

This is an unsupported conclusion, as you have failed to prove the validity of all your premises to any reasonable standard.

Prove this premise.

Prove this premise.

Unsupported conclusion.

To round it off, your entire post is an example of the formal False Dilemma fallacy. Indeed, your entire these here rests on that fallacy.