in internet debate there are three ways to automatically lose
1 compare someone to the TRIBBLE
2 quote a Wiki for any reason
3 Quote Dr Dawkins OR any Theologian
Umm, about number 1 - what if the debater is comparing neo-TRIBBLE to the original TRIBBLE?
About number 2 - a Wiki can be correct, just do independent fact checking. You should be doing that regardless of what source you are quoting.
And number 3 - just plain ignorant. What if the debate is about some point of theology? What? Everyone is wrong as soon as they mentioned an outside reference?
Think before you post, man. Overstating claims like yours is a more sure-fire way of losing any debate then your list.
Umm, about number 1 - what if the debater is comparing neo-TRIBBLE to the original TRIBBLE?
Then he is making a mistake
I was refering to comparing the person you are Arguing with not people who you have not met
About number 2 - a Wiki can be correct, just do independent fact checking. You should be doing that regardless of what source you are quoting.
Wikis are unstable
I could go into a wiki right now and edit it to say anything I wished
Wiki is therefore an invalid source
And number 3 - just plain ignorant. What if the debate is about some point of theology? What? Everyone is wrong as soon as they mentioned an outside reference?
professional theologians can not be trusted
it is in their interest to be inaccurate
Dawkins is the Anti-theologist he makes his living denying the mystical , spiritual and religious
Think before you post, man. Overstating claims like yours is a more sure-fire way of losing any debate then your list.
And yet I DO win
because i never quote a wiki or a theologian and do not compare people with long dead political groups
Then he is making a mistake
I was refering to comparing the person you are Arguing with not people who you have not met
Wikis are unstable
I could go into a wiki right now and edit it to say anything I wished
Wiki is therefore an invalid source
professional theologians can not be trusted
it is in their interest to be inaccurate
Dawkins is the Anti-theologist he makes his living denying the mystical , spiritual and religious
And yet I DO win
because i never quote a wiki or a theologian and do not compare people with long dead political groups
that was actually done, some time ago...the wrong info was an obvious wrong date in an article about the ORF, it took 20 minutes to be corrected...by a 3rd independent party.
and yes, you win again...you allways do, thats why everybody takes you serious in this forum...i hope you are familiar with the concept of sarcasm
Boy this topic has really gone off the rails.
The game is self contained, the clues to everything you need to know is there if you look for it without having to consult an outside source.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Oddly I am educated in formal logic
and it does not work on most people here
Well, to be fair, you haven't actually been using it. I mean, formal logic almost never works on the internet anyway, but you can't logically say that about specific people unless you've actually tested it on them.
Comments
But... Sollvax. The wiki says liquids put out fires... :P
As far as wanting someone to hold your hand through the game, that takes all the fun out of it.
"Grandma... How 'bout another grape soda".
Umm, about number 1 - what if the debater is comparing neo-TRIBBLE to the original TRIBBLE?
About number 2 - a Wiki can be correct, just do independent fact checking. You should be doing that regardless of what source you are quoting.
And number 3 - just plain ignorant. What if the debate is about some point of theology? What? Everyone is wrong as soon as they mentioned an outside reference?
Think before you post, man. Overstating claims like yours is a more sure-fire way of losing any debate then your list.
Then he is making a mistake
I was refering to comparing the person you are Arguing with not people who you have not met
Wikis are unstable
I could go into a wiki right now and edit it to say anything I wished
Wiki is therefore an invalid source
professional theologians can not be trusted
it is in their interest to be inaccurate
Dawkins is the Anti-theologist he makes his living denying the mystical , spiritual and religious
And yet I DO win
because i never quote a wiki or a theologian and do not compare people with long dead political groups
that was actually done, some time ago...the wrong info was an obvious wrong date in an article about the ORF, it took 20 minutes to be corrected...by a 3rd independent party.
and yes, you win again...you allways do, thats why everybody takes you serious in this forum...i hope you are familiar with the concept of sarcasm
its what I use and you miss
yes i know, all you write can only be meant as sarcasm...
everybody knows that, thats why you are referred to as trollvax
Turns and slowly walks out of thread.
He is however amusing when you do understand it is foolish to take him seriously.
and it does not work on most people here
The game is self contained, the clues to everything you need to know is there if you look for it without having to consult an outside source.
Well, to be fair, you haven't actually been using it. I mean, formal logic almost never works on the internet anyway, but you can't logically say that about specific people unless you've actually tested it on them.