Giving Up The Argument

[Neomega]

Never say die.

And if it's Iraq, I ain't quitting until one of us has had a heart attack.

 

[nihilistic]

I would say you learn equally from both. And I did most of my chess learning reading about chess and how to see patterns as opposed to randomly played games.

I nver read a chess book in my life, and I probabbly never will. Takes all the fun out.

/shrug. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Even you. Doesnt make it right though does it? I can safely say I have more than held my own in this place. You dont think so? Oh well. I dont post here to make you happy.

Most of the time you can be said to have 'held your own', your opponents are completely repulsed at the idiocy and the unrelenting bible quoting, because they care. However, I don't really care anymore so instead I'm quite amused at your posts. If you look at it from my position, your posts are quite an ego boost to its readers mainly because they would think "at least I'm not as delirious as that guy".

/shrug ..../again

You feel better now that you attacked me and vented?

No, I'm only amused.

 

[Tulkas12]

I nver read a chess book in my life, and I probabbly never will. Takes all the fun out.



Most of the time you can be said to have 'held your own', your opponents are completely repulsed at the idiocy and the unrelenting bible quoting, because they care. However, I don't really care anymore so instead I'm quite amused at your posts. If you look at it from my position, your posts are quite an ego boost to its readers mainly because they would think "at least I'm not as delirious as that guy".



No, I'm only amused.

Speaking of not letting things go. . .

 

[tomsnowman123]

If I am faced with overwhelming evidence that contradicts what I am supporting, then I am willing to say that I made a mistake, but I wouldn't say "give up" more like "find a new perspective." If I can continue to defend my side, I will.

 

[MobBoss]

I nver read a chess book in my life, and I probabbly never will. Takes all the fun out.

Ah..we should play then. You might learn something.

Most of the time you can be said to have 'held your own', your opponents are completely repulsed at the idiocy and the unrelenting bible quoting, because they care. However, I don't really care anymore so instead I'm quite amused at your posts. If you look at it from my position, your posts are quite an ego boost to its readers mainly because they would think "at least I'm not as delirious as that guy".

Heh, that made me laugh.

 

[BasketCase]

There are some people, when there argument lies burning in ruins

The central problem with any debate is usually this: each side thinks it's the other side whose argument lies in ruins.

Personally, I think the poll options should have split the giving up option into "I lost" and "I got too bored/distracted/disgusted with the debate to bother continuing it". A while back I posted a poll similar to this one, and virtually everyone voted "too bored / distracted". How many people voted "gave up because I lost"? Zero.

 

[shortguy]

I don't debate much here. I tend towards the less contentious threads, and when I do enter the battle zone, I usually fire my salvo and then lose interest. It's not a big deal, because few bother to respond anyway. I'm just not aggressive enough, I guess.

 

[CivCube]

I'm not one to pore over countless articles just so I can appear to be smarter than thou. Hence, I don't argue in OT.

 

[Neomega]

Once, I got in an argument with El Machinae about Pot.

He said it could get you hospitalized, and I scoffed and mocked him for it. I was thinking like heroin hospitalized, and he was talking psych ward.

Turns out, he was right, so heres to you el Machinae:

yes, I now believe marijuana can help induce paranoid schizophrenia, and I agree, marijuana can lead to hospitalization if taken in excess.

I've always meant to correct, it, but now seemed like a good time.

I can't think of any other time I have been wrong, or willing to give up.

 

[Perfection]

Interesting for you to say that. I don't recall you winning an argument ever.

MobBoss wins quite a few arguements! It's just that you hold your disagreement with his views and the fact that he tends to get mobbed by a horde of people agianst his beliefs over a true analysis of MobBoss' argueing ability! MobBoss may hold all sorts of wacky screwed-up views but he supports them with great showmanship and good (but fatally flawed ) arguments, much better then much of his opposition. I have an absolute blast reading his posts, he's an awesome poster worthy of a mess of praise!

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Who said anything about giving up until your convinced your wrong? Hey I'm not one to give up untill I see some proof either.

Never let the opponent go on the offensive, attack the source of their information, refute it with your own sources, you can win any debate if you can argue your side well enough.

 

[North King]

I give up when I'm genuinely convinced that the other side is right. It does happen; and I make a conscious effort to keep an open mind (my opinions on issues like the death penalty and preemptive strikes change quite frequently).

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

and when I do enter the battle zone, I usually fire my salvo and then lose interest.

As all men should

 

[Narz]

I'm not one to pore over countless articles just so I can appear to be smarter than thou. Hence, I don't argue in OT.

If my opposition complains about my lack of references I'll find the quickest applicable ones I can. If they attempt to belittle my source I will analyze their critique. If I find their critique flawed I will counter it. If their critique is at all accurate I will make a modest effort (say 2 to 4 minutes) to find a better source(s). If they still compalin (they often don't at this point and if they do they usually admit I have a point, perhaps multiple points but hold strong to a few claims, generally that I'm too idealistic or something) I agree try to impartially look at their point/post. If I can't find any redeeming features in it I generally consider the situation hopeless, declare it so and move on.

For the record, I only aim to "argue" points I feel passionate about. I do so for the benefit of the readers (not necessarily the person I'm debating with). I generally only have serious debates about matters I feel can have a positive impact on people's lives if grasped correctly.

If I'm wrong and realize I'm wrong I lacknowledge it (well, I don't always acknowledge it ) learn from it. If my opposition makes a valid point, I note that. I've learned a lot from internet forums. I've also learned a lot from my so-called opposition. Everyone is a reflection of me and every encounter is an opportunity to both learn, teach and build rapport. While I might make fun a bit (and except the same in exchange) I generally try to respect the person with whom I am having the little exchange.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss wins quite a few arguements! It's just that you hold your disagreement with his views and the fact that he tends to get mobbed by a horde of people agianst his beliefs over a true analysis of MobBoss' argueing ability! MobBoss may hold all sorts of wacky screwed-up views but he supports them with great showmanship and good (but fatally flawed ) arguments, much better then much of his opposition. I have an absolute blast reading his posts, he's an awesome poster worthy of a mess of praise!

Worthy praise indeed my atheist friend and I thank you for it. Quite the perfect complement from Perfection!

 

[ummmm........]

I'll only enter a debate thread if I feel like there's something obvious everyone has missed so far. So it wouldn't make sense for me to give up a point. I'm more interested in making other people think than in getting them to agree with me . . .

 

[Paradigne]

I'll only enter a debate thread if I feel like there's something obvious everyone has missed so far. So it wouldn't make sense for me to give up a point. I'm more interested in making other people think than in getting them to agree with me . . .

I'll agree with that. If I can get one person per post to go: WTH??? Then i'm happy

Heck we can't get people in this forum to agree what color the SKY is, LOL

 

[Sidhe]

MobBoss wins quite a few arguements! It's just that you hold your disagreement with his views and the fact that he tends to get mobbed by a horde of people agianst his beliefs over a true analysis of MobBoss' argueing ability! MobBoss may hold all sorts of wacky screwed-up views but he supports them with great showmanship and good (but fatally flawed ) arguments, much better then much of his opposition. I have an absolute blast reading his posts, he's an awesome poster worthy of a mess of praise!

Mah he goes round in circles, lies ocassionaly, forgets what he said before, changes his argument to suit new events, refuses to answer parts of an argument that diservice his argument, is arrogant, often condescending, and uses this to try and sidestep points, uses only information from his own back yard,refuses to acknowledge non US based links, takes the piss directly out of people rather than answer there questions in a mature manner, and if all else fails claims victory where none exists. You may think they are victories, but I'm afraid you are in the minority Perfection.

People ignore him because his fall back position is I am right and even when he's wrong his fall back position is I am right, debaters that can never be wrong, can't debate, and whats worse can't learn anything about the other side of the debate, and sadly never get to experience the thrill of playing Devils advoicate, strong debate comes from knowing that you can argue both sides if you saw fit to do so. Mob boss has only one side so he's 50% complete. No concession on points ever means no way to maneuveur, he simply plods from one point to another and then repeats them thinking this makes them more true than the last time.

There a strategic analysis of Mob Boss's failings, room for improvement, yep, radically change they way you debate, then people may start deigning to debate with you again instead of not bothering, due to the waste of personal effort this entails.

I fully acknowledge that I'm not one of the great debaters, or even above average, but then I'm not trying to claim I am.

 

[MobBoss]

Mah he goes round in circles, lies ocassionaly, forgets what he said before, changes his argument to suit new events, refuses to answer parts of an argument that diservice his argument, is arrogant, often condescending, and uses this to try and sidestep points, uses only information from his own back yard,refuses to acknowledge non US based links, takes the piss directly out of people rather than answer there questions in a mature manner, and if all else fails claims victory where none exists. You may think they are victories, but I'm afraid you are in the minority Perfection.

People ignore him because his fall back position is I am right and even when he's wrong his fall back position is I am right, debaters that can never be wrong, can't debate, and whats worse can't learn anything about the other side of the debate, and sadly never get to experience the thrill of playing Devils advoicate, strong debate comes from knowing that you can argue both sides if you saw fit to do so. Mob boss has only one side so he's 50% complete. No concession on points ever means no way to maneuveur, he simply plods from one point to another and then repeats them thinking this makes them more true than the last time.

There a strategic analysis of Mob Boss's failings, room for improvement, yep, radically change they way you debate, then people may start deigning to debate with you again instead of not bothering, due to the waste of personal effort this entails.

I fully acknowledge that I'm not one of the great debaters, or even above average, but then I'm not trying to claim I am.

Couldnt resist the flame could you? Rather rude. Someone appears to be a tad obsessive. How sad.

Considering your contributions here compared with Perfections...I think I will go with Perfections analysis.

 

[Ayatollah So]

It's not a big deal, because few bother to respond anyway. I'm just not aggressive enough, I guess.

Nah, that's not it. [Edit: Hmm, maybe it is. Anyway,] It's like .Shane. said:

What I notice is that people ignore thought out and reasonable posts and focus on the side-issues and nitpicks. So, you're best chance of eliciting a response is almost to go for the jugular or just be hyperbolic yourself.... much like TV debate shows.

Your problem is that you're too reasonable.