Giving Up The Argument

[Sidhe]

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.

Mob Boss you'll believe whatever you want regardless of how many people tell you the contrary so what does it matter whether I "flame" you or not, it's constructive criticism I genuinely believe that by acting like such an arrogant and insulting poster, you do your skills an injustice that you don't think it is so is our own look out. Concentrate on your argument not demeaning your opponents, it's not making your points any clearer and frankly I'm surprised you haven't been banned many times over, as you seem to delight in pushing the envelope on just how rude you can be. Perhaps your most dubious skill is that you've perfected a level at just how insulting and derogatory and supercillious you can be without taking time off.

 

[Richard Cribb]

[---] but I've been known to admit defeat in debate, yes.

Pots saperment!
So even you are only a human being?

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.

In which case I will say you can't be a very strong player.
Or perhaps you read the wrong books?

[---]I can safely say I have more than held my own in this place.[---]

I think most of us can.It is usually just a matter of persistence. If that is of any importance really.
I think it is not.
I am willing at any time, regarding anything to admit I am wrong, if anybody can prove me so. In which case facts, not slogans, are required.
Just keep in mind that discontinuing a debate is not the same as losing it. Personally I am not here to convert anybody to the cause (except for the fact that quite a few has shown a certain positive interest for the FAQ in my sig); I have RL for that purpose, and if I realize I am getting nowhere with some of the quite numerous restaurative gentlemen here, I see absolutely no point in going on.
This is in regard to political threads of course, I usually don't do metaphysics.
EDIT: Voted Regular OT - I give up in a debate.

 

[Perfection]

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.

Of course! But a fair amount of the people he argues against are so incompetent that he still manages to knock them out!

Plus he's extremely entertaining.

 

[De Lorimier]

In a sick car-crash-on-the-highway kid of way, sure.

 

[Neomega]

I was under the impression user specific posts and commentary were not allowed, unless explicity asked for by the user, and even then it is questionable.

 

[MobBoss]

I genuinely believe that by acting like such an arrogant and insulting poster

Now hang on a tic. Exactly who has insulted who in this thread? My opening remark were my comments about me - not you nor anyone else specifically...and yet I get attacked by no less than three other supposedly "tolerant" posters here.

you do your skills an injustice that you don't think it is so is our own look out. Concentrate on your argument not demeaning your opponents

Someone needs to take their own friggin advice.....

 

[MobBoss]

In which case I will say you can't be a very strong player.
Or perhaps you read the wrong books?

Am I a grandmaster? Nope. My limit is about 3-5 moves ahead, which puts me above the average player. I understand very well the concepts of force and control and moves that smite. I tend to try and win an exchange and then simplify without losing position. You want to speculate on my playing ability, thats your perogative....but dont assume I am not a strong player.

Perhaps one day we can hook up over an ale or tea and play a match or two.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Am I a grandmaster? Nope. My limit is about 3-5 moves ahead, which puts me above the average player. I understand very well the concepts of force and control and moves that smite. I tend to try and win an exchange and then simplify without losing position. You want to speculate on my playing ability, thats your perogative....but dont assume I am not a strong player.

Many a time you told people here that you are a military man and that entitles you to have qualified opinions about certain topics.
It so happens that I am both quite a useful chess player (+2300 on my peak) and a former trainer, and that entitles me to have qualified opinions about other people's abilities in chess, either based on their games or their opinions. For a few of my games and thoughts , I can refer to the chess forum of this board.
Both from my own experience and from what almost any great player from Steinitz to Kasparov has written about the game, I can safely state that you do indeed learn more from your losses. I apologise for not elaborating on this here, but I feel it is too much off-topic.
I don't doubt that you have a certain practical strenght, but I think I can guarantee you that a thorough scrutiny of your less successful games would be beneficial for a quite substantial improvement.

Perhaps one day we can hook up over an ale or tea and play a match or two.

That sounds nice.

 

[MobBoss]

Many a time you told people here that you are a military man and that entitles you to have qualified opinions about certain topics.

Undoubtedly.

It so happens that I am both quite a useful chess player (+2300 on my peak) and a former trainer, and that entitles me to have qualified opinions about other people's abilities in chess, either based on their games or their opinions. For a few of my games and thoughts , I can refer to the chess forum of this board.

At +2300 you would most likely kick my butt. Its been 15 years but my old rating hovered around +1850 to +1900. Now that you have qualified your expertise I have no problems considering you more of an expert in Chess than I.

Both from my own experience and from what almost any great player from Steinitz to Kasparov has written about the game, I can safely state that you do indeed learn more from your losses. I apologise for not elaborating on this here, but I feel it is too much off-topic.

Once again, my reading on chess occured well over 15 years ago when I was playing in local chess clubs.....I read about 4 books total (most likely far less than you) and recall getting the most out of "Winning Chess: How to see Three Moves Ahead by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld." I found the book to be very tactical in nature and very informative and applied what it taught as much as possible.

My game is undoubtedly very rusty now...but its one of those "plan to do" things to work on after I retire.

 

[Sidhe]

Of course! But a fair amount of the people he argues against are so incompetent that he still manages to knock them out!

Plus he's extremely entertaining.

That is without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Sidhe]

Now hang on a tic. Exactly who has insulted who in this thread? My opening remark were my comments about me - not you nor anyone else specifically...and yet I get attacked by no less than three other supposedly "tolerant" posters here.



Someone needs to take their own friggin advice.....

Noted, I'm not always a model poster either.

I'm not referring to this thread but your arguments in general.

 

[slip79]

I usually put in my 2c and try to refute any posts that come up because of it. If I see someone else's point has merit, in my view, or has allowed me to take a new look at things then I'll conceed that to them.

Sometimes I point out glaringly obvious mistakes people have made in their assumptions. Unfortunately the people I usually point them out to tend to just ignore any useful advice or questions on their viewpoint.
It's at that point that I give up on them and their views.

 

[Mr. Do]

Unfortunately a lot of people here will break down the main over-riding points of a debate into pure semantic BS, and then for example you have to go through 20 posts before you can accept that, yes, only one American state has legalised gay marriage, while others have only legalised civil unions, all the meanwhile the over-riding point is utterly lost. Or the debate might break down into a stupid argument over whether soliders wear their gasmasks. Or someone might attack you for attempting to debate the content of an article, rather than simply flaming the subject of it. I ended up getting a warning on that thread, which I'm kinda proud about, in retrospect

 

[Sidhe]

Oh cmon That soldiers wearing their gas marks is an awesome example of just how important semantics are to an argument, I mean if we don't know if our troops wear their gas marks or carry them then when the **** hits the fan we wont know which order to give if any. Men put on your gas masks may recieve the odd reply, we allready have? So we establish whether in fact the order needs to be given in the first ....

Yeah I know semantic BS. Funnily pointless but some people like going into minutae long after the thread has died, just don't bother replying if you don't care? s**t it's meaningless nothing anyway. My eyes were seared with banality and my time was wasted by reading it, but someone somewhere got a thrill out of making a very very tiny point so that's fine.

Try to think that in one small pedantic corner of the world someone just smiled. It's not all about you

 

[MobBoss]

Try to think that in one small pedantic corner of the world someone just smiled. It's not all about you

Who says?

/carves out another notch in his gun.....

 

[King Flevance]

Casual OT'er - Do give up on debates.

When a debate topic is formed I assess my personal stance on the subject and post that. If someone pulls my quote up for debate I will debate at some length over why I see the way I do. There are times that the opposite side either simply refuses to allow you to see your own way, or get offended that your way of seeing it opposes theirs. Usually in these cases I notice people tend to read your post with a "tone" associated with. How typed messages without any emphasizing structures (bold, italics, capitols, etc.) can be considered "with a tone" is beyond me.
If it spins into some weird frenzy that isn't even on the topic anymore, I stop and go back to see who was the first person to make an irrelevant statement to the debate and usually this shows which side can't handle the opposition of viewpoints. Usually at that time, I am done with it as it is no longer debate but argueing.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

I remember that.

That argument, and then a discussion with Ram (I was double teamed) convinced me that pot should be legalised.

 

[King Flevance]

Legalize it!

 

[FredLC]

Moderator Action: General warning here:

User specific posts are against forum rules. People, please do stop analyzing other posters styles, if you plan to send a negative review. This is not the place to hold your grudges.

 

[FredLC]

As for the topic of the thread, I have had both admited to be wrong and received that admisiion from others. Not as oftenly as just agreeing to disagreeing, or simply debating until an open end when the will to reply back fades.

The ones that ended up in admissions are the best ones, most satisfying and generally involves posters which I have a good opinion on.

A good mind does not fear being wrong - just a lesser one feels threatened by not being perfect.

Regards .