W
WinterBorn
Guest
The info is there. If only you look. I doubt seriously you even searched a single page.
DEBATE CHAMPIONSHIP II
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
The info is there. If only you look. I doubt seriously you even searched a single page.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I just read it a second time. Its not there. You lie.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You read the entire thread discussing the debates? Now there is a lie.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I read the debate that I won, and its not there. You claim that it is, therefore you lie. Fucking liar.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You might reread the definition of the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority. Because you are still misusing it.
"Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so."
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Quoting experts is not "Appeal to Authority", contrary to your attempts to make it seem so.
"Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so."
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Quoting experts is not "Appeal to Authority", contrary to your attempts to make it seem so.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Don't change the subject, liar.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Does that mean Damo and I should keep it simple then?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
after I lose in the first round because of how much I suck, I will help more with organizing and such
Don't sweat! You'll do fine. Hell 3D won last time and even DY managed to win a round proving the old adage that even an old blind hog CAN find an acorn every now and then.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Everyone's got to have a hobby. Legion must like me more than you. He only gives me neg reps.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Meanwhile, Damn Southerner continues to be a complete faggot. Hmm, using his logic, he must be Legion!!!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Are you still butt hurt about getting an F?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Hell no, I'm glad I hypothetically fucked that hypothetical hot neighbour!! Good 'gasms make good neighbours, afterall...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You're going to wear out your hand doing all that hypothetical fucking.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
YOU asserted he lied...prove your assertion.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
He made the initial assertion so has the onus to prove it, not mine to disprove it. Why don't you know stuff?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
That's not hypothetical fucking, renob.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Here we go again...common sense dictates if you had the evidence to prove him wrong...you would.
So your silence speaks volumes.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Fist fucking then. I'll defer to you seeing as you're the expert here.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Funny how I don't see you going around trying to disprove baseless allegations made at you. Common sense dictates that you, or I, don't bother to disprove a baseless allegation where no credible evidence is presented.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I guess you don't know what fucking is, then?