TQ's Very First... NAZI DESKTOP BACKGROUND?! WTF?!

[Gagh]

 

[The Question]

See? Compare that what Gagh just posted to the image I posted. Which one is hate speech?

 

[Gagh]

 

[Gagh]

 

[The Question]

Three very fine examples of hate speech. Thank you, Gagh.

 

[The Question]

The A.R.A., whose flyers Gagh has posted, operates exactly like a hate group itself. The difference is that its extremism is leftist, not racist. It's not opposing racism, as it claims to do, but fascism. (Which is only natural, since it was founded on the anarchist radicalism of its "ancestor" hate group, called Love & Rage.

 

[Anubis]

That avatar of yours seems kinda sexist, Gagh. :lol:

 

[twinkiemaker]

Well, thanks. No, Holidday and twinklemaker can't win this argument. That's what happens when I'm right and you argue with me.

I was never arguing to begin with.

However right and wrong are subjective in this case.

I never argued, mainly due to the fact that I have seen this before. I call it the "I'm right, your wrong, and no matter what you say I will always be right" approach. You can dig up as many links as you want to "prove" yourself right, and I would wager good money that I could find as many links "proving" you wrong. All links would be from "credible" sources, with the credibility level raising exponentially with links that happen to agree with your version, of course.

To be honest, I dont agree with wither you or holliday. I can say that your "lack of evidence" argument isnt logically sound. (honestly I dont know if you said it in this thread or the Toledo riots thread but I'll answer it here) To say something didnt happen or doesnt exist because there isnt concrete evidence just shows poor reasoning skills.

Miranda, you've come to expect these posts from TQ because "thats the way he is". Maybe doc holliday and myself are the same way. Unless your entire point was to get us to shut-up and in return that would shut TQ up. If so, then I understand.

 

[Mandi]

no basically all I was trying to say was, no one is going to win against him.....so there is no point fighting it. Just let his believe the way he believes, and don't fight against him.

 

[The Question]

I was never arguing to begin with.

However right and wrong are subjective in this case.

No, it really isn't. Correct and incorrect are not relative. 1 + 1 doesn't sort of equal 2, maybe.

I never argued, mainly due to the fact that I have seen this before. I call it the "I'm right, your wrong, and no matter what you say I will always be right" approach.

You're invoking a Golden Mean fallacy. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, and you say 1 + 1 = 5, the correct answer is not somewhere in the middle.

You can dig up as many links as you want to "prove" yourself right, and I would wager good money that I could find as many links "proving" you wrong. All links would be from "credible" sources, with the credibility level raising exponentially with links that happen to agree with your version, of course.

Hypothetical. What you have to do is support this claim with evidence if you want it to be a valid claim.

To be honest, I dont agree with wither you or holliday. I can say that your "lack of evidence" argument isnt logically sound.

Wrong. You're about to invoke a Burden of Proof fallacy.

(honestly I dont know if you said it in this thread or the Toledo riots thread but I'll answer it here) To say something didnt happen or doesnt exist because there isnt concrete evidence just shows poor reasoning skills.

Wrong. It shows absolutely sound reasoning skills. In debate, or anywhere else, the one making a claim is the one who has to back it up. Proper reasoning isn't a gimmick; "logic" isn't just a buzzword.

Miranda, you've come to expect these posts from TQ because "thats the way he is". Maybe doc holliday and myself are the same way. Unless your entire point was to get us to shut-up and in return that would shut TQ up. If so, then I understand.

I think the point was to make you understand that when I make a statement, it's researched and documented, and the evidence I present is analyzed with correct formal logic. If your points are presented in any less thoroughly supported fashion, you are not going to win the argument, because you simply won't have brought the necessary ammunition or skills to do it with.

 

[Mandi]

I think the point was to make you understand that when I make a statement, it's researched and documented, and the evidence I present is analyzed with correct formal logic. If your points are presented in any less thoroughly supported fashion, you are not going to win the argument, because you simply won't have brought the necessary ammunition or skills to do it with.

Thank you TQ, for putting it in smart people terms......I seem unable to get the whole smart thing down...

 

[twinkiemaker]

No, it really isn't. Correct and incorrect are not relative. 1 + 1 doesn't sort of equal 2, maybe.

The term used was subjective. While correct and incorrect may not be relative, not every argument or debate is absolute.

Hypothetical. What you have to do is support this claim with evidence if you want it to be a valid claim.

Had I cared to enter the actual "debate", Im fairly certain that you wouldve found whatever evidence I offered to be suspect.

Wrong. It shows absolutely sound reasoning skills. In debate, or anywhere else, the one making a claim is the one who has to back it up. Proper reasoning isn't a gimmick; "logic" isn't just a buzzword.

As stated previously, there is no definitive proof in support of your or doc hollidays argument. With no definitive proof, there is no correct or incorrect, right or wrong. Much is left to interpretation and personnal experience.

I think the point was to make you understand that when I make a statement, it's researched and documented, and the evidence I present is analyzed with correct formal logic. If your points are presented in any less thoroughly supported fashion, you are not going to win the argument, because you simply won't have brought the necessary ammunition or skills to do it with.

While you've done an adimirable job at quoting excerpts from your Debate 101 text, life does not fall into such neat concise packages, and to deny the existence of something due to lack of evidence doesnt illustrate normal cognitive thought.


The points you bring up are accurate (concerning our discussion, not the post topic). You obviously have intelligence, which is a refreshing change. I also realize that you are most likely playing devils advocate.

If I so desired, Im sure I could find research and documents, and present them in the "proper" debate format, showing how we are all really fucked since the only ones who knew the real truth was the Heaven's Gate cult. My argument may be fundamentally sound, but does that fact that my argument is sound make me correct? No. Which was my original point.

I think the problem is that doc was speaking from a real world point of view, while you were treating it as a debate club exercise.

 

[The Question]

No, it really isn't. Correct and incorrect are not relative. 1 + 1 doesn't sort of equal 2, maybe.

The term used was subjective. While correct and incorrect may not be relative, not every argument or debate is absolute.

That's what we call a tautology -- an obvious fact which means absolutely nothing. Of course not every argument debate is absolute -- but that has nothing to do with the specifics of the argument between Holiday and myself.

Had I cared to enter the actual "debate", Im fairly certain that you wouldve found whatever evidence I offered to be suspect.

Only if that evidence actually was suspect; and were it suspect, I would demonstrate why.

As stated previously, there is no definitive proof in support of your or doc hollidays argument. With no definitive proof, there is no correct or incorrect, right or wrong. Much is left to interpretation and personnal experience.

Wrong. A debate follows the same principle of scientific progress -- it's a war between competing ideas about something. Holiday presented a weak idea; it was weak because he crafted it using flawed logic, and failed to strengthen it with supporting evidence.

While you've done an adimirable job at quoting excerpts from your Debate 101 text, life does not fall into such neat concise packages

Which is why formal logical principles were developed, to begin with, as useful tools with which to understand life.

... and to deny the existence of something due to lack of evidence doesnt illustrate normal cognitive thought.

I agree -- but that's a flaw in "normal cognitive thought", not a flaw in proper critical thinking.

Let me illustrate with an example -- you owe me $200. Prove that you don't.

The points you bring up are accurate (concerning our discussion, not the post topic). You obviously have intelligence, which is a refreshing change. I also realize that you are most likely playing devils advocate.

Am I? Or am I laying out facts plainly, analyzing them properly, and arriving at a conclusion so unpopular that all its opponents can offer is screaming immaturity in response?

If I so desired, Im sure I could find research and documents, and present them in the "proper" debate format, showing how we are all really fucked since the only ones who knew the real truth was the Heaven's Gate cult. My argument may be fundamentally sound, but does that fact that my argument is sound make me correct?

Yes, it would. If your position is based on objective, testable evidence analyzed through sound reasoning, you will be correct.

Let me say this plainly, since you seem to have a problem with it -- popularity does not equal correctness.

I think the problem is that doc was speaking from a real world point of view, while you were treating it as a debate club exercise.

Holiday was speaking from gross, untempered emotionalism, without any kind of logical or evidentiary support for his position.

 

[doc h0lidday]

doc h0lidday was speaking of it the way that history remembers it. Thats all that really matters. :clang:

 

[The Question]

^^And that's what we call an Appeal to Belief, kids. Listen, are you ever going to post something that doesn't include a logical fuckup and does include some evidence?