Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Forum discussion cop-out

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 10:14:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some people complain that the refusal to debate is an aversion of conflict - that the individual does not want to be proven wrong. However, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

When you know that there is no way in hell that your opponent will accept a debate because he doesn't have time or just doesn't feel like dealing with the constraints of formalities and obligations, but you push the idea anyway, you're the one who's copping out. You're avoiding the discussion without appearing like you're avoiding the discussion....It's this kind of "playground logic" where if your opponent is not subordinate to your terms of discussion, you've automatically won. Just because you want to debate so badly, does not make you sound more right or more honest....If you can't convince anyone in unmoderated discourse, then you won't convince anyone anywhere or anytime.

Ending a forum discussion on this basis and knowingly forwarding a change in format your opponent is justifiably opposed to is every bit as dishonest and every bit as much a cop-out, as refusing to debate when you have every opportunity to do so.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 12:55:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 10:14:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
Some people complain that the refusal to debate is an aversion of conflict - that the individual does not want to be proven wrong. However, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

When you know that there is no way in hell that your opponent will accept a debate because he doesn't have time or just doesn't feel like dealing with the constraints of formalities and obligations, but you push the idea anyway, you're the one who's copping out. You're avoiding the discussion without appearing like you're avoiding the discussion....It's this kind of "playground logic" where if your opponent is not subordinate to your terms of discussion, you've automatically won. Just because you want to debate so badly, does not make you sound more right or more honest....If you can't convince anyone in unmoderated discourse, then you won't convince anyone anywhere or anytime.

Ending a forum discussion on this basis and knowingly forwarding a change in format your opponent is justifiably opposed to is every bit as dishonest and every bit as much a cop-out, as refusing to debate when you have every opportunity to do so.

Hey, speaking of cop-outs...

http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 4:40:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 10:14:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
Some people complain that the refusal to debate is an aversion of conflict - that the individual does not want to be proven wrong. However, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

When you know that there is no way in hell that your opponent will accept a debate because he doesn't have time or just doesn't feel like dealing with the constraints of formalities and obligations, but you push the idea anyway, you're the one who's copping out. You're avoiding the discussion without appearing like you're avoiding the discussion....It's this kind of "playground logic" where if your opponent is not subordinate to your terms of discussion, you've automatically won. Just because you want to debate so badly, does not make you sound more right or more honest....If you can't convince anyone in unmoderated discourse, then you won't convince anyone anywhere or anytime.

Ending a forum discussion on this basis and knowingly forwarding a change in format your opponent is justifiably opposed to is every bit as dishonest and every bit as much a cop-out, as refusing to debate when you have every opportunity to do so.

Sorry, but that is BS. The vast majority of times people refuse a debate when they are offered like that, is because they know they will lose. In the forums you can ignore arguments, use any number of logical fallacies and shift goalposts interminably and still declare yourself the winner in the end. Thats why on this site, if you want to defend something you have to debate, otherwise you lose all credibility.
People waste a sh1tload of time on the forums. I reckon they can spend a little on a formal debate where intellectually dishonest argumentation is less effective.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 11:43:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The solution is the one-on-one thread, the informal debate. No voting, no time limits, no requirement that you alternate posts, just discussion between two people. Other people who want to comment will be locked out of the main thread, but they can comment in the associated peanut gallery thread.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 3:31:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 4:40:54 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Sorry, but that is BS. The vast majority of times people refuse a debate when they are offered like that, is because they know they will lose. In the forums you can ignore arguments, use any number of logical fallacies and shift goalposts interminably and still declare yourself the winner in the end.

Exactly. This a billion times.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 10:55:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 4:40:54 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 10/29/2012 10:14:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
Some people complain that the refusal to debate is an aversion of conflict - that the individual does not want to be proven wrong. However, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

When you know that there is no way in hell that your opponent will accept a debate because he doesn't have time or just doesn't feel like dealing with the constraints of formalities and obligations, but you push the idea anyway, you're the one who's copping out. You're avoiding the discussion without appearing like you're avoiding the discussion....It's this kind of "playground logic" where if your opponent is not subordinate to your terms of discussion, you've automatically won. Just because you want to debate so badly, does not make you sound more right or more honest....If you can't convince anyone in unmoderated discourse, then you won't convince anyone anywhere or anytime.

Ending a forum discussion on this basis and knowingly forwarding a change in format your opponent is justifiably opposed to is every bit as dishonest and every bit as much a cop-out, as refusing to debate when you have every opportunity to do so.

Sorry, but that is BS. The vast majority of times people refuse a debate when they are offered like that, is because they know they will lose. In the forums you can ignore arguments, use any number of logical fallacies and shift goalposts interminably and still declare yourself the winner in the end. Thats why on this site, if you want to defend something you have to debate, otherwise you lose all credibility.
People waste a sh1tload of time on the forums. I reckon they can spend a little on a formal debate where intellectually dishonest argumentation is less effective.

This. I've challenged ike to defend his views on religion (which you think would be easy since he feels so strongly about it) in a formal debate MULTIPLE TIMES on religion and yet all I see is ducking.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 11:02:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 10:55:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/30/2012 4:40:54 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 10/29/2012 10:14:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
Some people complain that the refusal to debate is an aversion of conflict - that the individual does not want to be proven wrong. However, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

When you know that there is no way in hell that your opponent will accept a debate because he doesn't have time or just doesn't feel like dealing with the constraints of formalities and obligations, but you push the idea anyway, you're the one who's copping out. You're avoiding the discussion without appearing like you're avoiding the discussion....It's this kind of "playground logic" where if your opponent is not subordinate to your terms of discussion, you've automatically won. Just because you want to debate so badly, does not make you sound more right or more honest....If you can't convince anyone in unmoderated discourse, then you won't convince anyone anywhere or anytime.

Ending a forum discussion on this basis and knowingly forwarding a change in format your opponent is justifiably opposed to is every bit as dishonest and every bit as much a cop-out, as refusing to debate when you have every opportunity to do so.

Sorry, but that is BS. The vast majority of times people refuse a debate when they are offered like that, is because they know they will lose. In the forums you can ignore arguments, use any number of logical fallacies and shift goalposts interminably and still declare yourself the winner in the end. Thats why on this site, if you want to defend something you have to debate, otherwise you lose all credibility.
People waste a sh1tload of time on the forums. I reckon they can spend a little on a formal debate where intellectually dishonest argumentation is less effective.

This. I've challenged ike to defend his views on religion (which you think would be easy since he feels so strongly about it) in a formal debate MULTIPLE TIMES on religion and yet all I see is ducking.

Next time he (or anyone else for that matter) ducks, reply to all his future posts in that thread with "quack quack."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:16:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ike, when are we going to debate anarchism? And I don't mean the legitimacy of currently existing States via your historical social contract theory. I mean anarchism as a political philosophy.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:48:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:16:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Ike, when are we going to debate anarchism? And I don't mean the legitimacy of currently existing States via your historical social contract theory. I mean anarchism as a political philosophy.

Not before he debates me on his ridiculous notion that Ike is better than Marth in Super Smash Bros. I'm tired of your games, man!
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:00:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 3:06:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
Spends 5 hours daily on DDO.

Doesn't have time to debate.

Ok.

I don't spend 5 hours on DDO. I don't care that you don't like me or don't agree with me, but please don't make up things that are not true. I do a lot of school work and have a constant presence on DDO because much of it is on the computer, typed notes, essays, research, or class blogs, DDO is inevitably tempting. Also, I'm not perpetually busy, sometimes I just don't want the engagement of a debate.

Many of the people that are demanding debates from me (ie. socialpinko, PCP) I've debated before. They know damn well that I can hold my own in an argument, and am not simply avoiding it because I'll lose. In the forums, I'm open to a free-form dialogue simply because response isn't obligatory, and there's no pressure to meet a deadline. For that reason I think it's fair to refuse a debate for a forum conversation, provided the argument isn't overly contentious.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:02:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 4:00:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 3:06:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
Spends 5 hours daily on DDO.

Doesn't have time to debate.

Ok.

I don't spend 5 hours on DDO. I don't care that you don't like me or don't agree with me, but please don't make up things that are not true. I do a lot of school work and have a constant presence on DDO because much of it is on the computer, typed notes, essays, research, or class blogs, DDO is inevitably tempting. Also, I'm not perpetually busy, sometimes I just don't want the engagement of a debate.

Many of the people that are demanding debates from me (ie. socialpinko, PCP) I've debated before. They know damn well that I can hold my own in an argument, and am not simply avoiding it because I'll lose. In the forums, I'm open to a free-form dialogue simply because response isn't obligatory, and there's no pressure to meet a deadline. For that reason I think it's fair to refuse a debate for a forum conversation, provided the argument isn't overly contentious.

One more thing, debate rounds typically cost me up to 7 hours or more just because of the mass of research required....but that's beside the point.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault