Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Rhetorical techniques

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 11:10:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
We all know that in debating, most of it isn't what you say, but rather how you say it.

So what do you guys think are good rhetorical techniques?

For me personally, it's when someone just talks in a simple and casual yet intelligent manner. I find that I've been able to learn the most and be most convinced when the person really tries to make something easy to understand. Even if I already understand what's going on, when someone uses mumbo-jumbo it can be a big turn off. So I've tried to imitate this style, particularly Bertrand Russel's style.

Doesn't it also depend on the person and audience though? I mean, I'm not really convinced by someone who gets really emotional and yells alot, but I suppose some people are.

What do you guys think?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 12:04:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 11:10:18 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
We all know that in debating, most of it isn't what you say, but rather how you say it.

So what do you guys think are good rhetorical techniques?

I think that depends entirely on the audience. If you're arguing in front of the general population, then you can use all kinds of fallacies to your advantage--poisoning the well, ad hominem, red herring, etc. Sarcasm and disphemism seem to be especially effective. Also, raising your voice, pounding the podium, and giving off an air of confidence that boarders on arrogance can be effective.

But if you're talking in front of people who have good critical thinking skills, I think the best thing you can do is be absolutely clear in your presentation. That is unless you're wrong and you know it, in which case a little carefully disguised equivocation might be useful.

Doesn't it also depend on the person and audience though?

Yup.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 4:34:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. Make what you're saying fit the narrative of what they already believe.
2. In your argument, provide pleasing arguments for that very narrative, so that your other argument rides the credibility of everything else you're saying.
3. Depict what your opponent is saying as a challenge to that narrative.

Congratulations, you have successfully won the debate.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 4:43:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 12:04:54 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/16/2014 11:10:18 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
We all know that in debating, most of it isn't what you say, but rather how you say it.

So what do you guys think are good rhetorical techniques?

I think that depends entirely on the audience. If you're arguing in front of the general population, then you can use all kinds of fallacies to your advantage--poisoning the well, ad hominem, red herring, etc. Sarcasm and disphemism seem to be especially effective. Also, raising your voice, pounding the podium, and giving off an air of confidence that boarders on arrogance can be effective.


So maybe that's why InvisibleDeity was so beloved on the G+ atheist community.. lol :P

But if you're talking in front of people who have good critical thinking skills, I think the best thing you can do is be absolutely clear in your presentation. That is unless you're wrong and you know it, in which case a little carefully disguised equivocation might be useful.


That's very sneaky, haha

Doesn't it also depend on the person and audience though?

Yup.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 5:03:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've heard that you should try to use stories to make an argument. I've heard our brains respond better to arguments made in stories than your standard just present it way.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 5:10:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 5:03:04 PM, n7 wrote:
I've heard that you should try to use stories to make an argument. I've heard our brains respond better to arguments made in stories than your standard just present it way.

You mean like analogies?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 7:47:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 5:10:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/16/2014 5:03:04 PM, n7 wrote:
I've heard that you should try to use stories to make an argument. I've heard our brains respond better to arguments made in stories than your standard just present it way.

You mean like analogies?

Yes, but more story based. If I were trying to explain the intuition argument for free will for example, I could tell a story of me walking into a ballet booth and explain that while my background intentional beliefs will probably have me vote for Jill Stein, I could still do otherwise. I still have to act. If that makes sense
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 7:52:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's the science behind it

http://lifehacker.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 9:20:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 7:47:53 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 5:10:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/16/2014 5:03:04 PM, n7 wrote:
I've heard that you should try to use stories to make an argument. I've heard our brains respond better to arguments made in stories than your standard just present it way.

You mean like analogies?

Yes, but more story based. If I were trying to explain the intuition argument for free will for example, I could tell a story of me walking into a ballet booth and explain that while my background intentional beliefs will probably have me vote for Jill Stein, I could still do otherwise. I still have to act. If that makes sense

Maybe that's why Jesus was such a great teacher
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 9:40:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 11:10:18 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
We all know that in debating, most of it isn't what you say, but rather how you say it.

So what do you guys think are good rhetorical techniques?

For me personally, it's when someone just talks in a simple and casual yet intelligent manner. I find that I've been able to learn the most and be most convinced when the person really tries to make something easy to understand. Even if I already understand what's going on, when someone uses mumbo-jumbo it can be a big turn off. So I've tried to imitate this style, particularly Bertrand Russel's style.

Doesn't it also depend on the person and audience though? I mean, I'm not really convinced by someone who gets really emotional and yells alot, but I suppose some people are.

What do you guys think?

Using the best analogies you can and turning your opponent's arguments into syllogisms.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 10:19:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 9:40:16 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 11:10:18 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
We all know that in debating, most of it isn't what you say, but rather how you say it.

So what do you guys think are good rhetorical techniques?

For me personally, it's when someone just talks in a simple and casual yet intelligent manner. I find that I've been able to learn the most and be most convinced when the person really tries to make something easy to understand. Even if I already understand what's going on, when someone uses mumbo-jumbo it can be a big turn off. So I've tried to imitate this style, particularly Bertrand Russel's style.

Doesn't it also depend on the person and audience though? I mean, I'm not really convinced by someone who gets really emotional and yells alot, but I suppose some people are.

What do you guys think?

Using the best analogies you can and turning your opponent's arguments into syllogisms.

Haha, I see what you did there :P
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 10:59:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 10:19:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/16/2014 9:40:16 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 11:10:18 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
We all know that in debating, most of it isn't what you say, but rather how you say it.

So what do you guys think are good rhetorical techniques?

For me personally, it's when someone just talks in a simple and casual yet intelligent manner. I find that I've been able to learn the most and be most convinced when the person really tries to make something easy to understand. Even if I already understand what's going on, when someone uses mumbo-jumbo it can be a big turn off. So I've tried to imitate this style, particularly Bertrand Russel's style.

Doesn't it also depend on the person and audience though? I mean, I'm not really convinced by someone who gets really emotional and yells alot, but I suppose some people are.

What do you guys think?

Using the best analogies you can and turning your opponent's arguments into syllogisms.

Haha, I see what you did there :P

I feel stupid now, what did he do? Where's the joke?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 11:00:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 10:59:08 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 10:19:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/16/2014 9:40:16 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 11:10:18 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
We all know that in debating, most of it isn't what you say, but rather how you say it.

So what do you guys think are good rhetorical techniques?

For me personally, it's when someone just talks in a simple and casual yet intelligent manner. I find that I've been able to learn the most and be most convinced when the person really tries to make something easy to understand. Even if I already understand what's going on, when someone uses mumbo-jumbo it can be a big turn off. So I've tried to imitate this style, particularly Bertrand Russel's style.

Doesn't it also depend on the person and audience though? I mean, I'm not really convinced by someone who gets really emotional and yells alot, but I suppose some people are.

What do you guys think?

Using the best analogies you can and turning your opponent's arguments into syllogisms.

Haha, I see what you did there :P

I feel stupid now, what did he do? Where's the joke?

I think he's talking about my style of argumentation?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:43:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 11:00:02 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/16/2014 10:59:08 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 10:19:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/16/2014 9:40:16 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 11:10:18 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
We all know that in debating, most of it isn't what you say, but rather how you say it.

So what do you guys think are good rhetorical techniques?

For me personally, it's when someone just talks in a simple and casual yet intelligent manner. I find that I've been able to learn the most and be most convinced when the person really tries to make something easy to understand. Even if I already understand what's going on, when someone uses mumbo-jumbo it can be a big turn off. So I've tried to imitate this style, particularly Bertrand Russel's style.

Doesn't it also depend on the person and audience though? I mean, I'm not really convinced by someone who gets really emotional and yells alot, but I suppose some people are.

What do you guys think?

Using the best analogies you can and turning your opponent's arguments into syllogisms.

Haha, I see what you did there :P

I feel stupid now, what did he do? Where's the joke?

I think he's talking about my style of argumentation?

Haha yes. You do that in basically every debate and so far it's worked.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 7:29:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.

Don't be fooled by IllegalCombatant. He's a smooth-talking snake oil salesman.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 8:18:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 7:29:57 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.

Don't be fooled by IllegalCombatant. He's a smooth-talking snake oil salesman.

But recent studies have shown that smooth-talking snake oil salesmen can actually tell when someone is a Nazi, since they have to deal with so many different kinds of people.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 8:22:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:18:40 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:29:57 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.

Don't be fooled by IllegalCombatant. He's a smooth-talking snake oil salesman.

But recent studies have shown that smooth-talking snake oil salesmen can actually tell when someone is a Nazi, since they have to deal with so many different kinds of people.

Salesmen eh ? at least I have a job. Unlike welfare handout nazi jester I hate Jesus and want to destroy christian america with gay marriage and terrorists philochristos.

Vote for family, not nazi's !!!
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 8:27:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:22:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:18:40 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:29:57 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.

Don't be fooled by IllegalCombatant. He's a smooth-talking snake oil salesman.

But recent studies have shown that smooth-talking snake oil salesmen can actually tell when someone is a Nazi, since they have to deal with so many different kinds of people.

Salesmen eh ? at least I have a job. Unlike welfare handout nazi jester I hate Jesus and want to destroy christian america with gay marriage and terrorists philochristos.

Vote for family, not nazi's !!!

I'll do the InvisibleDeity trump card....Appealing to the falsity of the Abrahamic God.

LOLOL!! So STUPID!! The abrahamic God is nothing other than a sick joke made up by psychotic minds! Therefore, the earth is flat and you're wrong!
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 8:31:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:27:23 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:22:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:18:40 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:29:57 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.

Don't be fooled by IllegalCombatant. He's a smooth-talking snake oil salesman.

But recent studies have shown that smooth-talking snake oil salesmen can actually tell when someone is a Nazi, since they have to deal with so many different kinds of people.

Salesmen eh ? at least I have a job. Unlike welfare handout nazi jester I hate Jesus and want to destroy christian america with gay marriage and terrorists philochristos.

Vote for family, not nazi's !!!

I'll do the InvisibleDeity trump card....Appealing to the falsity of the Abrahamic God.

LOLOL!! So STUPID!! The abrahamic God is nothing other than a sick joke made up by psychotic minds! Therefore, the earth is flat and you're wrong!

I am quite offended that you refer to that God as some sort of man made story.

Now zeus and allah........what a pile of horsesh*t, can I get an amen ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 8:33:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:31:01 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:27:23 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:22:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:18:40 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:29:57 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.

Don't be fooled by IllegalCombatant. He's a smooth-talking snake oil salesman.

But recent studies have shown that smooth-talking snake oil salesmen can actually tell when someone is a Nazi, since they have to deal with so many different kinds of people.

Salesmen eh ? at least I have a job. Unlike welfare handout nazi jester I hate Jesus and want to destroy christian america with gay marriage and terrorists philochristos.

Vote for family, not nazi's !!!

I'll do the InvisibleDeity trump card....Appealing to the falsity of the Abrahamic God.

LOLOL!! So STUPID!! The abrahamic God is nothing other than a sick joke made up by psychotic minds! Therefore, the earth is flat and you're wrong!

I am quite offended that you refer to that God as some sort of man made story.

Now zeus and allah........what a pile of horsesh*t, can I get an amen ?

*said in nice liberal Catholic community "religion" teacher voice* (yknow the type with the big glasses and ugly sweaters)

I'll give you the "a" part.. but "men"? Isn't that just a little sexist?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 10:54:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:18:40 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:29:57 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.

Don't be fooled by IllegalCombatant. He's a smooth-talking snake oil salesman.

But recent studies have shown that smooth-talking snake oil salesmen can actually tell when someone is a Nazi, since they have to deal with so many different kinds of people.

91.225% of experts found that study to be riddled with false assumptions and bad methodology.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:16:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 10:54:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:18:40 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:29:57 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/17/2014 7:24:58 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:22:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Here's some more techniques I found on my iphone (I've been keeping a list, but I forgot I had it).

1. Use exact numerical figures.

2. Say "recent studies show," but don't cite anything.

3. If your opponent is winning, call him a smooth talking snake oil salesman.

4. Compare your opponent to Hitler.

Philo likes to wear a funny looking hat. Hitler wore a funny looking hat. Is that what philo expects from us ? to all become nazis ?

Sure you can agree with philo and his nazi friends or you can believe Jesus and the bible.

Don't be fooled by IllegalCombatant. He's a smooth-talking snake oil salesman.

But recent studies have shown that smooth-talking snake oil salesmen can actually tell when someone is a Nazi, since they have to deal with so many different kinds of people.

91.225% of experts found that study to be riddled with false assumptions and bad methodology.

Experts who were most likely ChRISTIans!! Who believe in the abramahic god!! Which is cleary a joke ! If they beluga in a joke and will stone gays then their studies can't be trusted!!!
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."