I can't wait to see the flame wars that ensue from the name-dropping. |
|
I will get right to the point. I want to know, whom, amongst this forum, are considered logically consistent posters, having few to no inconsistencies in the majority of their posts. My reason being for asking this is because of my own desire to improve my argumentation skills through debate. If you're interested, lemme know! |
|
I stomp on your ideas.
I can't wait to see the flame wars that ensue from the name-dropping. |
|
I once made a help file for Lincoln debates forum. They had it online for a while, but that was a long while back, |
|
I post and correct audiobooks of Plato works. Aristotle couild not hold a candle to Plato. |
|
Plato: the original Grammar Nazi. |
|
I think you should read some of my past posts to get a glimpse of how knowledgeable I am already of the basic principles regarding this discipline before recommending me anything.... I am not asking for any resource material, instead, I am asking for opponents that I may consider "challenge-worthy", so that I may gain more experience with debating. |
|
Last edited by malac; 10-19-2010 at 05:31 AM.
I stomp on your ideas.
Propose a motion. Here and now. And take on all challengers. |
|
Look through Noogah's threads, copy and paste the premise of one into what looks like a shiny new statement, and argue it. |
|
That is not a challenge. There is a history of real challenges. For example, how do you maintain truth in any language? How do you decide which is the true geometry and why? What are the fundamental mistakes that have been made in math theory and practice. |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 10-19-2010 at 06:33 AM.
...so propose a motion as to the maintenace of truth in any language. |
|
It's m'kay. I'm tired and have a busy day of discussing 'migrating fictions' ahead of me which might just be a way of privileged white students enjoying their racial guilt and 'really being able to empathise with them you know' but I don't like to say so. |
|
Psh. Privileged white students, they're the worst. |
|
Try not holding it down. |
|
That is one of the reasons I make ebooks from old books. I make an identical copy in word, so I can post an excellent copy, I learn from it, and I will use them for critique. |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 10-19-2010 at 01:08 PM.
I actually had something else in mind. Thank you, however, for telling me what I must do to improve my argumentation skills. I am aware of what I intended to do, not that it's big deal for anyone else. I just wanted to identify specifically those that I consider competent in debate, so that I may attempt to pull them in a topic and increase my likelihood of debating against them. |
|
Last edited by malac; 10-19-2010 at 05:22 PM.
I stomp on your ideas.
Simple arithmetic is a grammar system. What would the world be like without standards in goods commerce that it brings? Now extrapolate, human social commerce has to be based on just as accurate common grammar. Plato extrapolated further, the foundation of psychology itself. Language, all language, is convered uner the term Logic, Psychologic really is not different than logic. Virtue of the human mind is linguistically determined. Thus, the live and let live, as far as mental functions go, is only the statement, I don't give a rats ass who is mad nor how it affects their life or mine. Which reduces to, I don't care about life at all. I do care, I am a greedy freaking bastard. Calling one man who cared a great deal about mankind, a Nazi, is a statement made by a fool. |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 10-19-2010 at 06:24 PM.
Instead of looking for people who are good at debating, you should look for people who really know a specific topic and who has strong opinions on it. You will find it far more challenging to debate a specialist in a topic, than a person who is just generally good at debates, on a random topic. |
|
Hey Alric, you should read Replicon's post. |
|
DV Dictionary. / Verious: a definition. /
I'm not on DV much these days, but I'll try to toss a cool dream or two into my DJ.
Self referential fallacy. Most do not take into account two factors, the convention of names, and the fact that predication is the inverse function of abstraction. The principles of any logic are the same, no matter if arithmetic or common grammar. |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 10-19-2010 at 08:11 PM.
Bookmarks