Which Poly poster would you most regret getting in an argument with?

[Berzerker]

Sirotnikov -

2. Agathon is both smart but also a pain. I respect him as an intellectual though he often comes off snbobbish when instead of arguing about issues, he does his best to hint at how intelligent he is ("tell me? have you ever read XXX by XXX? Do you even know what the XXX theory is all about?").

Sorry, he isn't smart, he makes some of the most inane arguments I've seen at Apolyton. He claimed libertarians believe muggers have a right to rob people if they only bluff using violence against their victims. That's just an example...

GP -

Now I gotta go track it all down again. Suffice it to say that you were wrong. Will be back with some cut and paste crap to get your mouth watering.

And then you'll piss and moan again about me cutting and pasting.

I gotta go read 800 posts and than get back to him. That I need to do so tells you something.

Well GP, once again you started it so stop your whining about be asked to back up your BS.

And Berzie...many people have this problem with you.

Let me see, Agathon, you, and maybe a couple others who just can't handle getting their arguments trashed.

Agathon -

You forgot "an exercise in wading through mounds of irrelevant objections."

My sig, thx to Orange, has you pegged. Yeah Agathon, when you insisted that libertarians believe muggers have a right to rob people, my "irrelevant objection" was to point out that freedom includes the absence of coercion, not just force.

Lincoln -

He must do it intentionally.

No sh!t. The goal in a debate is to refute the opposition's arguments while supporting your own. If you make 4 relevant statements in a paragraph, I'll try to respond to all 4. That isn't "parsing", it's called a thorough rebuttal. Do you guys even know what "parsing" means?

It is really quite effective at silencing his opponants.

Hardly, the only people I see running away from debates are people who spout gibberish and get called on it. There are many posters here who can make cogent arguments and don't quit and run from a debate because they can't stand the heat.

After a while I forget what I thought he said that he said.

See, more gibberish. Time to run, Lincoln.

[Spiffor]

Berzerker :

I won't argue with you, because I'm now going to bed after this post. I almost never go in the same threads as you, because I don't have the same interests (notably religion), so I'm only judging your debating style out of this here thread.

I don't think I'm an ignorant cretin who permanently spouts nonsense. I generally explain my position, and listen to the other's position when debating. Yet, I would absolutely and definitely hate to argue with you.

You remind me of a friend who cannot fathom he can be wrong, or simply cannot fathom his opponent can be right. He argues on every point, no matter how signficant or unsignificant, with no progress in the debate being made, because he enters the debate with one aim : to win it. His aim is not to learn. His aim is not to listen to the other and maybe to change his mind. His aim is to tear the other's argument into pieces using his own rethoric and his own world-perception to feel he is right.

This friend always tell he is ready to acknowledge he is wrong, and always use the same old example to prove it. It is nearly impossible to convince him he is wrong, or at least that the opposing speech is valid, because all his beliefs are cohesive and based on a world-view that is completely different from the others.

Basides, when he feels uncomfortable in a debate, he'll start attacking his opponent's debating skills. I don't know if he uses this trick voluntarily or if he believes it fuels the actual conversation. But the debate is completely dead by the time this kind of argument begins.

He is a good friend, and I acknowledge wholeheartedly he has interesting things to say. But me and my other friends simply stopped arguing with him, because any "debate" with him will result in a painful and fruitless experience.

I'm not saying you are exactly the same as my friend. But from what I see, an argument with you is a painful and fruitless experience. I wish I'll never fall into that.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

I almost never go in the same threads as you, because I don't have the same interests (notably religion), so I'm only judging your debating style out of this here thread.

I don't think I'm an ignorant cretin who permanently spouts nonsense. I generally explain my position, and listen to the other's position when debating. Yet, I would absolutely and definitely hate to argue with you.

Strange, you haven't debated me so you have to judge my style based on this thread, and yet you hate to argue with me? And then you choose a thread designed for flames, not serious debate? Sorry, that doesn't wash, Spiffor.

You remind me of a friend who cannot fathom he can be wrong, or simply cannot fathom his opponent can be right.

That doesn't wash either, there are plenty of people here who won't admit being wrong. But like I've said, if someone can prove me wrong, I'll admit their accomplishment, I have in the past, albeit rarely. Since you've decided to offer unsupported opinions and not proof, we'll just have to let your lack of evidence speak for itself.

He argues on every point, no matter how signficant or unsignificant, with no progress in the debate being made, because he enters the debate with one aim : to win it.

You enter debates with the goal of losing? If someone makes a point, I'll try to respond. I consider that being courteous, if they took the time to type out their argument, I should take the time to respond. Some people here consider that a vice...

His aim is not to learn.

And this is my aim as well?

His aim is not to listen to the other and maybe to change his mind. His aim is to tear the other's argument into pieces using his own rethoric and his own world-perception to feel he is right.

How does one not listen and still offer rebuttals? Everyone debates from their own world view, and if they feel they are right, they'll try to prove it.

This friend always tell he is ready to acknowledge he is wrong, and always use the same old example to prove it.

And yet that proof is not good enough for you?

Basides, when he feels uncomfortable in a debate, he'll start attacking his opponent's debating skills.

That's funny, I'm the one who was attacked here for my debating skills, but you say I remind you of your friend, not the people doing the attacking? If you look at the thread, I'm here to defend myself, not initiate insults. But when a$$holes want to use this thread for their insults, I'll respond in kind.

I'm not saying you are exactly the same as my friend. But from what I see, an argument with you is a painful and fruitless experience. I wish I'll never fall into that.

Got any advice on how I can make a debate a pleasurable experience for you? Should I try to lose? Should I say your right even when I think you're wrong? Well, here's some advice for you if you do, don't make ridiculous arguments.

[TCO]

Please tell me this was a self-parody.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Jon Miller]

this was a self parody

Jon Miller
the peacemaker

[Kontiki]

If it's not, it's the best unintentional self-parody I've seen in years!

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh yeah, zero. Prove me wrong and I'll admit it.

Berzerker:

Gladly. Remember the wine thread?

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79134&perpage=50&pagenumber=2

"Therefore, I stand corrected.
You see, some of us Christians can be reasonable."



Oh and poly search function!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

My sig, thx to Orange, has you pegged. Yeah Agathon, when you insisted that libertarians believe muggers have a right to rob people, my "irrelevant objection" was to point out that freedom includes the absence of coercion, not just force.

Once again you don't know what you're talking about. The only thing they can object to given their principles is the removal of choice. If you start admitting more, they can be mired in inconsistencies.

And it doesn't matter as I pointed out to you.

Someone can say, "Give me all your money, or I'll ask that other guy to beat you up" and he hasn't done anything wrong by Libertarian standards.

Hell, even some forms of blackmail are OK to Libs, which just shows what a silly philosophy it is.

And it's a badge of honour to be in your sig saying something that is true. Tolerance is the central value of liberalism, so it's weird that you take some perverse pleasure in quoting it.

[Agathon]

Agathon and I had been debating lotteries in the second thread, so naturally, when you started talking about lotteries, I figured you meant the same thread with Agathon, not one from a month ago.

Bull. I don't ever remember debating lotteries with you. We debated about your ill understood Libertarianism and that's about it.

[Ted Striker]

Well I remember the lottery debate but I can't remember who all was in it.

[Jon Miller]

I am a peacemaker

not an arguer

Jon Miller

[Frankychan]

I have yet to agrue with anyone....but Tuberski is my antithesis, if that counts.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well I remember the lottery debate but I can't remember who all was in it.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't in it. Doesn't he believe that lotteries can replace taxation or something like that? I remember someone else giving him a beating on that one.

The only thing that interests me about lotteries is that I can't decide whether it is rational or irrational to play them.

[MRT144]

i remember being the first one to blow the whistle on the idiocy of berzerkers debate style. like spiffor said, he just debates to be right, not to enlighten his own perspective. spiffor, eloquently just rephrased what i have said all along.