Does your side usually win in forum threads?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Agathon


Each is equally useless in any real debate (not that there's many of those on Apolyton - the typical Apolyton debate consists of linking articles which are supposed to prove one side or the other - the fact that the internet contains a practically infinite number of articles on either side of almost any subject renders this process meaningless).

Typical Poly debate:

A: X is so.

B: No it isn't.

A: Yes it is, check out this link.

B: The author of that link is sponsored by/partisan for Republicans/Democrats/Ferret Rapers so it doesn't count.

A: So what, it is still true.

B: You can't trust a Republican/Democrat/Ferret Raper stooge.

A: Well prove it wrong then.

B: See this link.

A: That guy is sponsored by/partisan for Republicans/Democrats/ Ferret Rapers....

etc. etc.


If only more debates were conceptual. The only problem with that is that if you start debating that way, people try to use empirical claims to refute it.

I'm sure the Libertarians believe they win every debate, but believing doesn't make it so.

that isn't the typical poly debate you ferret raper.

[Odin]

Libertarianism always looses because it is inconsistant with human nature.

Technocratic Socialism:

[Agathon]

One other feature of Poly debates is what I call "clustering". People tend not to separate individual beliefs, but defend a cluster as a whole.

This is unfortunate because it means that a counterexample which chips away at a portion of the theory gets immediately discounted and ignored. It also means the death of subtlety.

On the other hand, if you believe in holism, it isn't necessarily irrational.

[Ben Kenobi]

Winning an argument is getting the other side to admit they were mistaken. That never happens.

In that case, I haven't always won.

Berz has changed my mind, on all things, a religious thread.

[Agathon]

I got Ned to change his mind once.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Agathon
It also means the death of subtlety.

Those who do not believe that it is a desease think that it is a bad word.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

It doesn't take a genius to figure out you would not make a profit if you sold your products at a loss.

If they have investments, it is possible for the company to make a profit while still selling its products at a loss.

Refuted.

Not really. He said not make a profit on the sale of a product if you sold it at a loss.

What a company could do by speculating with capital is an entirely different matter.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


If they have investments, it is possible for the company to make a profit while still selling its products at a loss.

Refuted.

Actually usually depends where it hits on the income statement line as profit is usually defined as Revenues from goods sold less costs of good sold.

More appropriately it would be positive earnings after negative profits were adjusted for investment income.

[Tingkai]

All depends on how you define loss and it can be defined in many different ways.

A company can also be selling products at a loss while making profits in other operational areas, or as Agathon mentions, making money from investments.

(In CT's case, the company is losing money on its investments and profits rose about $0.5 million while sales increased by about $50 million).

Asher was only looking at profit and saying that since CT is making a profit then all is well. That's not the case.

Can I prove that CT is selling its MP3 players at a loss, no, but it can't be disproven either. What can be said is that from an investor's perspective, CT has a weak strategy that is not gaining full advantage of the demand for MP3 players.

So we have two statements, one by Asher and one from me. Asher's statement is wrong for a number of reasons. My statement can't be proven wrong so clearly I have won this argument.

[Whaleboy]

Now If I were to go on rambling about how consistently adhering to any number of philosophies does not require as a consequence any advocation of the extinction of the human race would this constitute any sort of "win" on my part in poly terms?

You're not still pursuing this are you? Here's a tip. When I say something serious that isn't obviously absurd, it's a serious position. When I'm tired, slightly drunk, and taking the piss, that's when I go crazy. I'm not going to suppress my ridiculous, self-parodying side in order to appear the consumate debator to satisfy your finicky tendencies. Most people seem to have no problem with that.

Maybe this thread would be a good place for us to recognize that you don't 'win' a debate as a result of such an outcome.

Indeed.

I think we need to get away from this idea of "winning" a debate. Sometimes it's pretty obvious, when one person and his respective position are weak and unable to debate, then you could claim victory, but that defeats the point... a proper debate should not be like that... two strong debators and two strong positions. There is no internal mechanic that I can see that would define victory, except external popular opinion but then that's BS anyway. As for convincing another poster of your own position, well it's very rare, and again will not happen with competant debators. Indeed, you can do that with very poor debating or critical technique. Arguably more successfully too (appealing to emotions).

As hard as it is for the "staple balls to position" absolutists, it seems that the conclusion of a debate is like comparing different pieces of art.... there is no logically consistent way of saying which one is superior. Now that's just conceptual debates. In political or non-conceptual debates, it is for a certain end... so instead of discussing the positions so much you're discussing their practical applications and consequences. While here there can indeed be a right or wrong answer, it is not a true conceptual debate and you're limited in terms of how far you can take it critically speaking.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I'm half joking re my conceptual omnipotence.

I have a conceptual impotence to grasp the concept of half jocking. In order to make easier my reading of your posts, could you, in the future, either adopt a totally jocking stance, or a not jocking at all attitude, behaviours that are easier for me to identify.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
Winning an argument is getting the other side to admit they were mistaken. That never happens.

Not often, but it can happen.

Usually, a dabate (or argument) takes place not to get the other side to admit that they are wrong, but to influence the audience. Sort of like a debate between US presidential candidates.

Very rarely, one side manages to mercilessly pummel the other side so bad that they flee the scene completely, never to return. At least not with those handles.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
I got Ned to change his mind once.

Ned is one of the few people who would post "Yeah, you're right" or something to that effect.

That's a redeeming quality.

[Gibsie]

I usually only debate with semantics, cos that way there's always a clear winner, even if it isa technicality

[Whaleboy]

I have a conceptual impotence to grasp the concept of half jocking. In order to make easier my reading of your posts, could you, in the future, either adopt a totally jocking stance, or a not jocking at all attitude, behaviours that are easier for me to identify.

Would a creative use of smilies satisfy you? The more colour in my posts, the less serious they are. That's not a homophobic comment, it's just that I've spent the last two hours staring at fat women's sweaty arses at the gym while experiencing a scary amount of testostone. I do believe I'm turning into a goat...