Maybe we should introduce this to the Off-Topic as the rules for having a discussion

[Dinner]

4. Do not argue that you do not need evidence.

You broke your own rules so FAIL.

[MikeH]

They aren't my rules, and we haven't actually introduced them.

DOUBLE FAIL

Maybe we should just call a DOUBLE FAIL an OERDIN!

[Dinner]

You were advocating for a set of rules and then you broke them so it's your fail no matter how you spin it.

[MikeH]

Was I actually advocating them or was I posting them 'cause I thought people might find them amusing?

QUADRUPLE FAIL! I mean DOUBLE OERDIN!

[Egbert]

There was no suggestion of amusement in the OP. Furthermore one would assume the suggestion should we introduce rational debate would likely lead a reader to believe an apparently rational person would support this proposal. Oerdin must have assumed Mike was rational. Either Oerdin was incorrect to assume Mike is rational or Mike is rational and Mike broke his own proposed rules.

:trolling:

[MikeH]

You actually think I would seriously try and make debates here follow some kind of rules?

I mean, I didn't even put SERIOUS in the thread title.

[Egbert]

No, I don't seriously believe anything of the sort.

Your techniques of trolling, spamming and flaming are an inspiration to us all.

You lead by example.

[MikeH]

My sarcasm detector just went off the scale.

[-Jrabbit]

With the amount of moderation on Poly these days, it's more than a bit ironic to see a rules proposal.
Especially from one of the mods.

I suspect attempted humor.

[SpencerH]

I use my own simpler rules. I scan through the last ten posts of a thread and if I see any post that doesnt seem to be written by a 15 year old neo-marxist ****nut and I have something to say (ontopic), I think about making a comment. I rarely "discuss" anything online. Whats the point.

[Cort Haus]

I use my own simpler rules. I scan through the last ten posts of a thread and if I see any post that doesnt seem to be written by a 15 year old neo-marxist ****nut and I have something to say (ontopic), I think about making a comment. I rarely "discuss" anything online. Whats the point.

While in pre-capitalist societies it is clearly the labourer that uses the means of production to create product; in capitalism, whose nature as a mode of production is embodied in its drive to reproduce and increase capital, it is more realistic to say that the means of production uses the labourer.

[Perfection]

Idiot OP is for Idiots. The point of debating on the Internet is to show viewers of the thread that your view is right, not to convince the moron you're debating with.

[Egbert]

Idiot OP is for Idiots. The point of debating on the Internet is to show viewers of the thread that your view is right, not to convince the moron you're debating with.

Thank you for explai9ning. I had no idea there was any point to an internet debate.

[Egbert]

My sarcasm detector just went off the scale.

Nah. I must admit you tricked me. I actually thought you were putting up a good idea for discussion but now I know better.

[SpencerH]

While in pre-capitalist societies it is clearly the labourer that uses the means of production to create product; in capitalism, whose nature as a mode of production is embodied in its drive to reproduce and increase capital, it is more realistic to say that the means of production uses the labourer.

Point made, and yes I know you're not 15.