Will vs. Billy debate, split from other thread Options

[Billy]

Not even going to take a stab at it, huh jonathan?

Well, I guess that saves us both a load of time. There is no point in arguing with someone who cannot understand the very words you use to argue with.

I guess I would like, for once, to have a debate on techsans that is a collection of arguments and counter arguments and then possibly a conclusion.

Instead of what really happens. An argument is made. A counter argument is made that had nothing to do with the original argument. A post is made hopelessly trying to explain, in different words, what the original argument was. Time is wasted. Petty definitions are argued. Both parties get annoyed at one another and insults are exchanged.



It is ok to understand, but disagree. It is not ok to disagree because you don't understand.

This post has been edited by jonathan83: Oct 21 2007, 09:24 PM

[jonathan83]

I would like you to tell me, in your own words, the point I was trying to make. And then we'll go from there.

no billy, i will not respond to an elitist comment like this.
i asked a question, you respond.

This post has been edited by jonathan83: Oct 16 2007, 10:57 PM

[jonathan83]

Not even going to take a stab at it, huh jonathan?

Well, I guess that saves us both a load of time. There is no point in arguing with someone who cannot understand the very words you use to argue with.

I guess I would like, for once, to have a debate on techsans that is a collection of arguments and counter arguments and then possibly a conclusion.

Instead of what really happens. An argument is made. A counter argument is made that had nothing to do with the original argument. A post is made hopelessly trying to explain, in different words, what the original argument was. Time is wasted. Petty definitions are argued. Both parties get annoyed at one another and insults are exchanged.
It is ok to understand, but disagree. It is not ok to disagree because you don't understand.

and if you want to have a discussion about how to argue, make a new thread.
or else a mod will have to do it later.

[Oasis]

and if you want to have a discussion about how to argue, make a new thread.
or else a mod will have to do it later.

Don't feed the trolls Jonathan

[Billy]

no billy, i will not respond to an elitist comment like this.
i asked a question, you respond.

If you respond to my "elitist" comment, you may basically answer your own question. I am not going to hand feed you an argument. It is up to you to be literate. Otherwise, what's the point?

And to Will: the reason I started trolling techsans is because after seeing many arguments on here (years worth), I came to to the conclusion most of you are dumb as shit. Since an effort has been started to make this board more mature, I am going to give techsans another chance and attempt a serious argument. But if my opponents are not even intelligent enough to read the words I type, what is the point in doing anything else other than troll?

Now, one may question my statement "dumb as shit". Because after all, what does "dumb as shit" constitute? One example can be made about an argument about birth control where one gentleman posts information where one column read "this is the percentage of pregnancies in a year due to not taking birth control, misusing birthcontrol, and those who also correctly used birth control" and another column read "this is the percentage of pregnancies in a year due to correctly taking birth control" each with values of 5% and .02% respectively. Then, said gentleman goes on to announce that even after taking birth control properly, there is only a 95% chance of preventing pregnancy. Such a statement inherently implied, in the context it was used, that having sex while on birth control produced a 5% chance of pregnancy. Several things were wrong with that statement. One being, that even had he read the column correctly, there would still only be a 5% for the year of pregnancy, not 5% each time someone had sex while on birth control. The other thing was that he was not capable of reading a table. Because had he been capable, he would have promptly read that it was not a 5% chance of pregnancy while taking birth control for the year, but a .02% chance....for the year (to clarify, "for the year" means having an average amount of sex, for an entire year yields only that percentage chance of error). When this gentleman's error was pointed out, he refused to acknowledge the error and proceeded to call those who apparantly knew quite a bit more than him that they knew nothing on the subject. Which baffled the audience, as it does not take any knowledge of birth control trivia to be able to read a table correctly. In this situation, this gentleman can be considered "dumb as shit".

After this explanation of 'dumb as shit', I still fear many of you will not understand what it is to be 'dumb as shit'. Now I may take some criticism for the above anecdot for bringing up a past argument, because many might believe the example I used above really happened. But I contest that no such event could have reasonably happened, as no one here could possibly be as "dumb as shit" to admit that they hold the definition of being "dumb as shit".

But to summarize: it is very difficult to take this forum seriously and hold it with respect when there are people out there in cyber space, whom also frequent this forum, that are incapable of civilized, intelligent debate. Too much of the debate is wasted trying to explain what you're explaining. And instead of visiting techsans to get mind stimulating, thought twisting, conversation, you end up with hopeless, mindless drivel. So what harm does it do to add extreme hopeless, mindless drivel?

Now for the kicker: The question was asked "What makes Christians more susceptible to attack?" I find it somewhat ironic, in a very humorous way, that when those who do attack Christians explain why they attack Christians, those who are Christians attempt to say, briefly paraphased, "nuh huh".


*Before you abuse your mod powers, jonathan, please realize that there were no personal attacks as no one particular individual was attacked, and I promise, even if you don't understand it, this post had everything to do with this thread.

[Oasis]

If you respond to my "elitist" comment, you may basically answer your own question. I am not going to hand feed you an argument. It is up to you to be literate. Otherwise, what's the point?

And to Will: the reason I started trolling techsans is because after seeing many arguments on here (years worth), I came to to the conclusion most of you are dumb as shit. Since an effort has been started to make this board more mature, I am going to give techsans another chance and attempt a serious argument. But if my opponents are not even intelligent enough to read the words I type, what is the point in doing anything else other than troll?

Wow. You need to seriously get over yourself.

While I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments and counterarguments on here, there are a lot of intelligent ones as well. How well one argues a point is relative and completely subjective, especially for something that can not be proven or disproven, such as the existence of God; Or an opinion such as "Is homosexuality wrong or not?" If you see someone arguing a point that you disagree with, you'll usually always subconsciously think their argument is weak because you can't fully see the argument objectively. Everyone is closed minded to views they don't agree with or can't understand. I know I personally can't argue about the issue of steroids in baseball. I personally don't see them as a problem and I really have no problem with players taking them. No matter how well thought out and well explained a counterargument is, I can never fully accept it as valid because I don't agree with their viewpoint.

No one here is "dumb as shit." All of us either have degrees or at least went to college. None of us are flipping burgers for a living. The problem is, everyone here is hard headed and closed minded, in some way or another.

There are people here who argue very well, and there are people here who argue like shit. Being condescending, saying stuff like "If you don't like so-and-so, you're unamerican," name calling, saying people are overdefensive, etc, is arguing like shit.



You argue like shit.

This seems to be your MO:
1. Enter a discussion and make a condescending, rude, arrogant, or sarcastic comment.
2. Wait till people respond, then accuse them of being overdefensive, not being able to argue, being wrong, etc
3. Wait for them to respond again, then tell them they're being overdefensive, they're formulating a poor argument, they're wrong, etc.
4. Repeat process until people realize it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you and give up
5. Declare victory in said argument

You're an elitist. You always use the excuse that people are being overdefensive. No shit, Sherlock. You make a point or an attack on someone or their views, they're gonna defend themselves or their views. That's not being overdefensive, that's making a retort. I've yet to see you actually carry on an argument or a discussion for more than a few posts. You usually end up making some condescending comment about one small thing they've said, or you tell them they're incapable of arguing. You just happen to linguistically style your wording in a manner that makes you feel smarter than everyone else. Congratulations. You're an elitist, but at least you're an elitist with a stellar grasp of the English language.

You aren't smarter than everyone else. You aren't the only person on here who isn't "dumb as shit." You aren't the only person on here who can win an argument. You want intelligent discussion yet you openly admit to trolling threads and starting shit. You're a big part of the problem you're complaining about

Please, get the fuck over yourself.

[Jim]

Wow. You need to seriously get over yourself.

While I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments and counterarguments on here, there are a lot of intelligent ones as well. How well one argues a point is relative and completely subjective, especially for something that can not be proven or disproven, such as the existence of God; Or an opinion such as "Is homosexuality wrong or not?" If you see someone arguing a point that you disagree with, you'll usually always subconsciously think their argument is weak because you can't fully see the argument objectively. Everyone is closed minded to views they don't agree with or can't understand. I know I personally can't argue about the issue of steroids in baseball. I personally don't see them as a problem and I really have no problem with players taking them. No matter how well thought out and well explained a counterargument is, I can never fully accept it as valid because I don't agree with their viewpoint.

No one here is "dumb as shit." All of us either have degrees or at least went to college. None of us are flipping burgers for a living. The problem is, everyone here is hard headed and closed minded, in some way or another.

There are people here who argue very well, and there are people here who argue like shit. Being condescending, saying stuff like "If you don't like so-and-so, you're unamerican," name calling, saying people are overdefensive, etc, is arguing like shit.
You argue like shit.

This seems to be your MO:
1. Enter a discussion and make a condescending, rude, arrogant, or sarcastic comment.
2. Wait till people respond, then accuse them of being overdefensive, not being able to argue, being wrong, etc
3. Wait for them to respond again, then tell them they're being overdefensive, they're formulating a poor argument, they're wrong, etc.
4. Repeat process until people realize it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you and give up
5. Declare victory in said argument

You're an elitist. You always use the excuse that people are being overdefensive. No shit, Sherlock. You make a point or an attack on someone or their views, they're gonna defend themselves or their views. That's not being overdefensive, that's making a retort. I've yet to see you actually carry on an argument or a discussion for more than a few posts. You usually end up making some condescending comment about one small thing they've said, or you tell them they're incapable of arguing. You just happen to linguistically style your wording in a manner that makes you feel smarter than everyone else. Congratulations. You're an elitist, but at least you're an elitist with a stellar grasp of the English language.

You aren't smarter than everyone else. You aren't the only person on here who isn't "dumb as shit." You aren't the only person on here who can win an argument. You want intelligent discussion yet you openly admit to trolling threads and starting shit. You're a big part of the problem you're complaining about

Please, get the fuck over yourself.

Hear hear

[Billy]

Wow. You need to seriously get over yourself.

While I agree that there are a lot of dumb arguments and counterarguments on here, there are a lot of intelligent ones as well. How well one argues a point is relative and completely subjective, especially for something that can not be proven or disproven, such as the existence of God; Or an opinion such as "Is homosexuality wrong or not?" If you see someone arguing a point that you disagree with, you'll usually always subconsciously think their argument is weak because you can't fully see the argument objectively. Everyone is closed minded to views they don't agree with or can't understand. I know I personally can't argue about the issue of steroids in baseball. I personally don't see them as a problem and I really have no problem with players taking them. No matter how well thought out and well explained a counterargument is, I can never fully accept it as valid because I don't agree with their viewpoint.

No one here is "dumb as shit." All of us either have degrees or at least went to college. None of us are flipping burgers for a living. The problem is, everyone here is hard headed and closed minded, in some way or another.

There are people here who argue very well, and there are people here who argue like shit. Being condescending, saying stuff like "If you don't like so-and-so, you're unamerican," name calling, saying people are overdefensive, etc, is arguing like shit.
You argue like shit.

This seems to be your MO:
1. Enter a discussion and make a condescending, rude, arrogant, or sarcastic comment.
2. Wait till people respond, then accuse them of being overdefensive, not being able to argue, being wrong, etc
3. Wait for them to respond again, then tell them they're being overdefensive, they're formulating a poor argument, they're wrong, etc.
4. Repeat process until people realize it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you and give up
5. Declare victory in said argument

You're an elitist. You always use the excuse that people are being overdefensive. No shit, Sherlock. You make a point or an attack on someone or their views, they're gonna defend themselves or their views. That's not being overdefensive, that's making a retort. I've yet to see you actually carry on an argument or a discussion for more than a few posts. You usually end up making some condescending comment about one small thing they've said, or you tell them they're incapable of arguing. You just happen to linguistically style your wording in a manner that makes you feel smarter than everyone else. Congratulations. You're an elitist, but at least you're an elitist with a stellar grasp of the English language.

You aren't smarter than everyone else. You aren't the only person on here who isn't "dumb as shit." You aren't the only person on here who can win an argument. You want intelligent discussion yet you openly admit to trolling threads and starting shit. You're a big part of the problem you're complaining about

Please, get the fuck over yourself.

Very nice speech. But this is exactly the problem I am talking about. It does not surprise me that you, of all people, would come on here and make a heart felt argument, about the wrong god damn issue. Because I am greatly interested to know, where the fuck have I ever bashed someone for being overly defensive??.

But other than that blunder, nice work.

[Jim]

Look at the silly monkey. Look at the silly monkey.

[Oasis]

Very nice speech. But this is exactly the problem I am talking about. It does not surprise me that you, of all people, would come on here and make a heart felt argument, about the wrong god damn issue. Because I am greatly interested to know, where the fuck have I ever bashed someone for being overly defensive??.

But other than that blunder, nice work.

What exactly is the issue? I get confused with your constant tangents, and I'm sorry I can't keep up. Enlighten me.

You have attacked people for being overly defensive several times. If I had a few hours to spare I'd love to stay up and search through your posts, but I gotta flip burgers tomorrow.

How about this. You and me, and let's discuss/argue something. Something both of us can agree to argue about. Something we both know. And we can let the objective Techsans people judge it.

Game?

[Seeker]

haha, that'd be a cool... a billy vs. will debate

decide the topic and we'll start a poll to decide the winner

[Oasis]

haha, that'd be a cool... a billy vs. will debate

decide the topic and we'll start a poll to decide the winner

Pick a completely random topic

Obviously it can't be sports, and it can't be anything Billy likes (no clue what he likes)

How about y'all give us the topic and we have two days to prepare. That'd be pretty democratic

[Seeker]

i need some background information on both of you...

religious views
political views

etc.

gun control/2nd amendment is a possible topic

[Oasis]

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"

"America! Fuck Yeah!"

That's all you're gonna get

[Oasis]

gun control/2nd amendment is a possible topic

Totally for gun control for the same reasons you are.

I'm looking for some sort of polarizing topic we can go toe to toe on just for shits and giggles.

Me vs. Forum Warrior.
Ali vs. Frazier
Zack vs. Screech