User blog comment:MilitaryBrat/Hal Jordan vs Darth Vader/@comment-1683193-20131028175901/@comment-72.35.96.113-20131101212336

LeLa,

I'll give a point by rebutall. If you want, maybe even if you don't. However as most of your response post is with out a point. For now  I'll hit they high lights.

"First off, Anon, your belligerence and condescension are not helping your case at all. really not helping your case. By the way, those Latin phrases I'm using are the names of logical fallacies as recognized by debate and logic communities. If an argument falls under a fallacy, it can immediately be dismissed."

As of already mentioned my attitude is in response to the attitude of others. You yourself admitted that you respond to rudness in kind. Look back over the post, you'll find while folks like Pach and MilitaryBrat opened with name calling and you first post itself wasn't with out a fair amount of condescension.

In other words your bias is showing, best tuck it in.

By the way, I know what those Latin phrases are. If you bothered to read my post, you'da noticed that I mention debate team logic and your time on the debate team. Of course you didn't bother to read my response, so I shouldn't be surprised.

While I personally question the usefullness of debate team logic out side philosophical or moral questions. In other words the structure of debate ( as a pass time ) falls apart when their is an actual answer to the question at hand. Such as is a door open or shut are we on the planet Earth are we having the discussion etc. You could argue about the symantics of my sentences/questions, but a real varifiable answer exits. So no matter how fallacious the argument was of the person with the right answer, they still be right. Thats the problem Debate Teams look for winners ( of the debate, right or wrong ), I myself and I'd hope others here are looking answers.

That said, it does amuse me that in a post were you spam debate team "logic" you open with a style of substances argument ( complaining about my behavoir ) and an argument from authority ( "those Latin phrases I'm using are the names of logical fallacies as recognized by debate and logic communities" ).

Now I'm quoting you out of order here, but only because this bit of back peddling tacked on the end of your post is pertinent to the rest of the conversation.

"You may have noticed that nowhere in here or in my previous comment am I arguing whether it's fair or not. I'm trying to show you that your arguments are not effective and that you need to improve them, not that they're wrong."

If that is case then you should have stated your intentions.

Instead you've said things like this

"Source. What Pach is saying is more in line with the other abilities of the ring as presented, while you're just making a claim. Presenting a source will help your argument."

"And I don't know much about it, but I know enough about how the ring works to know that Pach's argument is alongside those lines and yours isn't. Since you did not provide a source, I'm inclined to believe you don't have one."

Now you'll no doubt try and word smith your way out of this, possibly in Latin. Symantics aside though, that surely looks like you're taking a side. I imagine you'll point out that you said

"...Presenting a source will help your argument."

Understand though, that similar phrasing is often used to try and dismiss somebodies point. Instead of how they made it, Pach has used similar phrasing as well.

You have also not responded to the other side of this debate at all. Not in terms of their position or how they presented it. Considering that it is rife with insults and "logical Fallacies" like the ones you called me out on. Their is a strong indication of bias on your part. A bias leaning towards one side of this debate.

In others words, regardless of of intent or declaration through statments and bias. You have taken a side.

Lets pretend for a moment. That you did just join in to be super helpfull and show me the error of my ways.

Then in effect your whole argument is a Ignoratio elenchi, possible a red herring. With heaping sides ad hominems and a pinch of argument from authority.

So take your pick?

Either you've presented an utterly ironic series of posts on debating properly. Where in you don't.

OR

In desperate attempt to back up your friend and loaded down with self righteous bias you jumped into a topic you know little, but have clearly taken a side on.

And yes I am aware that the above question could constitute a false dilema. So if you want to conjure up another option go head and try.

Truth is though. You've admitted to starting an off topic line of debate and to lacking knowledge of those characters involved in the debate proper. So perhaps you should just see yourself out. As at the moment you've contributed nothing.