My only argument was already submitted, it was a paradox, therefor a decision cannot be made, unless you are smarter than the paradox.
The paradox is simple:
If I argue I’m a fool (and by definition a hopeless troll), I’m not longer a fool, if you argue I’m a fool I am a fool (and by definition a hopeless troll).
Maybe in a couple weeks, that’s how long the ban is. Couldn’t bring myself to make it permanent when I didn’t knock it out of the park and he gave me a lame half-agreement.
Disappointed by Carleas’s judgment. I thought it was ruled out at the beginning that the participants have to actually believe what they were saying, and that it was agreed it’d be a debate skill precisely because neither actually believed the positions they were advocating.
The debate pretty much went as expected. Ec made a number of shorter posts and used peculiar arguments (infinite souls) and didn’t provide definitions, Uccisore went with the classical American, analytic, systematic approach with elaborated arguments and definitions.
If you mean we DIDN’T have to believe what we were saying, then yeah, that was indeed stipulated. But making it transparent that you don’t have conviction in your point could still be argued as poor rhetoric.
It was frustrating when he didn't respond to my points or made his own incoherent. Basically all I got to do was restate my opening post for two days. But I resisted the urge to expand or add new points because every new point is a potential for a new vulnerability.
No, you made a fool of yourself a month ago, to my serious surprise. I had no intention to push you to such a breaking point. Your fall was a bit unexpected. Now I have to far more carefully wonder of your motives. And in this regard, what is going on between you and Ecmandu, because his accusation of you stalking or hounding him was right. I saw it even before he did.
I usually back out of debates when I see that I have caused someone to lie or otherwise do himself too much damage (in your case, both lie and become what could justly be dubbed an “outraged fucking retard”). Although it makes me appear as the fool losing a debate, the reality is that it dis-sways further harm to the other person. That has been my, somewhat un-noted, earmark for decades.
Whether I am worse or not, doesn’t change the reality.
Why, you gonna say more mean words to me on teh interwebs?
The way I remember it, you and I disagreed about the nature of circularity and the role of definitions in a deductive argument. Most normal people wouldn’t spin that into a ‘fall from grace’ narrative with themselves in the role of ‘grace’.
Um, ok. I was honestly unaware there was any sort of ‘concerned with your opinion of me’ type of relationship between you and I. You’re making things awkward.
Well perhaps forgive me, but I thought that there already had become an “awkwardness”. You telling me to go “FUCK OFF!!! regardless of any thread or subject”, kind of relayed the idea that you were … ummm… already “awkward”.
Please don’t tell me all this fuss is about that thing with apples and quantity some weeks or months ago? I thought it was just another disagreement on forums, certainly not something that would provoke such an ‘us and them’ attitude, which I thought you despised, James?