James S Saint wrote:"Fool" does not actually mean stupid or idiotic. A fool is someone who is easily tricked.
And calling one a "liar" is implying the willing repetition of lies .. not quite the same as pointing out
a lie.
The debate so far is one guy trying to claim the other
is smart while simultaneously trying to make him
seem foolish while the other guy is trying to claim to be foolish while simultaneously trying to seem smart.
Arbiter of Change wrote:Won't this debate end in a sort of paradox? If Uccisore proves Ecmandu isn't a fool and bans Ecmandu, doesn't it make Ec a fool for accepting the debate in the first place?
phyllo wrote:Fool-
-fool in every way?
-fool in philosophy?
-fool in some/any way?
phyllo wrote:Seems that Uccisore is trying to shift the definition of 'fool' to mean someone below the intellectual norm in every way.
Uccisore wrote :
Is Ecmandu a Fool?
Here's what we know about him:
He has an 8th-grade reading comphrension level at best. *
He has no knowledge of technical terminology in philosophy, science, religion, or other fields he claims expertise in. *
He resorts to hideously bad, juvenile, or transparently misleading tactics whenever shown to be wrong about the most trivial of matters. *
He can operate a computer well enough to post on ILP.
He can create YouTube videos.
Now, what can we say about the three asterisked points above? Notably, they can be faked. Who among you hasn't read Ecmandu's words and thought "There's no way anybody could be this stupid/irrational/crazy, he must be a troll." I submit this instinct is a reasonable one. Now, maybe he's a troll and maybe he isn't, but the odds are high enough that we have to concede claims about his idiocy are inconclusive, and indeed unprovable thanks to the anonymous nature of the internet.
There is a distinct difference between Uccisore's aunt finding Stephen King worthwhile and the idea that Stephen King contributed something worthwhile to literature.Uccisore wrote :
Last I heard, my aunt re-reads Stephen King's "The Stand" every year or so, and she would tell you it's worthwhile to her each and every time.
James S Saint wrote:A) Ecmandu is a fool for accepting a bet wherein he has nothing to gain, only lose (not to mention the nature of this particular debate).
B) It is pretty easy to determine that even though Ecmandu has contributed something to the philosophical discussions, nothing he contributed was actual "worthwhile".
He demonstrated both of those traits during the debate itself.
phyllo wrote:Dude, you made a few reasonable points but you did not effectively counter Uccisore's points. Your debating skills are poor. I think that you clearly failed to articulate and support your position.
On the other hand, Uccisore unnecessarily conceded some critical points and he was not able to show that you made a worthwhile contribution to the field of philosophy. I think that he should have pursued your reformulation of the Golden Rule. That is just convoluted and obscure enough to qualify as a worthwhile contribution.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users