Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ISP]

I like "speak softly and carry a big stick around something that cause death on a global scale at the press of a button", it speaks to the futility of arguing.

[kaijyuu]

That we haven't globally annihilated ourselves yet speaks to the futility of warfare over non-violent diplomacy.

[Caz]

That we haven't globally annihilated ourselves yet speaks to the futility of warfare over non-violent diplomacy.

It does give me some hope that we have dozens of people around the world with their finger on a button that could cause planet-wide obliteration when pressed and yet, we're still here.

[Snowblind]

That we haven't globally annihilated ourselves yet speaks to the futility of warfare over non-violent diplomacy.

You realize it's the explicit threat of violence that creates the deterrent that results in such peace through stalemates?

If the USA or USSR and their allies had maintained ineffective deterrents, war would have almost certainly have occurred. Diplomacy helped in making each side's intent transparent, but no amount of words could replace the physical deterrent.

A bit like the use of deadly violence and forcible restraint authorized by police officers keeps crime down as a deterrent as opposed to a police force of old unarmed ladies with a ticket book.

[bombzero]

Most of the advice in this thread is pretty solid so far, I do have one particular way to win every argument you are ever in on the internet. (presuming you are in fact correct before-hand)*

1. Stick to logical thought, yet do not be afraid to use little slights to call out your fellow arguers anytime they start trying to bring emotional arguments in, this should be reasonably effective at either putting em back in line or making their arguments seem stupid to anyone else reading. Don't let emotional pleading overrule logic and fact, it's your damn duty to humanity.
2. If you recognize your opponent is not thinking very logically, but do not know exactly what is wrong with their opinions, use this site. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home (read it yourself too, when logical fallacy overtakes logic, everybody loses)
3. If you are wrong, aware of the fact that you are wrong, and the other side has presented some amount of empirical evidence, stop fucking arguing and admit you're wrong*, or I will lose all respect for you.

*No seriously, people who keep holding a point simply because they are incapable of admitting they are incorrect are some of the stupidest people in the world in my eyes.

As for the hair-splitters, call their bullshit for one if they try to dismiss everything else on one little typo or poorly worded sentence, don't even be nice about it.
Secondly, ignore any points getting too irrelevant to the topic, if they try to make you look bad by pointing out your ignorance, politely tell them to fuck off and stop trying to pull irrelevant bullshit into the debate.

[Knight of Fools]

There's a difference between arguing, debating, and sharing knowledge and opinions.

Arguing is all about the ego. Whoever shouts the loudest, types the fastest, garners the most supporters, or throws down the best insults wins. Except no one wins in an argument. Don't get involved with them, except maybe to pop off a shot to make your voice heard (For the sake of third parties) and then ignore the other person. If it goes beyond that, you'll gain nothing and lose time and energy.

Debates are supposed to be all about logic and stuff. Really, they're nothing but a formalized way of arguing, except the involved parties are expected to have a higher standard of fact checking, presentation, and conduct. Beyond that, though, you'll see a lot of the same spirit that creates an argument: Dominance is key. One person may win a debate, but neither will come out the better for it.


The sharing of knowledge and opinions is what you want. If two people can get together, go a step beyond "agree to disagree" and actually try to understand where the other is coming from, why they think that way, and compare those thoughts to their own thoughts and feelings, then you have something beautiful. It doesn't even have to end with the two people coming out with the same opinion in the end - As long as both understand the other, accept that their view does have some solid logical/emotional/spiritual ground to stand on, then they have both won. There are no losers, because everyone either admits that they were wrong at some point or comes to more fully understand the people that share opposing views without any feelings being hurt. It's hard to get a sincere experience going, and it's tenuous when it does, but it's worth the effort to keep it from becoming a debate.

I've actually been partially convinced to rescind some of my own opinions on these forums, and come to understand and appreciate other perspectives. Do I agree with all of them? Of course not, that's not the purpose of sharing thoughts and opinions. The purpose is understanding.

That's what you want to achieve. Avoid everything else, I say.


Also, that logical fallacies site looks like good reading.

[Ogdibus]

.

[EuchreJack]

That we haven't globally annihilated ourselves yet speaks to the futility of warfare over non-violent diplomacy.

You realize it's the explicit threat of violence that creates the deterrent that results in such peace through stalemates?

If the USA or USSR and their allies had maintained ineffective deterrents, war would have almost certainly have occurred. Diplomacy helped in making each side's intent transparent, but no amount of words could replace the physical deterrent.

A bit like the use of deadly violence and forcible restraint authorized by police officers keeps crime down as a deterrent as opposed to a police force of old unarmed ladies with a ticket book.

In a similar vein, the only way to truly win an argument on the internet is to have mod powers on whatever board is hosting the argument.   

[bombzero]

There's a difference between arguing, debating, and sharing knowledge and opinions.

Oops, forgot the best tip.

If they make it an argument simply say "Keep it a debate or shove it up your ass, leave your damn ego at the door"

[ISP]

The threat of mutual nuclear annihilation is a cyclical argument in and of itself more then a threat of violence.

An attack would be followed by a rebuttle or retaliation and everyone would lose the argument, so we argue that we will retaliate if they attack, and they argue back, while the disarmament arguement is trying to stop the point of the arguement, while the people who have control of them are argueing that they will not trust everyone to disarm, so nothing productive happens.

[ISP]

I dont really know, maybe, my sense of humor has been all kinds of messed up.

[Ogdibus]

.

[ISP]

Just feeling sorry for myself is all, no big deal, I'm noone important.

[kaijyuu]

I'm noone important.

I think I figured out why you're feeling sorry for yourself.

Your self esteem is currently making the "ffftthhhppptttt" noise of an deflating balloon.

[ISP]

Dont care about me. I really am noone important. I dont do anything important for anyone, and I never have, and probably never will.

I got a text saying nothing decriptive and I inflated it to the point of contempating comiting suicide to save my family the trouble of having to deal with more then burying me.