Sectionals 2009

[academe]

[QUOTE=fatfencer;794833]

You have no reason to disbelieve that this wasnt common jargon in the Midwest.

...

Fatfencer

"This one time, in debate camp..."

[Inquartata]

You have no reason to disbelieve that this wasnt common jargon in the Midwest.

Yes. Yes I do. People try to get away with this sort of business on the internet all the time: If you can define the terms of the debate, there is no way that you can lose it. So I am not inclined to let you get away with defining the terms of the debate, or indeed to invent words to advance your position. Sorry to be so resistant to your "forceful will".

Your denial doesnt weigh any more than my usage.

How about this, then:

You are a racist. There, now, your denial means nothing. All I have to do is allege it, without adducing any evidence, and you must now rush to disprove the characterization. And remember, denial alone---however lengthy the denial---will not suffice.

If you wish to assert that this word is not so used then you must prove it.

Nope. YOU are the one who is claiming that "it's common in Midwest debate circles". It's your claim to prove. And to use what seems to be another of these techniques you learned in the Midwest School of Debate: "You know this".

It's not irrelevant.

Hmm, what were you saying about the weight of denial?

It goes to show you consistently misuse the concept of using fallacy to negate arguments. You present no arguments of your own. The best you do is obliquely assert something small isnt true but offer no proof that it is not true.

Nope. You are conflating logic with rhetoric. They are both arts of discourse, but they are not the same art. If I point out a fallacy of logic, it does not follow that I must work up a rhetorical counterargument. I am usually not pointing out fallacies in order to engage you in a Formal Midwest Debate...

If you assert something you must prove it. Not I.

Really? The devil you say!

I'll wait with bated breath for your evidence that your made-up word is "common usage in Midwest debate circles", then, shall I?

You were the first to call into question my usage of the term and offered NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that in debate circles it is not used as I describe.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Or hadn't you noticed that you just claimed that something must be true because I haven't proved it false?

Tsk.

You used the word; I questioned its validity. That's ALL I have to do: question it. Not run out to disprove it, just question it. It is your task to support your own claims. Like, you know...that it's "a very common term in Midwest debate circles".

Your method of argumentation is like throwing caltrops at a tank. The purpose isnt to get a substantive or meaningful conclusion.

1) A simile which is colorful, amusing, and, of course, wrong.

2) So you are now a mind-reader, too? You can divine my "purpose", by force of that superior intellect of yours? Wow. I am sure everyone is impressed!

ou are merely negating which, really isnt arguing at all, its a stance without any foundational merit.

Oh, well, there goes the mind-reading. Because again, I am not debating you. I am just pointing out flaws in YOUR arguments, and in your (mis)use of the English language...

I'm just going to continue to call you on it.

And I will continue to view it with the same degree of respect that do your racist remarks, your chest-beating statements about all the people you have "beaten up", your allegations that thus and such people whom you don't even know are homosexual---which for some reason seems to be an obsession of yours---and indeed most of what you post hereabouts. That is, with amusement and no serious regard whatsoever.

Honestly, you are a reasonable, intelligent and personable enough fellow in real life, and while I do understand the temptation to play a role on the internet I really am rather mystified why you have chosen THIS rather unpleasant and unattractive role...

I hasten to add that you should have no more regard for my opinion of you than I have for yours of me. ( Forbidden fifth smily here. )

Everytime you assert fallacy I'm going to highlight in red when you dont show the necessary followup argumentation.

Perhaps you should start by highlighting in red your evidence that "followup argumentation" is a "necessary" aspect of pointing out a logical flaw...

Strangely, I have never come across that particular requirement. Although probably that's only because I have not yet read the book YOU wrote on logic...my bad. ( Sixth smily. )

[SabreReedfrost]

So... did anyone fence Saber today?

[fatfencer]

Yes. Yes I do. People try to get away with this sort of business on the internet all the time: If you can define the terms of the debate, there is no way that you can lose it. So I am not inclined to let you get away with defining the terms of the debate, or indeed to invent words to advance your position. Sorry to be so resistant to your "forceful will".

The assertion doesn't begin with my USE of a word, the assertion happens if you choose to deny its use and make a case against it.

Theres your real problem.

You aren't any more an authority of word usage than I am. Certainly not.

Why then of why should I accept your questioning of it? Why should I care? I only care if you bring some evidence to the contrary.

This is your problem.

You make a piss poor attempt at what YOU assert is wrong and then tell others to do YOUR homework for you.

The burden is on YOU sir, not me. No amount of posturing, latinizing, etc.

If I use a term and you question it you must bring some evidence that it is NOT so.

If you say something is fallacious, NO ONE has to believe you without proof. Why is this so hard to understand? Are you so honest and so brilliant that we just have to accept your word prima facie? Certainly not. You work for the po-po. If anything thats proof of your tacit DISHONESTY...

Meanwhile, here's the real deal. You don't know or have any masters/advanced degrees in any of the topics you routinely discuss.

So you have no 'laurels' upon which to rest to say you are an 'expert' and we should merely take your word. You likely have a bachelors in something.. but clearly not enough to assert total authority in an area. You can position yourself on the internet as a curmudgeon, but really, thats just old English for 'topically-myopic pain in the ass.'

You routinely, during your 'pointing out that things are WRONG' as in factually or logically incorrect, bring absolutely NO evidence that that is so nor do you structure your fallacy arguments in such a way that you prove your assertion that the fallacy exists.

Since you are the king of fallacy arguments, wrongly, you might do some research on how to better apply them.

They are ****ty.

QED

Fatfencer

PS: If you assert anything is incorrect you must PROVE it so thru evidence and correct rhetoric, which included a step-by-step application of fallacy.

[physicspackage]

http://askfred.net/Results/results.p...nament_id=8294

[Rockstar44]

I was so sorry to hear about all the tornados that wiped out Lawrence,Kansas, over the May 2/3 weekend. Fortunately, there was no one there....

[fatfencer]

I was so sorry to hear about all the tornados that wiped out Lawrence,Kansas, over the May 2/3 weekend. Fortunately, there was no one there....

Seems like it was a very small sectionals. Not too many Kansans there either.

And sadly, you didn't get swept up in a vortex of wind and dirty drug needles. Crap.

**** DOES happen.

Fatfencer

[physicspackage]

I've posted the qualification summary on the RMS web site. Please review this list and let me know if you see any errors. If you are on this list and have prequalified through another path such as NOC please email me ASAP. I plan on submitting this list to the National office by this weekend.
Thanks,
Bary Nusz

http://rockymountainfencing.org/rms/...4/Default.aspx

[Inquartata]

The assertion doesn't begin with my USE of a word, the assertion happens if you choose to deny its use and make a case against it.

So...you're actually trying to tell me that "It's a common term in Midwest debate circles"...is not an assertion?

A novel concept. Now you're not just redefining words, you're redefining reality...

You aren't any more an authority of word usage than I am. Certainly not.

Hmm...how about Webster's Unabridged Dictionary? Is THAT "an authority"?

How about the American Heritage and Cambridge dictionaries?

'Cause your "word" isn't in any of them.

It also isn't in any glossary of debating terms I've been able to find. Odd, that, no?

Even were we to presume that it's an abbreviation of "glissando", and set aside it's specialized use as a musical term...it's a noun, not a verb.

Tsk.

Why then of why should I accept your questioning of it? Why should I care? I only care if you bring some evidence to the contrary.

This is your problem.

Because you claim that it's a word in common usage...somewhere. That's your claim to prove, Humpty.

If I use a term and you question it you must bring some evidence that it is NOT so.

Does argumentum ad ignorantiam ring any Midwest debating bells, perchance?

Are you telling me that if I cannot prove that your word doesn't exist, then your saying that it exists proves that it does?!

Whatever must have passed for logic in the Midwest debate circles in which you tell us ( but do not seem able to support ) you were so famed?

Under your theory, I can claim just about anything as support for my positions, including amorphous things like personal knowledge and private communications with people I might not even know, and it becomes your responsibility to prove otherwise?!

That could be fun...

Hang on...

I am a great logician. I competed in many difficult, though secret, international logic contests and won them all. And out of that vast experience and background, I, and all other logicians I know, say that you are wrong in every respect on this subject!

Now go thou forth and prove otherwise.

I trust you won't mind if I don't hold my breath.

Are you so honest and so brilliant that we just have to accept your word prima facie? Certainly not.

And yet, when you give us your word that you are an expert in debate, and that words you use are "common in your circles"...somehow that's different?

Tsk.

You work for the po-po. If anything thats proof of your tacit DISHONESTY...

Heh. argumentum ad hominem ( circumstantial )...

Meanwhile, here's the real deal. You don't know or have any masters/advanced degrees in any of the topics you routinely discuss.

Very droll!

But I'll play along.

I say that I do.

Now run along and prove otherwise, as you say is incumbent upon all who question assertions. Haply it will keep you too busy to pester us any further around here...

Tee hee.

[physicspackage]

The classification and qualification reports have been sent to the National office. The minutes will be posted soon, although I can share that next year's event will be held at the USAFA sometime in March or early April. Coach Salem and I will be working out the details this Summer.

[Rockstar44]

The classification and qualification reports have been sent to the National office. The minutes will be posted soon, although I can share that next year's event will be held at the USAFA sometime in March or early April. Coach Salem and I will be working out the details this Summer.

WHAT? At the height of the avalanche season?

[physicspackage]

The minutes have been posted here.