Quote:
Originally Posted by fatfencer 
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".
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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".
Hmm, what were you saying about the weight of denial?
Quote:
|
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...
Quote:
|
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?
Quote:
|
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".
Quote:
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!
Quote:
|
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...
Quote:
|
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. )
Quote:
|
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. )
Linear Mode
