Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
My whole point in the above was to show the rediculousness of trying to have meaningful discussion by using high-school debate tactics to rebut your opposition, especially when the very criticisms levelled against others can be levelled against you. I'm sure many of us here can name and recognize many logical fallacies, and those who can't could easily google them if they were interested. To attempt to pick apart another post while supposedly naming off said fallacies reeks of arrogance, and does little to encourage any meaningful debate. It's little better than picking apart the spelling and grammar of a post. And as far as I know, there is nobody here being graded on what they post, so there is no benefit gained by anyone outside of the pseudo-Socrates who feels the need to pick through posts in such a way.
|
alansmithee,
I see nothing wrong with Zodiak calling people out on poor arguments.
- Just because he can make the same mistakes does not make his points invalid.
- Even if he was arogant it would not make his rebutles any less sound.
- It actually does encurage meaningful debate because we would get less BS.
- Nitpicking over spelling and gramar is an attack on the posters character therefore there is quite a bit of difference between pointing out a logical falacy and a gramar/spelling error.
- You are being judged on how you post. The more BS people post the less others will wish to have discusions with them. There are certain members on this forum who I won't even bother with.
- The benefits are many. You certainly don't have to take it to the same level, but if we all simply attempted to pose sound arguments rather then then flinging the same old pre-constructed BS at each other it would go a long way to improving this forum.