tl;dr

Good job though,

helpful and good

Quote from rajr2

[FO NT="Arial Black"][SIZE="7"][SIZE="4"][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]yea thans for the debate its a lot:Cool:

I seriously have NO idea what you tried to say.

Really its helpful stuff.Thanks a lot for sharing.

All the things that I've caught myself using (Now that I've read the whole post);
Tautology, Straw Man, False Dichotomy, Ad Ignorantum

I'm gonna work on this and try to debate a little be cleaner.

I always just thought the burden of proof referred to which party holds the burden of needing proof for their side of the argument to be correct, and if such proof isn't provided the alternate view is automatically the more reasonable choice. What it seems like you're saying is that just because someone has the burden of proof and doesn't provide it doesn't mean that what they're saying is false.... well no, it doesn't, but it makes your position a more strong one than theirs until they can provide that proof.

Quote from Automaton

I always just thought the burden of proof referred to which party holds the burden of needing proof for their side of the argument to be correct, and if such proof isn't provided the alternate view is automatically the more reasonable choice.

I think the idea is that any argument that can be effectively "proven" wouldn't relate to any topic worth debating. How do you debate against a position that's proven to be true? The only one I can think of is evolution, but people who reject evidence of that probably fall under the Moving the Goalpost fallacy.

Debates usually involve interpretations of data that doesn't point to any specific conclusion that can be considered "proof", and dismissing those interpretations because they're not provable is shitty debating. If you said "I believe life begins at conception, and that's why I think abortion should be illegal", asking for proof of that claim is ridiculous. I think that's the sort of thing Hewitt is referring to.


Thanks for the list Hewitt, I'll add it to the first post. I really should update that list, some of the explanations are pretty bad. Can't believe I made it over 5 years ago.

Tautology is already up there, but I'll add the other one. Thanks again.

"Arguing that a statement is false, because the conclusion leading to that is false."

Conclusions don't lead to statements. It's the other way around.

Quote from Jeff

"Arguing that a statement is false, because the conclusion leading to that is false."

Conclusions don't lead to statements. It's the other way around.

This may not be entirely true...but not false either.

In the case where one comes to the conclusion based on the previous statement (where the statement leads to the conclusion in the mind of the next poster) and that person makes a statement based from the conclusion they recently came to. In that case, wouldn't the conclusion have led to a statement? Furthermore, the statement that the previous poster made could be the conclusion that its author came to based on that which was written before their comment. But that's overanalyzing.

Because of the way a discussion/debate/conversation works, and I'm assuming you already know this, the conclusion is decidedly the end of said conversation. But if I follow my own logic, the last post is the conclusion, up until a new post is added. So technically, Exilement is half-right in both scenarios.

lolgrimm I already corrected myself for Jeff's argument. You just dont see it because I got erased. Did it in a sentence too :I

Good try though.

Even though it's old, it doesn't make any sense. Or it was written in a way that makes it difficult to follow his train of thought. Threads on a forum are ongoing conversations, just at a slower pace. Just because I have the latest post doesn't mean the conversation/debate/statement is concluded. Regardless, that is an entirely different context to what I was referring to, I'm pretty sure. I'm almost certain we were talking about scientific theory.

I don't actually remember what was said before I got SOM'd but I remedied my statement once and then Exilement accepted it and appended my words in his first post. Anyways, as you say it's hardly relevant now.

Quote from Hewitt

lolgrimm I already corrected myself for Jeff's argument. You just dont see it because I got erased. Did it in a sentence too :I

Good try though.

I'm guessing this means that though I made a good/valid point, it wasn't applicable to the particular format?

@Jeff Imma see if I can explain this better. In order to respond to something, we draw conclusions based on what we know and what was said (basic reasoning, in a short definition). I'm not saying that the conversation is concluded, just that each post is based on a conclusion made by it's author. Thus conclusions do lead to statements. Also, when a conversation actually ends, the conclusion may contain material for a new conversation, which leads to the initial statement of the new conversation.

Is this making any more sense to you?