Unpopular opinions V8 Flat IS NOTHING - General

[QUOTE=_Axel;53192101]So your response to my question is "yes" then?[/QUOTE] Yes, if someone tries calling you out for making a bad analogy, or general argument, it's up to you to demonstrate why your argument is in fact, logically sound. Not the other way around. It's your argument, not theirs.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53192109]Yes, if someone tries calling you out for making a bad analogy, or general argument, it's up to you to demonstrate why your argument is in fact, logically sound. Not the other way around. It's your argument, not theirs.[/QUOTE] So you're disagreeing with the basic principles of a debate then? If the argument is invalid, the opponent should be able to demonstrate it is. Otherwise it's assumed to be valid. How exactly do you determine the validity of an argument otherwise? What is the method you propose? What actually determines whether an argument is "logically sound" if all you have to do is say "it's invalid" and then the burden is on the other person? That's just another form of "no u".

[QUOTE=_Axel;53192115]So you're disagreeing with the basic principles of a debate then? If the argument is invalid, the opponent should be able to demonstrate it is. Otherwise it's assumed to be valid. How exactly do you determine the validity of an argument otherwise? What is the method you propose? What actually determines whether an argument is "logically sound" if all you have to do is say "it's invalid" and then the burden is on the other person? That's just another form of "no u".[/QUOTE] the entire purpose of a debate is to show why your line of reasoning is solid, not for someone else to do that. The burden never shifts, because it's [i]always[/i] on the person that is making an argument. if they bring up a point about how something in your argument isn't valid, then you counter with why it is valid.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53192124]the entire purpose of a debate is to show why your line of reasoning is solid, not for someone else to do that. The burden never shifts, because it's [i]always[/i] on the person that is making an argument. if they bring up a point about how something in your argument isn't valid, then you counter with why it is valid.[/QUOTE] Two Way Street It's up to the person making the claim to prove the claim, but it's also up to the person who counters the claim not to just go "ur wrong m8" and leave it at that. Actually demonstrate why the other person is wrong. [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] Does the other person not cite their shit? Tell them to cite their shit. Does the other person use faulty logic? Tell them they use faulty logic, and why it is so etc. etc.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53192124]the entire purpose of a debate is to show why your line of reasoning is solid, not for someone else to do that. The burden never shifts, because it's [i]always[/i] on the person that is making an argument. if they bring up a point about how something in your argument isn't valid, then you counter with why it is valid.[/QUOTE] Yeah so your ideal vision of a debate is just: - Argument 1 - That's invalid - Argument 2 - That's invalid - Argument 3 - That's invalid ... And so on, regardless of the validity of the arguments. That's just fucking retarded lol. Your philosophy simply does not function in the real world. It's in disagreement with any sort of logical reasoning. The scientific method itself relies on robustness when faced with countless criticisms to determine whether an hypothesis is valid. That's the role of opponents in a debate. In fact the very basis of the scientific method is that you can never really prove a thesis, you can only disprove it. And thus knowledge can only be built by taking a starting hypothesis, constantly challenging it, and adapting it when it's disproved, none of which can be achieved using your "method". Nor does it do anything to gauge the validity of a claim.

No lmao. If someone is not willing to actually engage in a conversation that is on them, that does not mean they have the responsibility to prove your argument. If you feel you are getting no where you don’t have to engage either! This is literally rhetoric 101 level shit.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53192185]No lmao. If someone is not willing to actually engage in a conversation that is on them, that does not mean they have the responsibility to prove your argument. If you feel you are getting no where you don’t have to engage either! This is literally rhetoric 101 level shit.[/QUOTE] Yet you still deem it the burden of the person making the argument to further prove his point when his opponent provides nothing to indicate what is flawed about his point. If no counterpoint is provided to someone's argument, then his point is considered valid until proved otherwise. That's rhetoric 101 level shit.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53192200]Yet you still deem it the burden of the person making the argument to further prove his point when his opponent provides nothing to indicate what is flawed about his point.[/quote] It's still on you to show why you're claim is valid. what someone else does, or does not do, does not change your responsibilities in making a sound argument.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53192062]This is a copout for bad argumentation and faulty logic. It's up to the the individual making an argument to make the case for why their argument is logically sound, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] But if you can't explain why an analogy is bad, it's hard to trust that you truly understood it in the first place

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53192211]But if you can't explain why an analogy is bad, it's hard to trust that you truly understood it in the first place[/QUOTE] On the flipside if your only response to being told your analogy is bad is that "it's an analogy!!" then more than likely it's a shitty analogy. as well, if people aren't truly understanding what you're saying, then maybe you should do a better job of actually explaining your points instead of thrusting that responsibility onto others.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53192203]It's still on you to show why you're claim is valid. what someone else does, or does not do, does not change your responsibilities in making a sound argument.[/QUOTE] As I already explained, no one can prove a claim is valid. They can only provide evidence towards it. An analogy or comparison [I]is[/I] an argument, and the only way of gauging its validity is to challenge it. If nobody wants to challenge the argument, there isn't much more the person can do to prove it further, and it's unreasonable to require it from them.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53192214]On the flipside if your only response to being told your analogy is bad is that "it's an analogy!!" then more than likely it's a shitty analogy.[/QUOTE] Yes, of course. But how does this play into your earlier argument? [quote]This is a copout for bad argumentation and faulty logic. It's up to the the individual making an argument to make the case for why their argument is logically sound, not the other way around.[/quote] If failing to explain your position makes it shitty, then surely failing to explain why an analogy is bad is also a poor counter-argument, no?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53192233]Yes, of course. But how does this play into your earlier argument? If failing to explain your position makes it shitty, then surely failing to explain why an analogy is bad is also a poor counter-argument, no?[/QUOTE] it is up to those making an inital claim to make a strong argument. what the counter argument is doesn't really matter. what does is presenting your own argument in a logically solid way, and being able to defend it from well detailed responses to "no" and anything inbetween. Someone not making a good counter-argument doesn't absolve you from making a good argument. if you can not defend your claim from a simple "no", then how exactly is it supposed to hold up?

I think the one making the argument has the most responsibility, I just don't believe in ascribing [I]all[/I] responsibility to one side. If someone makes a lengthy and well-written analogy, but the other person is too stubborn/emotional/biased/whatever and doesn't have any interest in conceding, is the former at fault? Is the argument only considered valid when the opponent agrees? Strict discussion rules like you propose work well in a controlled environment, like a debate class, or a tournament, because there are scores, and/or an arbitrator. They won't always hold true in the real world

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53192251]I think the one making the argument has the most responsibility, I just don't believe in ascribing [I]all[/I] responsibility to one side. If someone makes a lengthy and well-written analogy, but the other person is too stubborn/emotional/biased/whatever and doesn't have any interest in conceding, is the former at fault? Is the argument only considered valid when the opponent agrees? Strict discussion rules like you propose work well in a controlled environment, like a debate class, or a tournament, because there are scores, and/or an arbitrator. They won't always hold true in the real world[/QUOTE] as i said earlier, you can just not talk to someone if you feel you're not going to be getting anywhere with them. you don't have a responsibility to respond, nor do they have a responsibility to respond well. on a related note, discussions are not about "winning" or "being right". it is completely ok to walk away from one with having to agree to disagree. you're not obligated to change your mind, nor is someone else.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53192259]as i said earlier, you can just not talk to someone if you feel you're not going to be getting anywhere with them. you don't have a responsibility to respond, nor do they have a responsibility to respond well. on a related note, discussions are not about "winning" or "being right". it is completely ok to walk away from one with having to agree to disagree. you're not obligated to change your mind, nor is someone else.[/QUOTE] Hence why I didn't say winning, I used "valid" because it's the same word you used. I don't understand taking issue with wanting an explanation for why your analogy might be bad. The way you've talked about it makes it sound like pointing out you've made an analogy is always something done in bad faith, and like it's not particularly useful when sometimes, making it clear it's not a 1:1 comparison is all that's necessary to further the argument

The "Top 10 Anime Something Something" jokes aren't really that funny.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53192272]Hence why I didn't say winning, I used "valid" because it's the same word you used. I don't understand taking issue with wanting an explanation for why your analogy might be bad. The way you've talked about it makes it sound like pointing out you've made an analogy is always something done in bad faith, and like it's not particularly useful when sometimes, making it clear it's not a 1:1 comparison is all that's necessary to further the argument[/QUOTE] It's more that I've seen a couple bad analogies in sh/pd recently, and the discussions around them have been exactly this: "thats a bad analogy", "its an analogy though!!". it's just circular and neither party explained themselves. I'd at least expect the person who made the analogy to actually defend it, not just copout with "but its an analogy". im fairly certain ive been guilty of this in the past though, so I'm not trying to call out specific users, but rather talk about a pattern of discussion I've noticed. also, the second part wasn't directed at you, sorry if it came off that way. this discussion just reminded me of that. [QUOTE=xZippy;53192276]The "Top 10 Anime Something Something" jokes aren't really that funny.[/QUOTE] They got stale.

Anyone making a claim automatically inherits the burden of proof of their claim. "Wow, this is exactly like when [x]." is a claim. "No it's not." is also a claim. At this point, if these sentences were created exactly how I've typed them, in the respective order I've given them, I would expect the initial person to support their claim, and then I would expect person #2 to support their claim or concede based on the evidence they're provided. The moment people go "I don't need to explain anything, it's obvious/look it up/etc.," when I ask for a source or explanation, they can fuck outta my face with that bullshit, because they're trying to dodge their responsibility.

As a kid, I hated hated hated hated hated hated the Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards shit. I just wanted to see my usual cartoons and that shit was wasting time slots.

[QUOTE=xZippy;53193160]As a kid, I hated hated hated hated hated hated the Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards shit. I just wanted to see my usual cartoons and that shit was wasting time slots.[/QUOTE] I don't know why they had this. I mean we have a total professional awards shows dedicated to TV shows and kids get "The Choice Awards?"

Rockstar North should hire Sergeant_Mark_IV so as to make GTA 6's combat more chunkier... and redder.

[QUOTE=flashn00b;53193245]Rockstar North should hire Sergeant_Mark_IV so as to make GTA 6's combat more chunkier... and redder.[/QUOTE] Better opinion: Sergeant_Mark_IV should be fired from modding altogether. Brutal Doom is mediocre poorly coded garbage that doesn't really add much to the gameplay of Doom. On top of that Mark is a shitty person with shitty ethics regarding his modding to begin with. He has a history of stealing shit from others and not crediting them for it. Edit: Also Doom modding experience doesn't equate to proper programming experience anyways.

I enjoy playing Brutal Doom without associating it with Sergeant_Mark_IV's shitty morals and attitude. Fuckin' fight me

i don't believe Grigori Rasputin was a mastermind who was trying to take over the government. instead, i think it's more likely that he was just a simple crazy man that liked to drink and party and indulge in sin.

cool ranch doritos is overrated

here's an unpopular opinion Debate is virtually never productive, but the .01% that is is absolutely vital for world-scale decision-making.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53193470]here's an unpopular opinion Debate is virtually never productive, but the .01% that is is absolutely vital for world-scale decision-making.[/QUOTE] Speeches are pretty useless too most of the time

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;53193453]cool ranch doritos is overrated[/QUOTE] bro u wanna take this outside?

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;53193453]cool ranch doritos is overrated[/QUOTE] They're one of the worst flavours by far.