Arguments, Debates, Discussions, and how you're doing them wrong. - General

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;26206271]Can I please ask you to stop retroactively changing your post? That's an awfully bad practice in the midst of a discussion.[/QUOTE] Fuck, sorry, I get this OCD over what I post and every time I read it I see something I don't like. I need to start using the preview window before I post, because I never get my point across just right the first time it seems.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;26206142]i feel that its a perfect example :colbert:[/QUOTE] Well, a scientific issue or a historical issue is probably the most effective, because in both cases evidence usually conclusively points to an answer. Whereas in theology, there is no empirical evidence to support either claim, and while it is scientifically "correct" to be skeptical, there is still a larger chance that both sides are right and wrong.

OP is a faggot and I hate him and the pope must be crucified raaargh brb listening to linkin park.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26206280]I love debates. If people just stick to what they know, and never listen to what other people have to say, they get nowhere.[/QUOTE] you mean like in that second example of yours?

[QUOTE=Kybalt;26206090]political issues definitely have a right and wrong because typically only one side has actual evidence supporting it.[/QUOTE] I don't think all political issues have a right and wrong. I mean, I'm a union man, I support the parties that protect the working man, but obviously there are pitfalls with any political party that puts it proletariat above it's bourgeoisie. Hence there is no definite 'correct' answer there.

[QUOTE=Chrille;26206354]you mean like in that second example of yours?[/QUOTE] Pretty much, yeah. [QUOTE=strayebyrd;26206379]I don't think all political issues have a right and wrong. I mean, I'm a union man, I support the parties that protect the working man, but obviously there are pitfalls with any political party that puts it proletariat above it's bourgeoisie. Hence there is no definite 'correct' answer there.[/QUOTE] If political issues had a definite right and wrong, I don't think the supporters on both sides would be so evenly matched. It's all absolutely up to personal opinion.

[QUOTE=Billiam;26206313]Well, a scientific issue or a historical issue is probably the most effective, because in both cases evidence usually conclusively points to an answer. Whereas in theology, there is no empirical evidence to support either claim, and while it is scientifically "correct" to be skeptical, there is still a larger chance that both sides are right and wrong.[/QUOTE] contrarily, its very easy to make believing in god reflect badly on a person simply by proving that believing in god is illogical. since we as a society place great value on logic and things being logical, when you can prove that someone's belief is illogical, then you can have then concede that their entire belief is based on faith and absolutely no evidence. however, some will try to bring out evidence of god, which can easily be debunked but is quite tedious. the point is, you dont need empirical evidence to prove believing in god is illogical. [editline]21st November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=strayebyrd;26206379]I don't think all political issues have a right and wrong. I mean, I'm a union man, I support the parties that protect the working man, but obviously there are pitfalls with any political party that puts it proletariat above it's bourgeoisie. Hence there is no definite 'correct' answer there.[/QUOTE] democratic socialism works. socialism works. national healthcare works. societies that have those are generally better (happiness, crime rate, life expectancy) therefore those are better then other ideas.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;26206474]contrarily, its very easy to make believing in god reflect badly on a person simply by proving that believing in god is illogical. since we as a society place great value on logic and things being logical, when you can prove that someone's belief is illogical, then you can have then concede that their entire belief is based on faith and absolutely no evidence. however, some will try to bring out evidence of god, which can easily be debunked but is quite tedious. the point is, you dont need empirical evidence to prove believing in god is illogical. [editline]21st November 2010[/editline] democratic socialism works. socialism works. national healthcare works. societies that have those are generally better (happiness, crime rate, life expectancy) therefore those are better then other ideas.[/QUOTE] It is illogical to believe in a god, I wont argue that. But at the same time, isn't it also illogical to just say "No there is no god I am completely right"? What if you're wrong? How do you know for sure? This is why I'm an agnostic. I don't believe there's ever only one "right" answer to questions like this. The only thing we can do is gather evidence, without making conclusions based on it.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;26206474]contrarily, its very easy to make believing in god reflect badly on a person simply by proving that believing in god is illogical. since we as a society place great value on logic and things being logical, when you can prove that someone's belief is illogical, then you can have then concede that their entire belief is based on faith and absolutely no evidence. however, some will try to bring out evidence of god, which can easily be debunked but is quite tedious. the point is, you dont need empirical evidence to prove believing in god is illogical.[/QUOTE] And what if a person claims that he or she has seen God in his physically form? A logical argument only doesn't work on a person like that. An empirical evidence argument will probably fail as well, but at least you have a shot now.

The problem here is that on Facepunch, everyone states their opinion and rates all disagreers dumb.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26206564]It is illogical to believe in a god, I wont argue that. But at the same time, isn't it also illogical to just say "No there is no god I am completely right"? What if you're wrong? How do you know for sure? This is why I'm an agnostic. I don't believe there's ever only one "right" answer to questions like this. The only thing we can do is gather evidence, without making conclusions based on it.[/QUOTE] of course its impossible to know. its impossible to know anything for certain, and beyond that, god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. im an agnostic atheist/antitheist. however, the simple fact that it's unfalsifiable makes it illogical to believe.

You can't expect 12-year olds to have proper and civilized arguments, OP.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;26206474] democratic socialism works. socialism works. national healthcare works. societies that have those are generally better (happiness, crime rate, life expectancy) therefore those are better then other ideas.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, but I'm referring to the individual rather than the entire countries benefit. To give another example, there's a person in my college who is a BNP supporter, his dad was in the national front. An argument would typically go him: I don't want those fuckin' (various slurs against asians) in my country me: why not? They don't really have a negative effect on you do they? him: no but I can't stand them me: why not? him: because I can't. Why can you stand them? me: because I can, they haven't done anything wrong to me. Now obviously I think he is wrong, but it's an opinion, so noone is incorrect there.

[QUOTE=SovietAssault;26206642]You can't expect 12-year olds to have proper and civilized arguments, OP.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah? Well you're STUPID!

Argumenting is not beneficial to both parties, it has to be beneficial to those surrounding them. Argumenting is to express your opinion and showing how the others arguments are wrong.

I try to not call any one names in an argument, but sadly i lose a lot of arguments because of that, when some one just calls me stupid and says it to every response i just give up and then they say they win. I hate it

GJ OP you made this a religion thread

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;26208272]GJ OP you made this a religion thread[/QUOTE] That's fine. So far it hasn't turned into a shitstorm. It gives a good basis to discuss the topic of the thread at the same time.

Thats not how you debate, you misinformed twat.

[QUOTE=Kingy_who;26208328]Thats not how you debate, you misinformed twat.[/QUOTE] The first bit was fine, everything after the comma was pointless.

Your trying to swim upriver OP.

[QUOTE=Ninjarooster;26208465]Your trying to swim upriver OP.[/QUOTE] you're

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26208437]The first bit was fine, everything after the comma was pointless.[/QUOTE] Where's that Simpsons Arnold standup image macro when you need it.

[QUOTE=Kingy_who;26208566]Where's that Simpsons Arnold standup image macro when you need it.[/QUOTE] [img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090819180841/uncyclopedia/images/1/13/Thats_the_joke.jpg[/img]

Touché

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26205710]Well, I'm not so sure about that. I'm of the opinion that arguments should be about unbiased discussion, where both sides learn something about each other, and that trying to change somebodies opinion is an enormous waste of time.[/QUOTE] you clearly have never been to france.