Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 30, 2003, 09:07 am

Why is that those that do not have the guts to offer their own reasoning are the first to attack anothers reasoning? If you have everything worked out before you venture your opinion, what is the point of debate, is it not the areana on which to test ideas?

I am tired of critics that venture some philosophy where another has done all the thinking for them, and then 'defend' that opinion by attacking minor points of form. It may be different if they actually presented some of their own form to suffer simular attack, but they tend to be to cowardly, or to aware of their own failings to attempt that.

So, I will go on taking my lumps, with the satisfaction of knowing that I carry my own sword, but I do tire of facing intellectual despots that hide behind their chosen champions...

Section 8 · Sep 30, 2003, 12:19 pm

I don't think that I know everything, far from it. Some of my arguments are very badly constructed. This is why I use volconvo as a conduit in order to test my debates and to refine them. I post alot of links, simply because they can say it better than me. I usually post to learn, not neccessarily to debate. I do debate alot. Sometimes I get pissed and then my argument sounds really shitty, but my debating skills have definently improved.

Have Fun
Shalom

RebelWithanAK · Sep 30, 2003, 12:34 pm

Greatwyrm, the vast majority of people on these 'debate' forums - this site and others - are high school and college-aged, testing their boundaries of knowledge in an open free-for-all (tho there really should be some moderation, SEAN), and as such we really can't practice what we preach, since it's truly a developmental stage. Of course, that doesn't stop me and others from going to protests, looking for government internships and the like, but you're not talking to career politicians and trained professionals here.

That, and it's not like the older generation doesn't have more than its fair share of pseudo-intellectuals.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 7, 2003, 12:47 am

Actually the definition has narrowed itself down:
A) Experts on philosophy that will not even lay claim to a philospophy.
B) People that claim they argue constructively, but prove that falsehood by refusing to post anything that could be attacked by low-road arguement.
(for people that do not use low-road debate, they sure know it well...)
C) Those that claim being up front and honest, but have no e-mail addy listed...

RebelWithanAK · Oct 7, 2003, 01:58 am

Quote:

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@10-06-2003 11:47 PM
Actually the definition has narrowed itself down:
A) Experts on philosophy that will not even lay claim to a philospophy.
B) People that claim they argue constructively, but prove that falsehood by refusing to post anything that could be attacked by low-road arguement.
(for people that do not use low-road debate, they sure know it well...)
C) Those that claim being up front and honest, but have no e-mail addy listed...

A) Oh, give it up already. You started the argument by stating your side. We asked you to clarify. You didn't. Similarly, there are plenty of socialism topics started by Sec 8 and G. Adams that you've sniped at, while giving no alternative of your own.

B) You take all forms of criticism to be undue. This is not the way of debate.

C) How dare you insist that anybody has to tell you anything about their personal info? Who the hell do you think you are?!

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 7, 2003, 02:27 am

Quote:

A) Oh, give it up already. You started the argument by stating your side. We asked you to clarify. You didn't. Similarly, there are plenty of socialism topics started by Sec 8 and G. Adams that you've sniped at, while giving no alternative of your own.

I did not set myself up as The authority on debate so such behavior by me is not a contradiction, I never said I do not do that. I have only stated that I prefer not to.

Quote:

B) You take all forms of criticism to be undue. This is not the way of debate.

Then what is it you are doing here? Patting me on the back? It is not rational to contradict the point you are making in the same sentence, it looks ignorant.

Quote:

C) How dare you insist that anybody has to tell you anything about their personal info? Who the hell do you think you are?!

You are sure quick to take an implication when it suits you. Now that we have established that you are capable of understanding implications when I write, apply it to the rest of what I write. And quit beating around the bush with stupid obtuse clarifications. :)

But remember:
What reason is, is not up to democratic vote. IOW: I do not give a damn how many of you there are, I will only be swayed by proof not numbers. Quit tossing up the fact that their are more of you, this implies that you think that "might makes right".

**Sean** · Oct 7, 2003, 01:00 pm

Why don't you just say you're topic is about Geoff? Easy with the attacks guys.

I understand that the opinions are going to contrast here all the time, but there's no need to get so personal.

I'll be keeping an eye out for these sort of things since it keeps new people from wanting to register, and current members from wanting to post.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 7, 2003, 09:09 pm

Sean
Because it is about Geoff, Adams, and (to a lesser degree) FedFem...
...this is the rant forum is it not?

I got no problem with the folks that take their turn in the hotseat, like section8, Fallen Angel, and even Sodfather. But pure critics that never offer an opinion of their own? Why do they even claim they are debating if they have no opinions?

But, I can take a hint. I will refrain from continuing to give them a taste of their own medicine. If they have nothing to offer I will ignore them. I will defend myself, but will not bother to seek them out.

G. Adams · Oct 8, 2003, 07:05 am

I do have opinions, but sometimes I don't like spending a two hour session answering in correct detail each an every post that interests me.

castille · Oct 16, 2003, 10:52 am

There are many people who criticise issues, but have never been close to the issues. I call them the "armchair debaters", because they've never tried to explore their opinion by experience.

Its good to formulate your own opinion, but keep in mind that unless you experience it, your "opinion" will be derived mainly from academic sources. And remember Adolf Hitler is also considered an academic source....

You should try to at least come close to the issue. Hate war? Join the Army Reserve part-time for a few months (you can discharge if you dislike it). Criticising capitalism? Talk with a few business owners, and ask about their experiences. Hate Jews and Israel? Talk to a few Israelis who've been there and know what its like.

G. Adams · Oct 16, 2003, 12:30 pm

I'd agree with you on the experience of the last two points, but joining the military to find out whether war is good or bad? I don't like murder, but you know I can't be sure till i've tried it...

fedfem · Oct 16, 2003, 01:56 pm

[quote=GreatWyrm of Babylon,]Sean
Because it is about Geoff, Adams, and (to a lesser degree) FedFem...
...this is the rant forum is it not?

I just found this post, sorry for the delay in responding. I try to to stick to debating topics that I can present facts to back up my opinion. When I post my opinion, I try to offer my reasoning and await a response to any holes in my reasoning. If someone reasons out their opinion using a fallacy, I simply point it out, as I expect them to do to mine.

I personally try to stay away from personal attacks upon philosophy or such. I come here with a thick skin and thought others did too. In all fairness to you though, I have made a few posts to test the thickness.

I will have a one on one 'reasoned' debate with you if you would like. You pick the topic.

Waychel · Oct 16, 2003, 02:24 pm

I feel the same way. It annoys me like crazy when I enter into a debate with someone, only to have them copy and paste me some article written by another person on that topic as a response. ESPECIALLY when that article is nothing but ad hominem !@#$. That just seems cowardly to me, not to mention rude. If you're so lazy that you're just going to copy and paste the thoughts of somebody else in a debate, then what are you even doing here?

G. Adams · Oct 16, 2003, 03:38 pm

Sometimes other people can argue a point you fully agree with much better than you. We arn't all blessed with the writing ability of Kafka here you know.

Waychel · Oct 17, 2003, 03:28 am

Then write your own argument and quote the person throughout to further demonstrate your points. I mean look at it from my perspective: How would you feel if, in a debate on Capitalism, my argument was to copy and paste you the entirety of The Wealth of Nations in response?

Impenitent · Oct 17, 2003, 10:31 am

never can get enough of that "Wealth of Nations"...

as long as you don't paste books with which "I" disagree, it's ok...

oh... style points for sarcasm...

G. Adams · Oct 17, 2003, 04:21 pm

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Then write your own argument and quote the person throughout to further demonstrate your points. I mean look at it from my perspective: How would you feel if, in a debate on Capitalism, my argument was to copy and paste you the entirety of The Wealth of Nations in response?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I wasn't defending people who do that, I was just saying that sometimes other people say it much better than we can, and so we use them.

If someone posts that much from someone else I don't even look. Give a link then develop your own point afterwoods, and then I'll even be bothered to read your link. But when someone cut and pastes I go zooming down to the end to find their point.

castille · Oct 20, 2003, 11:43 am

What I find ironic is the majority of people complaining about poverty are pampered middle-class youths!

They've never seen the poor....visit the central sections of Tianjin? I've got a few interesting photos of those days, although I hope none of the youth revolutionaries faint after seeing them.

Their experience of the poor is confined to their minds and the media (and ancient books). Talk about "armchair humanitarians"....

Waychel · Oct 20, 2003, 01:30 pm

LOL!

I feel the same way.. or the people who complain about how horrible and greedy the US is are benefiting from it's wealth themselves by living here in the first place.

G. Adams · Oct 20, 2003, 03:53 pm

What I found funny is the way some business owners complain about how hard their work is, when by the time they hit 40 they are rolling in money, yet most their workers never reach 40 because they die of dysentry, malnutrition or accidents at work.

Sep 30, 2003, 09:07 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Why is that those that do not have the guts to offer their own reasoning are the first to attack anothers reasoning? If you have everything worked out before you venture your opinion, what is the point of debate, is it not the areana on which to test ideas? I am tired of critics that venture some philosophy where another has done all the thinking for them, and then 'defend' that opinion by attacking minor points of form. It may be different if they actually presented some of their own form to suffer simular attack, but they tend to be to cowardly, or to aware of their own failings to attempt that. So, I will go on taking my lumps, with the satisfaction of knowing that I carry my own sword, but I do tire of facing intellectual despots that hide behind their chosen champions... Logical Fallicies Link

Sep 30, 2003, 12:34 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Greatwyrm, the vast majority of people on these 'debate' forums - this site and others - are high school and college-aged, testing their boundaries of knowledge in an open free-for-all (tho there really should be some moderation, SEAN), and as such we really can't practice what we preach, since it's truly a developmental stage. Of course, that doesn't stop me and others from going to protests, looking for government internships and the like, but you're not talking to career politicians and trained professionals here. That, and it's not like the older generation doesn't have more than its fair share of pseudo-intellectuals. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 7, 2003, 12:47 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Actually the definition has narrowed itself down: A) Experts on philosophy that will not even lay claim to a philospophy. B) People that claim they argue constructively, but prove that falsehood by refusing to post anything that could be attacked by low-road arguement. (for people that do not use low-road debate, they sure know it well...) C) Those that claim being up front and honest, but have no e-mail addy listed... Logical Fallicies Link

Oct 7, 2003, 01:00 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	Why don't you just say you're topic is about Geoff? Easy with the attacks guys. I understand that the opinions are going to contrast here all the time, but there's no need to get so personal. I'll be keeping an eye out for these sort of things since it keeps new people from wanting to register, and current members from wanting to post. So it goes

Oct 8, 2003, 07:05 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	I do have opinions, but sometimes I don't like spending a two hour session answering in correct detail each an every post that interests me. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Sep 30, 2003, 12:19 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	I don't think that I know everything, far from it. Some of my arguments are very badly constructed. This is why I use volconvo as a conduit in order to test my debates and to refine them. I post alot of links, simply because they can say it better than me. I usually post to learn, not neccessarily to debate. I do debate alot. Sometimes I get pissed and then my argument sounds really shitty, but my debating skills have definently improved. Have Fun Shalom

Oct 7, 2003, 09:09 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Sean Because it is about Geoff, Adams, and (to a lesser degree) FedFem... ...this is the rant forum is it not? I got no problem with the folks that take their turn in the hotseat, like section8, Fallen Angel, and even Sodfather. But pure critics that never offer an opinion of their own? Why do they even claim they are debating if they have no opinions? But, I can take a hint. I will refrain from continuing to give them a taste of their own medicine. If they have nothing to offer I will ignore them. I will defend myself, but will not bother to seek them out.

Oct 16, 2003, 10:52 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	There are many people who criticise issues, but have never been close to the issues. I call them the "armchair debaters", because they've never tried to explore their opinion by experience. Its good to formulate your own opinion, but keep in mind that unless you experience it, your "opinion" will be derived mainly from academic sources. And remember Adolf Hitler is also considered an academic source.... You should try to at least come close to the issue. Hate war? Join the Army Reserve part-time for a few months (you can discharge if you dislike it). Criticising capitalism? Talk with a few business owners, and ask about their experiences. Hate Jews and Israel? Talk to a few Israelis who've been there and know what its like. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 16, 2003, 12:30 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	I'd agree with you on the experience of the last two points, but joining the military to find out whether war is good or bad? I don't like murder, but you know I can't be sure till i've tried it... Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 16, 2003, 01:56 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	[quote=GreatWyrm of Babylon,]Sean Because it is about Geoff, Adams, and (to a lesser degree) FedFem... ...this is the rant forum is it not? I just found this post, sorry for the delay in responding. I try to to stick to debating topics that I can present facts to back up my opinion. When I post my opinion, I try to offer my reasoning and await a response to any holes in my reasoning. If someone reasons out their opinion using a fallacy, I simply point it out, as I expect them to do to mine. I personally try to stay away from personal attacks upon philosophy or such. I come here with a thick skin and thought others did too. In all fairness to you though, I have made a few posts to test the thickness. I will have a one on one 'reasoned' debate with you if you would like. You pick the topic.

Oct 16, 2003, 02:24 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I feel the same way. It annoys me like crazy when I enter into a debate with someone, only to have them copy and paste me some article written by another person on that topic as a response. ESPECIALLY when that article is nothing but ad hominem !@#$. That just seems cowardly to me, not to mention rude. If you're so lazy that you're just going to copy and paste the thoughts of somebody else in a debate, then what are you even doing here?

Oct 16, 2003, 03:38 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	Sometimes other people can argue a point you fully agree with much better than you. We arn't all blessed with the writing ability of Kafka here you know. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 17, 2003, 03:28 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Then write your own argument and quote the person throughout to further demonstrate your points. I mean look at it from my perspective: How would you feel if, in a debate on Capitalism, my argument was to copy and paste you the entirety of The Wealth of Nations in response?

Oct 17, 2003, 10:31 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	never can get enough of that "Wealth of Nations"... as long as you don't paste books with which "I" disagree, it's ok... oh... style points for sarcasm... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 17, 2003, 04:21 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Then write your own argument and quote the person throughout to further demonstrate your points. I mean look at it from my perspective: How would you feel if, in a debate on Capitalism, my argument was to copy and paste you the entirety of The Wealth of Nations in response?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I wasn't defending people who do that, I was just saying that sometimes other people say it much better than we can, and so we use them. If someone posts that much from someone else I don't even look. Give a link then develop your own point afterwoods, and then I'll even be bothered to read your link. But when someone cut and pastes I go zooming down to the end to find their point. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 20, 2003, 11:43 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	What I find ironic is the majority of people complaining about poverty are pampered middle-class youths! They've never seen the poor....visit the central sections of Tianjin? I've got a few interesting photos of those days, although I hope none of the youth revolutionaries faint after seeing them. Their experience of the poor is confined to their minds and the media (and ancient books). Talk about "armchair humanitarians".... Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 20, 2003, 01:30 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	LOL! I feel the same way.. or the people who complain about how horrible and greedy the US is are benefiting from it's wealth themselves by living here in the first place.

Oct 20, 2003, 03:53 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	What I found funny is the way some business owners complain about how hard their work is, when by the time they hit 40 they are rolling in money, yet most their workers never reach 40 because they die of dysentry, malnutrition or accidents at work. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill