How to win arguments

Septembri seems to have disappeared. I hope it wasn't something I said.

Well, BoGoWo, it's really because the missionaries always have a position.

Ten Possible Explanations for Septembri's Sudden Disappearance

10. He is tied to a washboard and holding himself under water while forcing a light-stick where illumination is rare in order to verify that torture and real fun are both entirely subjective categories.
9. A tragic accident involving a bookshelf overweighted with votive candles and a handcarved plywood effigy of Judge Posner.
8. He is presently being interrogated by Homeland Security who wish to clairify certain confusions regarding why, when he was stopped in a roadside, he had fourteen driver's licences.
7. He is not actually disappeared at all, but among us now, in a very slinky couture item which, he is personally assured, exposes just the right amount of thigh (nothing too vulgar, but the men ARE looking).
6. His analyst has clubbed him with everything handy.
5. He's presently occupied in a family meeting and his mother is clubbing him with everything handy.
4. He'll be back just as soon as he finds the printout of his passwords. It shouldn't take long, as the pages stack two feet high.
3. He has been banned from the site for concise and relevant argumentation.
2. He has taken 20 dollars from his savings account and with it has purchased Canada so as to hunt me down like a dog.
1. Unilateral pre-emptive rapture.

I love number 3 there, blatham.

I just thought of another one, though this has become less of a 'way to win an argument' and more of "how to sidetrack a thread so the argument doesn't occur' (with a little welcome jocularity thrown in):

One tactic that is quite effective is to focus on any technicality in a poster's remarks: a misspelled word, a grammatical error, or any virtually irrelevant point and criticize the poster or demand clarification of the virtually irrelevant point. Very quickly the thread will veer off the original intent with a pretty good chance that the original thesis will not be visited again.

Your careless use of a single quote after the word "occur" is more proof that this post has no merit at all, and in fact says a lot about your lack of intelligence.

And by the way,you need to get laid.

:wink:

Foxfyre,

Since you just now recused yourself from substantiating your position claiming you were convinced yet didn't want to substantiate it because I'd find a "technicallity" (i.e. a falsehood that you do not wish to address) I can't help but think your above comments are about me.

I'd been fine with letting it go and then came here to see this. I think you are being disingenuous Foxfyre, but I plan to move on. Just let me know next time you request to "drop" a discussion but really plan to go disparage elsewhere.

Later

To Kicky:
Well okay on the first point.'
Also the second.....just on general principles.
Think I'll check on that.

To Craven:
Not really though I'll admit our last exchange brought the topic back to mind. But it wasn't targeted at you specifically. It does get tedious being nitpicked to death when I think my intent is obvious whether or not it is worded as another might word it. And it is frustrating when said nitpicking results in the original thesis not being discussed.

But you know I love ya. And you certainly aren't the only one who likes to debate that way.

Well, and then there's backing off from an erroneous submission by retrogressively claiming you were, in fact, talking about something else - and maintaining that anyone who points out the erroneousness of your submission thus is just merely and malevolently nitpicking, so there's no reason for you to acknowledge any error, whatsoever.

Thats always one sure-fire way to insert just enough of a bitter taste and protracted argument in a thread to sidetrack it for a serious length of time.

I observe this in a general kind of way, you understand.

But nitpicking IS the big problem on all these threads.

Pictures from Abu Ghraib...nits all. Memos from the Justice Department advising that, surprise, torture and homocide are just as legal and as American as apple strudel after all....more nits. That under the Great Uniter we ain't...stop with the damn nits!

Well Nimh, if Craven deserved to have the undisputed nitpicking medal, I'd give it to him. But he certainly is not the only guilty one.

In an exchange today, no matter what I said, he found something wrong with the way I said it and suggested I was untruthful or disingenuos or something like that. And that reminded me how much I hated that and as the thread where it happened wasn't appropriate for this discussion, I came here where it was appropriate.

That of course made it appear that I abandoned the other thread out of angst and came here specifically to get revenge. Had the situation been reversed I probably would have thought revenge was the motive too so I don't fault Craven for thinking that, though that honestly was not the motive.

However, I will probably be informed, again, that I am being disingenuous since so many here purport to read minds and decipher motives, but I have to be very careful about the word I choose to object to that too.....

That's the way it goes sometimes, and, well, maybe I'm making sense. I honestly try not to be contentuous, but I guess I'm not very good at it.

Nobody thinks you are being contentious. Contentious is fine. But you are disengenuous, and commonly so. And you equally commonly misrepresent what others say to you. People point these things out to you because you do them.

Well I'd rather be contentuous than disingenuous as I believe what I say I mean, and I mean what I say. That you don't believe that doesn't surprise me. (Don't forget how immoral I am.)

Oh well, I'm getting angry now and I don't like that so I will go do the laundry or something. Bye.

Been there, done that ... I, too, was in a fracas like that, and later vented about it on another thread - hell, on another site. My adversary, who also frequented that other site, saw that as malicious gossiping and cowardly revenge-taking. <shrugs> - I can see why he would think so, but I don't think it was, but we will just have to disagree about it. So I know where you're coming from.

However, it is fair practice here to acknowledge it when you have stated a falsehood that someone took offence to, when he comes with proof of its erroneousness. Now some falsehoods can be discussed endlessly (9/11, revenues, all that) - because even if there is an objective truth, you disagree about what it is. Of course, when someone asks you to substantiate an assertion you present as fact, when it is in fact is a matter of contention, then its polite to do so - but then again, sometimes, too little time too many challenges. But when you write, for example, that everyone here or noone here has said / acknowledged / etc something, and someone calls you on it, citing an example showing that somebody did say / acknowledge / etc - then its just rude to ignore it.

Eg, when you state that people here "always ignore" 9/11 when they talk of Bush's job losses, when someone here just extensively explained to you how he factors in the role of 9/11, weighs it and its various consequences, and concludes that it didnt impact the economy the way you think it did, then thats just a blatant falsehood. Cause he didnt ignore 9/11's impact, he just disagreed about it with you. Someone like you should be able to appreciate the difference. And if, the moment someone points that out to you, you go, "well I dont want to talk about it anymore - all this nitpicking here!" - well, how do you think one would react? Whats the use of discussing with each other, then, anyway?

Mind you, lotsa people here aren't much use discussing with. <shrugs>

Nimh, are you referring to Thomas? I did have a discussion of him but I would NEVER accuse Thomas of being either contentuous or snide. And we certainly did have a pleasant discussion about it that got sidetracked. I wasn't even thinking about him when I posted that thread. (Did I have the discussion with him before I posted it? I can't remember.)

If you refer to Craven, the discussion with him re 9/11 was triggered by the post.

It's a catch 22 though. If I add commentary to a posted thesis for a thread, unless I say something so benign (and boring) nobody can attack it, I am criticized for the commentary. If I don't add commentary, I am criticized for that.

I can't win.

Yes you can. But you have to slow down with the typing. And...
- don't use generalizations "liberals think"...they are never true, they are just easy
- hesistate before insisting you 'know' something when there's no way you could know it any more than anyone else (what is in George Bush's mind)
- acknowledge that 'proof' is simply not available for much in what we might be discussing (existence of god....big footprints?)

foxy; that's the 'very' point; in an argument, no one can 'win'!

that's why they try soooooo very hard.

There is nothing like assured failure to bring out the 'big guns'!

[now why don't we concentrate on having violent 'agreements', where everyone wins?]

[Craven could start an "Agreement" forum - a couple of hundred years from now! ]