• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thought id say hello

pdoherty76 said:
stella could u please prove to me that it isnt about winning or losing?

where is ur evidence?

What sources do you have to show that it isnt about winning and losing?
Click to expand...
I can answer that. Look at all the links to solid information I gave you in our debate thread. I can't make you look at them, but there they are. I didn't assemble that information for my health, pd. I did it for you.

On the other hand, you came here with the idea that you would "destroy" all of us. But what information did you provide?

Please think about that.
 
There are few things in life that go through me like fingernails on a chalkboard. One of them is using IM shortcuts outside of IM

It tells me the author:

1. Is an idiot
2. Has no respect for the language
3. Has no respect for those reading their crap
4. Is lazy
5. Prefers shortcuts to thoroughness

Maybe that's just me though.
 
gravy i do respect ur research much as i might disparage u.

My problem was with the little generalisations u put in about all truthers. ur building arguments are good and ur convincing me about building 7

this forum just amazes my because i have never been exposed to this "show me the proof" tactic before. i admit its rigorous but when i try the same thing back people dont like it.

there is suckh thing as circumstantial evidence which is ad missible in court
 
yes but the first thing you will hear, is...

"His case is weak, because it is purely circumstancial.".

You don't hear that when you have a signed confession, witnesses, and the murder weapon.

TAM
 
pdoherty76 said:
stella could oo please prove to me that it isnt about winning or losing?

where is oor evidence?

What sources do you have to show that it isnt about winning and losing?
Click to expand...
PD, if you pay attention here, you just might learn something. Whether it's more important to someone to win a debate, or to have a fun conversation, is a matter of opinion. Whether it's better to have love or money is a matter of opinion. Your favorite color is a matter of opinion.

There is a huge difference between matters of opinion, and matters of fact. Whether a crime was committed by a certain individual is a factual matter. Whether psychics really talk to the dead is a factual matter. The difference is that an individual either committed the crime or not, your task is to use evidence to figure out which is right. For that, you need evidence and reason. Gut feelings have a terrible track record for leading people to the wrong answer.

If you want to discuss factual things with this group, you need to rely on evidence and reason. So far, you've been avoiding those as if they're not important. But that's the difference between "critical thinking" and otherwise.
 
pdoherty76 said:
Yesterday, 08:38 PM -- Thought id say hello...
Click to expand...

pdoherty76 said:
Yesterday, 08:52 PM time for me to leave i think....
Click to expand...

(Just curious -- is that a new record? 14 minutes??)

Seriously though, I'm surprised and glad that this one has stuck around this long. After all, this is an educational Forum and he may be learning something about proper debate techniques.
 
pdoherty76 said:
this forum just amazes my because i have never been exposed to this "show me the proof" tactic before. i admit its rigorous but when i try the same thing back people dont like it.
Click to expand...

If you're asking for evidence when people tell you their favorite color is green, then they won't like it. If someone tells you that they came to work on board an alien spaceship, you're right to ask for evidence.

It's probably time to introduce you to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, useful for detecting fraudulent or fallacious arguments:

  • Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
  • Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  • Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
  • Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  • Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
  • Quantify, wherever possible.
  • If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
  • Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
  • Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom