posted by
takyon
on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:30PM
An Anonymous Coward writes:
"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. It's not enough to express sympathy. You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." - President Obama.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:46PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:46PM (#199217)
Non sequitur. Someone doesn't 'concede' merely because they don't like your use of a language or don't assume they can guess what you're thinking.
I'm not sure about that. Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults, its fair to say that if somebody uses an interpretation that nobody else would just to suit their argument that they're equivocating, and the intentional usage of fallacies to support one's argument oly occurs when there are no valid ones left; with no valid arguments left, they have in essence conceded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:20AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22 2015, @02:20AM (#199256)
Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults
Also a non sequitur. They only concede when they say they concede, by definition. Unless you think you can read thoughts. These are just arbitrary 'rules' placed on debates that make no sense in reality.
I don't like it when theists tell me I actually believe in god in my heart. I wouldn't like it if someone told me I "conceded" because I violated some arbitrary debate rule they or others made up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:08AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:08AM (#199675)
If somebody's argument is only supported by fallacies it is invalid by definition. No matter how long you continue pushing your invalid position, it will remain invalid. An invalid argument is one that has been conceded by default.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:35AM
Arguing with a turn of phrase does not somehow invalidate the original point.
Maybe people should be more clear.
If you have to devolve to literalistic pedantry to defend your position, you've already conceded.
Non sequitur. Someone doesn't 'concede' merely because they don't like your use of a language or don't assume they can guess what you're thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:46PM
I'm not sure about that. Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults, its fair to say that if somebody uses an interpretation that nobody else would just to suit their argument that they're equivocating, and the intentional usage of fallacies to support one's argument oly occurs when there are no valid ones left; with no valid arguments left, they have in essence conceded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:20AM
Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults
Also a non sequitur. They only concede when they say they concede, by definition. Unless you think you can read thoughts. These are just arbitrary 'rules' placed on debates that make no sense in reality.
I don't like it when theists tell me I actually believe in god in my heart. I wouldn't like it if someone told me I "conceded" because I violated some arbitrary debate rule they or others made up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:08AM
If somebody's argument is only supported by fallacies it is invalid by definition. No matter how long you continue pushing your invalid position, it will remain invalid. An invalid argument is one that has been conceded by default.