Quote:
Originally Posted by mgtarheels
No, I just choose not to debate with someone that clearly uses both selective reasoning and logical fallacies. I presume you don't just sit and talk to walls all day expecting a response, do you?
Now, you're denying the following is Ad hom?
"tell ya what - I'll tie one hand behind my back, just for you."
Let me make it extremely easy for you to understand ad hom.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
You did it to Green, now you're trying with me.
There's a reason you completely ignored my reply to you supplying exactly what you asked for, reverted to another post of mine and replied with ad hom.
|
then you define the terms and subject of the debate, and I'll abide.
Sure I'm arrogant, but your side has it's own share of dismissive arrogance to explain, if arogance is going to be used as the point of judgement.
you make claims such as "There's a reason you completely ignored my reply to you supplying exactly what you asked for, reverted to another post of mine and replied with ad hom" - yet you dont ever clearly say to me what you want me to argue. For instance, I have no idea what you are saying I ignored, nor do I have any idea of what you think was ad hominem.
My counterargument is, you are being unclear deliberately, because you understand the weaknesses of your own arguments, and dirtying the water is a classic debate tactic when one doubts ones own position.
pick anything, make a clear debateable statement about it, and I'll debate it.
altho, I have to go soon, and probably wont be back till later.