The Argument Thread

[vidbid]

Response.

@vidbid

Note: Previous denial applicable to all statements of "FAILED ATTEMPT AT SARCASM"

DENIED.

• ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

[Armagdn03]

DENIED.

• STATEMENT VEILED AS QUESTION

DENIED - APPEAL TO A NON FACTOR Original statement was made in reference to "ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE" which is not intrinsically associated with "STATEMENT VEILED AS QUESTION"

[Armagdn03]

DENIED

• FALLACIOUS ATTEMPT AT ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM OR THE INVERSE.

DENIED

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM or "Appeal to the People" is inaplicable when reference was in relation to statistical significance of an opinion (reference wording "attempt")

It is possible to argue Argumentum ad Numerum" or appeal to numbers, however this cannot be considered the inverse of the aforementioned.

[vidbid]

Response.

DENIED - APPEAL TO A NON FACTOR Original statement was made in reference to "ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE" which is not intrinsically associated with "STATEMENT VEILED AS QUESTION"

DENIED.

STATEMENT VEILED AS QUESTION ATTRIBUTED TO

Which contentious poster started this contentious thread?

[Armagdn03]

DENIED.

• ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

DENIED

Denial in question references statement "Note: Previous denial applicable to all statements of "FAILED ATTEMPT AT SARCASM""

Aforementioned statement is an example of statement of application, where no supporting "facts" are given. Therefore the previous denial of this per "ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE" is not applicable, possible diversionary tactic.

[vidbid]

Response.

DENIED It is possible to argue Argumentum ad Numerum" or appeal to numbers

ADMITTED.

QUALIFICATION: ABOVE QUOTED PORTION ONLY.

[Armagdn03]

DENIED.

STATEMENT VEILED AS QUESTION ATTRIBUTED TO

DENIED

FALSE ASSUMPTION
DECEPTION VIA MISLABELING OR MISNAMING THINGS

Original message = statement, not question. "STATEMENT VEILED AS QUESTION ATTRIBUTED" references a question, with intention of statement.

[vidbid]

DENIED

Denial in question references statement "Note: Previous denial applicable to all statements of "FAILED ATTEMPT AT SARCASM"

DENIED.

• ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

[vidbid]

Response.

DENIED

FALSE ASSUMPTION
DECEPTION VIA MISLABELING OR MISNAMING THINGS

Original message = statement, not question. "STATEMENT VEILED AS QUESTION ATTRIBUTED" references a question, with intention of statement.

DENIED.

• IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION

[Armagdn03]

@ vidbid,

Hopefully you understand the potential "round robin" pitfall to this approach.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...te-thread.html

I have created you a thread entitled "the debate thread" where you can debate, rather than attempt to do so within the argument thread.

[vidbid]

Response.

@ vidbid,

Hopefully you understand the potential "round robin" pitfall to this approach.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...te-thread.html

I have created you a thread entitled "the debate thread" where you can debate, rather than attempt to do so within the argument thread.

DENIED.

• STRAW MAN
• NON SEQUITUR

[Armagdn03]

DENIED.

• STRAW MAN
• NON SEQUITUR

in reference to "NON SEQUITUR" - DENIED

No chain of logic was broken

In reference to "STRAW MAN" - ADMITTED

Definition of straw man - "The Straw Man technique is a stunt where you prop up an easy-to-defeat opponent, like a Straw Man, and then attack him and knock him down, to make yourself look big, strong, and victorious. "

By your own hand you hold yourself to be an "easy-to-defeat opponent". I did not view this to be the case, so this is unintentional on my part.

P.S. Over the course of two or so hours, it is appears that you have mislabeled several proposed ill debating tactics, (reference page two) demonstrating a propensity towards "Deception Via Mislabeling or Misnaming".
This is my opinion, and hold true for me after talking to a sociolinguist about this particular topic, referencing your posts in particular. However I do not believe that you are actually attempting to deceive, therefore it is possible that the tactics do not always match the intent, and we have reduced the complicated art of speech and debate to a few hard fast rules, which do not always apply in such a mechanistic way.

[seth]

I think ill smah my brains in with an anvil if i hear one more ridiculous latin phrase used in a pompous manner.

time for bed...

[vidbid]

Response.

...after talking to a sociolinguist about this particular topic...

DENIED.

Alright, you're on double secret probation.

[fzzzy]

Hahaha. I just heard a DJ mix that had a sample from that "Double Secret Probation" scene.

I love this thread just because of all the great videos linked in it.