Jump to content

People that try to debate with you despite being 100% wrong

Brushfire

By Brushfire
in General

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Brushfire Newbie

Brushfire

Posted
  • Author
Posted

True.

A certain someone who does it frequently just came to mind. Any ideas who I'm on about?

Is it that guy who is always making descusions about religion?

I forgot his username.

 

No' date=' it isn't HORUS.

 

Your thinking of Dark.

 

It's not Dark.

 

It's called trolling.

 

Not what I'm talking about. Trolling is trolling. I'm talking about people with ego's so big they actually think they're right when they're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushfire Newbie

Brushfire

Posted
  • Author
Posted

are you talking about Icyblue? Because he generally does discussions and arguements. But he's right so' date=' it's not him. OH you're talking about Altair

[/quote']

 

No, I wouldn't talk about Icy like that lol...

And now, I'm not talking about Altiar either.

 

Are you guys talking about me?

 

:'[

 

You wish. ;)

Nah' date=' definitely not and you know it. The only thing I find annoying about you is how generic you are. :P

 

Faint?

 

Lolwut? I love talking about myself so much I made a thread about myself amirite?

Get back.

 

Their stupidity is both hilarious and infuriating.

 

Lol, true.

 

Also... this thread isn't about one person I'm talking about. So while you can guess to who it is, that will be on-topic, talk about times that it's happened to you etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~ P O L A R I S ~ Newbie

~ P O L A R I S ~

Posted
Posted

Well, in many cases it's impossible to actually prove someone wrong. You can't prove whether or not there's a small teapot in the rings of Saturn too small to be seen by our most powerful telescopes and invulnerable to any damage the rings might've caused to it.

 

If you can't logically prove something without total clarity and certainty, the best you can do is try to convince people that it wouldn't be common sense for there to be such a teapot. There's no way you can win the debate unless it's handed to you, as common sense isn't proof.

 

This rule applies in many of my debates, leading to a stalemate every time it does.

 

If neither side can prove their point, nobody's wrong. If one side presents factual evidence to refute the other side's point with no margin for error, it's the duty of that side's opponent to admit their being wrong. If they don't, you can assume they're wrong and claim victory anyway.

 

Common sense isn't good enough. You present facts with no margin for error and win, or you recognize that neither side can emerge and declare the debate a stalemate. There's no reason why these people should be a problem if you know this.

 

Dark or Whorus.

I'm accepting other's opinions' date=' I hope. I can't tell it by myself.

 

And wtf? Visser has 6 stars and 17 reps?

[/quote']

 

Visser has that 6 stars because he is a RPer

 

Good one. ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushfire Newbie

Brushfire

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well' date=' in many cases it's impossible to actually prove someone wrong. You can't prove whether or not there's a small teapot in the rings of Saturn too small to be seen by our most powerful telescopes and invulnerable to any damage the rings might've caused to it.

[b']I wasn't originally going to challenge this, but I'm gunna give it a shot. Friendly debate though, yeah? It's not 'impossible', the idea is to make them at least think it's true... but, eh, you have a fair point but that's a horrible example because it's something that involves Science being wrong. It's like debating with someone who has a moustache and trying to tell them that they don't have one lol, of course you're wrong...[/b]

 

If you can't logically prove something without total clarity and certainty, the best you can do is try to convince people that it wouldn't be common sense for there to be such a teapot. There's no way you can win the debate unless it's handed to you, as common sense isn't proof.

Common sense for the most part, is actually proof as long as they agree. If they're just going to be blunt about it then it isn't even worth trying. Besides, it's at least 99% true then you've 'won' (or whatever you declare as such). And... if it is handed to you, then you've just proven them wrong. Dent in your theory much?

 

This rule applies in many of my debates, leading to a stalemate every time it does.

It doesn't lead to a stalemate unless both people are ignorant and stupid to admit that they're wrong.

 

If neither side can prove their point, nobody's wrong. If one side presents factual evidence to refute the other side's point with no margin for error, it's the duty of that side's opponent to admit their being wrong. If they don't, you can assume they're wrong and claim victory anyway.

... this is true, but this theory involves you either not having any evidence or both parties having evidence. It's not exactly a firm theory.

 

Common sense isn't good enough. You present facts with no margin for error and win, or you recognize that neither side can emerge and declare the debate a stalemate. There's no reason why these people should be a problem if you know this.

Because they refuse to accept that they are wrong. For example, I was in debate and I provided video evidence that directly related to the topic, and answered the topic, therefore resulting in a loss. He couldn't back it up with anything or anymore proof and still tried to prove that he was right... so yeah, he 'lost' because the question was answered with proof. And before you try and get philosophic, it was about a game so the truth was the truth and nothing more.

 

<3 :3

 

:3

This has nothing to do with you' date=' by the way. But I'm glad you like it. ;D

 

This thread lacks Bloodrun.

 

Lmao, you knew it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~ P O L A R I S ~ Newbie

~ P O L A R I S ~

Posted
Posted

Well' date=' in many cases it's impossible to actually prove someone wrong. You can't prove whether or not there's a small teapot in the rings of Saturn too small to be seen by our most powerful telescopes and invulnerable to any damage the rings might've caused to it.

[b']I wasn't originally going to challenge this, but I'm gunna give it a shot. Friendly debate though, yeah? It's not 'impossible', the idea is to make them at least think it's true... but, eh, you have a fair point but that's a horrible example because it's something that involves Science being wrong. It's like debating with someone who has a moustache and trying to tell them that they don't have one lol, of course you're wrong...[/b]

 

Your analogy's preposterous. It's entirely possible to prove someone who has a moustache has a moustache with no margin of error. You can't prove there's no God or that there's no teapot in the rings of Saturn that's both too small to be seen by our most powerful telescopes and impervious to any damage the rings could've dealt to it.

 

If you can't logically prove something without total clarity and certainty, the best you can do is try to convince people that it wouldn't be common sense for there to be such a teapot. There's no way you can win the debate unless it's handed to you, as common sense isn't proof.

Common sense for the most part, is actually proof as long as they agree. If they're just going to be blunt about it then it isn't even worth trying. Besides, it's at least 99% true then you've 'won' (or whatever you declare as such). And... if it is handed to you, then you've just proven them wrong. Dent in your theory much?

 

They're not wrong just because they say they're wrong, unless they're debating something along the lines of them being incapable of saying that they're wrong. Just because you can convince any number of people, which may or may not include said opponent, that your opponent is wrong, doesn't necessarily mean they are by any circumstances. You can win a debate and still be wrong if your opponent doesn't have the resources to prove that your resources aren't incontrovertible.

 

This rule applies in many of my debates, leading to a stalemate every time it does.

 

It doesn't lead to a stalemate unless both people are ignorant and stupid to admit that they're wrong.

 

Neither party has to necessarily admit they're wrong. If their debate's based on an idea, theory, or character that neither party has the resources to prove or disprove the validity of, like the existence of God for example, neither party is assuredly wrong or assuredly right, leading to a stalemate. You're right in that this result is often a product of ignorance, but there're certain claims which we're all ignorant towards as we don't have the resources to learn about them and their validity. Again, like the existence of God or our teapot.

 

If neither side can prove their point, nobody's wrong. If one side presents factual evidence to refute the other side's point with no margin for error, it's the duty of that side's opponent to admit their being wrong. If they don't, you can assume they're wrong and claim victory anyway.

... this is true, but this theory involves you either not having any evidence or both parties having evidence. It's not exactly a firm theory.

 

If the debate's a two-sided conflict, as I'd assumed we were assuming here, it'd be illogical for both parties to have true evidence.

 

Common sense isn't good enough. You present facts with no margin for error and win, or you recognize that neither side can emerge and declare the debate a stalemate. There's no reason why these people should be a problem if you know this.

 

Because they refuse to accept that they are wrong. For example, I was in debate and I provided video evidence that directly related to the topic, and answered the topic, therefore resulting in a loss. He couldn't back it up with anything or anymore proof and still tried to prove that he was right... so yeah, he 'lost' because the question was answered with proof. And before you try and get philosophic, it was about a game so the truth was the truth and nothing more.

 

If you have evidence to support your point which your opponent can't refute or prove false, I've said in the very post you're responding to that it's your right to claim victory if they can't admit they're wrong. You know you're right if such a case occurs, and they likely do as well if you presented true, clear, incontrovertible evidence as you say you have. Once you claim victory and they can't counter, you win the debate as they can't disprove your having convinced them you're right. I never said you didn't win the debate, just presented my idea of how a debate should be conducted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushfire Newbie

Brushfire

Posted
  • Author
Posted

And with that POLARIS, I'll step down and admit defeat. Due to my current inability to think of many decent comebacks to what you have said, I won't continue. You have proven that it's impossible to prove someone wrong when you don't have concrete proof to back up your side.

 

Sorry if you were expecting more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...