Cop out?

[bethabigail]

I've seen the phrase cop out thrown around a fair amount (more than twice) by different people in different threads.


Cop out (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is an idiom meaning to shirk or avoid performing a task or duty.

Some people* have been using this as a way to refute another person's argument. This phrase has also been used in negative reputation.

Is the phrase "cop out" pointing out a certain fallacy? Is it pointing out a disregard for rules?

Is the phrase "cop out" a "cop out", in some cases?

I believe that instead of the phrase "cop out", debaters should have the task of saying "You have avoided the task of ....." or "You have neglected to respond to ....", et cetera.



*Although it may be relevant, I feel it would be rude to bring quotes in to this thread.

[GoldPhoenix]

Nah, bring in any quotes you like.


I say some one has copped out whenever they've avoided giving an adequate response to a question or have even skipped out on the answer all together.

[chadn737]

Is the phrase "cop out" a "cop out", in some cases?

Yes, it is. In fact that is a quite common tactic. Some people will cry cop-out at the drop of the hat, especially when they encounter a new argument or concept which defies the standard. Even if you have gone to the trouble of making an argument and supporting it, they will cry cop-out to avoid actually having to think a little bit. What they fail to realize is that even though an argument may be flawed, wrong, or fallacious, it is not a cop-out unless they avoid actually trying to address the issue.


I believe that instead of the phrase "cop out", debaters should have the task of saying "You have avoided the task of ....." or "You have neglected to respond to ....", et cetera.

See, that would require a debater to actually point out the flaws in another persons argument and is not as showy. Far easier and lazier for a person to simply cry cop-out with the expectation that their opponent will not actually think for themselves and simply roll-over.

[LiberalTruth]

I agree, bring the quotes. It's much easier to analyze the reasons and whether or not crying 'cop out' was justified or not.

[bethabigail]

I have to look for more later, one by one through the recent threads... unfortunately, the words "cop" and "out" do not count as valid search terms.. I'll search when I get back from school tomorrow night.


Are you CAPABLE of arguing honestly?

Are you CAPABLE of looking at what's been stated and replying to it without employing straw man arguments?

Your post was just one tremendous cop-out... Clearly, you have no response to my argument other than fallacy after rehashed fallacy.

You failed to provide an adequate answer to my challenge. You've failed to debate. Again.




Also, I don't believe you answered this question raised by spotty in the other thread:

Can God both exist and not exist at the same time?My answer to that is simply: possibly.

Why? Because the duality suggested here relies solely upon the framework of logic as it stands defined by man's understanding.

As the point of this debate is meant to suggest, there are laws beyond our understanding. So what may seem impossible by our current standards of reasoning and logic could very well still be possible.

I know you think this is a cop out. And I truly understand your frustration when this sort of "logic" is applied in the course of a logical debate (I know I've done this very thing). That's also why I raised this debate: we, as theists, should not even begin to entertain notions of proving God's existence via logical discourse, unless our sole claim is that logic is as yet undefined. And even then it's not a fair field in which to fight.

[thrashee]

Here's my one example. Looking back on it, I probably deserved it.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendem View Post
Wow... you want evidence that the universe is not created by a married bachelor? How about basic logic? A bachelor is by definition a man who isn't married. By the law of noncontradiction, one cannot both be married and not married at the same time. Thus the universe cannot have been created by an entity that cannot exist.

Except you're talking about God and metaphysical matters. Polarities and seeming contradictions are constructs of man, not God.

I often laugh at these "laws". It's as though man has the arrogance of saying, God surely must adhere to the laws that we've surmised, based upon our own observations of the way the universe works.

You know, like we somehow know better than God. Like, because we've seen the tip of the iceberg, we have the arrogance to proclaim, that chunk of ice only exists above this water, as I see it.


Comments on this post
Trendem disagrees: Precisely the unconvincing cop-out that I was referring to. Would you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if I defined it as outside the laws of science and logic?

[YamiB.]

Although the second quote you put up uses the phrase cop out I don't think it really applies to what you mentioned with it being used as a way to just shoot down somebodies argument. That by itself would be a negative argument.

I wouldn't consider the first quote to be negative either although it used the phrase as part of an attack it was not the only thing that was done and the fallacious nature of the post was pointed out.

[Spartacus]

The use of the phrase "Cop Out" shows a lack of imagination.

[bethabigail]

Alright, let's look at an example with Spartacus' post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
And do you also concede that the least charitable group are the secular conservatives?

If you want to debate or discuss or the correlation between religion and charity -- then kindly start another thread. This thread is about conservatism and liberalism. Convenient how many here ignored the Catalogue results gleaned from the IRS and national election data. Maybe a little too convenient?

Sorry if you don't like the facts.

As to charity somehow not being associated with conservatism. That is absolutely ridiculous. Conservatives believe strongly in what private charitable groups can achieve. That is why many faith-based and other charitable groups can now receive federal funding. That is why conservatives promote the idea of school vouchers while Liberals want to just throw more money at schools and make damned sure teachers need never demonstrate competence. Where conservatism believes individuals and small groups can be more effective than bureaucrats -- Lberalism conversely prefers government takes the place of charities at every opportunity.


Sorry folks. It is just another hate-filled liberal myth that conservatives want to starve children, persecute people based on skin color, keep poor people poor, etc. The facts are quite different from the Liberal myth. It is Liberalism that relies on keeping people on the welfare plantation by preaching victimhood, pessimism, and racism.

Comments on this post
G disagrees: Cop out.


In this comment, G simply states cop out. Is the cop out avoiding the duty of debating religion and charity? Is it avoiding the duty of responding to another post within the thread? Is it a way of responding to the line "hate-filled liberal myth"?

As a spectator, the phrase cop out leaves me very uninformed. I want to know why G disagreed with this post. As a note, there is no post from G later in the thread describing his contentions with this post.

[Spartacus]

Alright, let's look at an example with Spartacus' post.



In this comment, G simply states cop out. Is the cop out avoiding the duty of debating religion and charity? Is it avoiding the duty of responding to another post within the thread? Is it a way of responding to the line "hate-filled liberal myth"?

As a spectator, the phrase cop out leaves me very uninformed. I want to know why G disagreed with this post. As a note, there is no post from G later in the thread describing his contentions with this post.

In this case the subject of the thread is how Liberals promote false ideas of themselves and conservatives and how; when one looks at the facts, the Liberals are every bad thing they claim conservatives to be. So along that line when facts were presented that clearly demosntrated conservatives are more generous than liberals -- that they give more to charity than Liberals. The resident Liberals blew a gasket.

Rather than concede, to argue the point, the Liberal tactic was to obfuscate the subject and throw religion into the mix -- when religion was not part of the subject. When they were called out on this tactic "Cop Out" was the only response. Rather Typical actually: Separating Church and everything else except when it suits their own purpose.

[Zorak]

In this case the subject of the thread is how Liberals promote false ideas of themselves and conservatives and how; when one looks at the facts, the Liberals are every bad thing they claim conservatives to be. So along that line when facts were presented that clearly demosntrated conservatives are more generous than liberals -- that they give more to charity than Liberals. The resident Liberals blew a gasket.

Rather than concede, to argue the point, the Liberal tactic was to obfuscate the subject and throw religion into the mix -- when religion was not part of the subject. When they were called out on this tactic "Cop Out" was the only response. Rather Typical actually: Separating Church and everything else except when it suits their own purpose.

Well, Spartacus, it seems I must hunt you down now, on different threads, to respond to your extreme Conservative blusterings. Ha! Gotcha!!

The subject of (your) thread, since you seem to have forgotten, was "Liberals are selfish blah-blah-blah's". Sadly for you, the data you presented to support your argument was more complex than you wanted it to be. You repeatedly pointed to one piece of it while ignoring the piece that contradicted your argument. And yes, you "copped out". And then you got called on it. (Zorak laughs hysterically). That's alright, though, we like you anyway, Spartacus. ;):

I'm done with this debate, but for those of you who weren't there: Here's what the data showed: Red (conservative) states gave more than Blue (liberal) states to charity. Spartacus concluded that Conservatives are more generous, Liberals more selfish. However, the very data he presented showed clearly that secular conservatives were by far the most uncharitable group. I repeat: when you remove religion (not "throw it into the mix", as Spartacus is claiming now) from the data, you see that conservatives are the least charitable, liberals more charitable--the opposite of what he concluded and the generally accepted trend (who cuts welfare? who rations food stamps?). Spartacus could not concede the truth even after I quoted his own reference (including quotes from the author of his reference) to him on three occasions!

In short, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Spartacus for helping redefine, by way of example, the definition of "cop-out". Over the years, he has evolved from the simple "fingers-in-the-ears-and-humming" technique to true, blind faith in his argument regardless of the data. Sparty, congratulations, for your true genius on the copping fields.

Slight drawback to copping out (which, by the way, I am highly inclined towards. I love copping out--it's great fun!!!). but the slight drawback: other people get annoyed when someone cops out. Why? Because . . .

Copping out means you're not listening at all to the other person's argument, you're non on-track and you are ignoring the obvious.

This is prideful!

This is arrogant!

THIS . . .


IS . . .



SPARTACUS!!!!

(Zorak kicks Spartacus into the deep, great, empty well of ODN failures)

Sorry to make an example of you, but you have been throwing some elbows, man.