Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 170
  1. #81
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You don’t have a scenario though. It’s a stretch to say you have said anything that moves your argument forward.

    Just saying “muh civil war” is insufficient to examine or argue against. So you’ll have to provide more detail before we can say it is possible or impossible.

    You also haven’t indicated how your scenario even relates to 2A so I don’t even understand why you brought it up Andoni the first place

    You’re going to have to do a bit more work here. Just saying civil wars are possible isn’t even an argument and the lack of detail doesn’t really merit a rebuttal.
    Nope. As I said, the ONLY issue right now is whether my scenario is possible. And there are multiple ways for me to support whether it's possible and it's up to me to choose the method I use for support. And I am using a logic chain. This one:

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    Per ODN rules, this counts as support so I have supported that my scenario is possible.

  2. #82
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Nope. As I said, the ONLY issue right now is whether my scenario is possible. And there are multiple ways for me to support whether it's possible and it's up to me to choose the method I use for support. And I am using a logic chain. This one:

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    Per ODN rules, this counts as support so I have supported that my scenario is possible.
    Then it is possible your scenario is impossible. This is true because I too am using a logic chain:

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that ďit is possible your scenario is impossibleĒ is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, ďit is possible your scenario is impossibleĒ must be considered possible.

    Since itís *possible* that your scenario is impossible, unless you can prove otherwise, then we have to reject your scenario.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 3rd, 2018 at 10:14 PM.

  3. #83
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then it is possible your scenario is impossible. This is true because I too am using a logic chain:

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that “it is possible your scenario is impossible” is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, “it is possible your scenario is impossible” must be considered possible.

    Since it’s *possible* that your scenario is impossible, unless you can prove otherwise, then we have to reject your scenario.
    Nope. My support that my scenario is possible stands. Here it is again.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    Showing that it's possible that my scenario is impossible is not the same as showing that it's actually impossible so my support that it's possible still stands. I'm not supporting that it's possible that the my scenario is possible, but that it's actually possible.

    Likewise your burden would be to show that it's impossible, not that it's possible that it's impossible.

    And let me point out that showing something is possible is much, much, much easier than showing that it's impossible. I mean beyond things that are proven to not be true (like positing the Earth has two moons) or are paradoxes (like a married bachelor), EVERYTHING is possible. And when it comes to future events where we have no way of assessing the likelihood that X will happen, it's plainly obvious that X must be considered possible. So unless you can show you can accurately predict whether a certain something WILL NOT happen 200 years in the future and likewise support that your prediction is correct, you have no hope of showing that my scenario is impossible. I mean I could choose something really outlandish, like an alien invasion in 200 years, and you can't prove that even this event occurring will not happen (because it's possible that aliens are out there and it's possible that they will invade Earth in the future). As it is, my scenario isn't really outlandish as there are plenty of examples of similar incidents occurring throughout history and even if it were as outlandish as an alien invasion, you still couldn't show that is impossible that it will ever occur in the distant future.


    -------------------

    And I have to ask. Do you really want to stall the debate by refusing to accept that I've supported ONE point? I've seen you make all kinds of arguments that, if accepted, would show that we should abolish the second amendment even if we accept that the second amendment is still relevant. You've argued that even if in a scenario where an armed citizenry could make a difference, the loss of life due the violence makes it not worth it. Or argue that if our concern is saving lives, the relevance of the second amendment isn't really an issue.

    And you don't need to concede my point. You don't need to agree with it. All I'm saying is that in the terms of this debate I've supported that the second amendment is still relevant. All that really means for you is that you can't argue that it's not relevant without supporting that it's not relevant nor ever will be relevant again. If its relevance is not the focus of your argument, then for your arguments it doesn't matter if it's relevant or not.

    So again, you don't need to concede. I'd recommend just letting this point go and moving on to the next point.

  4. #84
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Youíre the one taking us on this tangent. Iíve seen you do it in other debates and itís a useless point. My scenarios have to also be accepted too, I have problems with your scenarios and I have counter arguments.

    You keep wanting to go down this road so I am humoring you. I still donít believe you have justified your scenario is possible and the burden isnít on me to do your work for you. Itís a weak strategy youíre implementing and I want to kill it.

    So I stand by the fact that it is possible your scenario is impossible and should thus be rejected. I donít see the flaw in that logic chain - itís the same as yours.

  5. #85
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You’re the one taking us on this tangent. I’ve seen you do it in other debates and it’s a useless point. My scenarios have to also be accepted too, I have problems with your scenarios and I have counter arguments.

    You keep wanting to go down this road so I am humoring you. I still don’t believe you have justified your scenario is possible and the burden isn’t on me to do your work for you. It’s a weak strategy you’re implementing and I want to kill it.
    Your opinion is your opinion. And valid support is valid support. You have not shown a flaw in the actual content of my support (my logic chain) so it still stands as support that the scenario is possible.

    You can say disagree all you want but the only thing that will defeat it is either showing that the logic chain is flawed or showing that my scenario is impossible. Anything else falls short.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So I stand by the fact that it is possible your scenario is impossible and should thus be rejected. I don’t see the flaw in that logic chain - it’s the same as yours.
    Your logic chain isn't necessarily flawed. It just doesn't support that my scenario is impossible and therefore does not defeat my support that the scenario is possible.

    "possible that it's impossible" is not the same as "impossible".

    The flaw is that it does not support that my scenario is actually impossible so it still stands that my scenario is possible.

  6. #86
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Your opinion is your opinion. And valid support is valid support. You have not shown a flaw in the actual content of my support (my logic chain) so it still stands as support that the scenario is possible.

    You can say disagree all you want but the only thing that will defeat it is either showing that the logic chain is flawed or showing that my scenario is impossible. Anything else falls short.
    But I still have no idea about what you're really supporting. "Muh Civil War" is neither a hypothetical or a scenario or anything really. Your "logic" chain fails because what you're claiming isn't even clear.

    Your logic chain isn't necessarily flawed. It just doesn't support that my scenario is impossible and therefore does not defeat my support that the scenario is possible.

    "possible that it's impossible" is not the same as "impossible".

    The flaw is that it does not support that my scenario is actually impossible so it still stands that my scenario is possible.
    It may not be the same but it is still a valid statement. It's unclear whether your scenario (whatever it really is) is possible or impossible until we have resolved whether it's possible that it's impossible in the first place.

  7. #87
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But I still have no idea about what you're really supporting. "Muh Civil War" is neither a hypothetical or a scenario or anything really. Your "logic" chain fails because what you're claiming isn't even clear.
    First off, the civil war scenario objectively qualifies as a "hypothetical". Look up the definition of "hypothetical" if you doubt that. And what I'm stating is VERY CLEAR. I'm stating that my "future civil war" scenario is possible. You have had a clear enough understanding of what I was talking about in past to make numerous arguments regarding it. And either way, "unclear" is not a rebuttal. One being unable to understand his opponent's argument (and I doubt you actually don't understand it anyway) does not support that the argument is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It may not be the same but it is still a valid statement. It's unclear whether your scenario (whatever it really is) is possible or impossible until we have resolved whether it's possible that it's impossible in the first place.
    Since "possibly impossible" is not the same as "impossible", even succeeding in showing that it's possibly impossible does not show that it's actually impossible and therefore does not effect my logic chain's support that it's possible. So this has no bearing on my support that my scenario is possible and can be discarded as an irrelevant issue.


    ===============================

    And I have to say that your attempts to defeat the logic chain are very weak. You aren't even SAYING that my scenario is impossible, let alone really attempting to support that it is impossible. You are saying that it's "unclear" or "possibly impossible", but you aren't even saying that it's impossible so you are falling far short of the bar of supporting that it's impossible in the face of a logic chain that you haven't even attempted to show is faulty in either facts or logic.

    This really just looks like stubbornness to me. It looks like you are pretty much trying anything to avoid accepting that a point I made is supported. And it's by no means a reflection on your quality of a debater to accept that my point is supported because in this particular instance, the argument I'm making is incredibly easy to support and the other side is pretty much impossible to support. I mean if you and I took opposite sides on a debate on the shape of the Earth (I take the round side and you take the flat side) OF COURSE I'm going to win. You can be three times as good as me and I'm still going to win because it so happens that the side of the debate I took is clearly correct. And it's the same thing here. EVERYTHING is possible except that which is proven to be impossible (like a married bachelor of stuff that is ALREADY proven to be not true which of course excludes all future events that are not paradoxical like having a married bachelor in the future). You could be ten times as good a debater as I am and I will still prevail on this point because this point is clearly correct.

    So further attempts to defeat this argument will go nowhere. It's really just an issue of when you are going to let this point go and move on to a different point. And if you never let this point go, then we will never move on to another point and the debate is stalled indefinitely.

    But obviously I'm not going to ever retract a point I have supported and it's unreasonable to ask me to do that. So it's up to you to move the debate forward or just let it stall indefinitely.

    And the thing is you have a lot of better points of your own to forward. What about the issue of whether guns are overall too dangerous for private ownership? What about the point that people generally can't effectively defend themselves even if they do have a gun? Do you want to get back to them? If so, then you should drop your attacks on this one point an move on.

    Really the only two outcomes here are:
    1. You let my point stand and move on to another point
    2. You never let my point go and we just stay with it until one of us gets tired of running in circles and ends the debate without resolution of any of our points, including this one.

    I'd prefer the first option.
    Last edited by mican333; May 5th, 2018 at 07:43 AM.

  8. #88
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, the civil war scenario objectively qualifies as a "hypothetical". Look up the definition of "hypothetical" if you doubt that. And what I'm stating is VERY CLEAR. I'm stating that my "future civil war" scenario is possible. You have had a clear enough understanding of what I was talking about in past to make numerous arguments regarding it. And either way, "unclear" is not a rebuttal. One being unable to understand his opponent's argument (and I doubt you actually don't understand it anyway) does not support that the argument is incorrect.
    I don't know what your 'future civil war' scenario' even means though. What about 'future civil war'? Between who, how does it occur, who is in this war, what parties, what locations, why they are they fighting? You haven't even related it to the topic at hand, nor justified how it can happen (not surprising, since you lack details about what this civil war is about). So you are being wholly unclear. You are literally saying 'muh civil war' is possible without details for anyone to examine whether your claim is possible or not.

    Saying that you're unclear (as well as repetitive) is not supposed to be a rebuttal. It is attempting you to provide enough detail where we can start discussing about it.

    IMPORTANT: Unless you are talking ALL civil war scenarios, you need to be more specific about what subset you're talkingabout. Until then we cannot move forward since your being too vague.

    Since "possibly impossible" is not the same as "impossible", even succeeding in showing that it's possibly impossible does not show that it's actually impossible and therefore does not effect my logic chain's support that it's possible. So this has no bearing on my support that my scenario is possible and can be discarded as an irrelevant issue.
    So by the same token, even though you are saying it is "possible", whatever "it" is, you have not established it can actually happen. And that is my point. You haven't provided a single detail about this "civil war" in order to move forward at all. And you've avoided details throughout this whole thread for all your other fantasies (government take over, foreign hordes) too so you literally have unsupported fantasies that are so minimally described that there is no real substance behind your arguments.

    Any scenario you have presented is so artificially constructed and so easily dismissed (the drunk and walking around bad neighborhoods) that is little wonder you have settled on this "strategy". But here we are, you have to provide details otherwise you're not really forwarding anything to discuss.



    ===============================

    And I have to say that your attempts to defeat the logic chain are very weak. You aren't even SAYING that my scenario is impossible, let alone really attempting to support that it is impossible. You are saying that it's "unclear" or "possibly impossible", but you aren't even saying that it's impossible so you are falling far short of the bar of supporting that it's impossible in the face of a logic chain that you haven't even attempted to show is faulty in either facts or logic.

    This really just looks like stubbornness to me. It looks like you are pretty much trying anything to avoid accepting that a point I made is supported. And it's by no means a reflection on your quality of a debater to accept that my point is supported because in this particular instance, the argument I'm making is incredibly easy to support and the other side is pretty much impossible to support. I mean if you and I took opposite sides on a debate on the shape of the Earth (I take the round side and you take the flat side) OF COURSE I'm going to win. You can be three times as good as me and I'm still going to win because it so happens that the side of the debate I took is clearly correct. And it's the same thing here. EVERYTHING is possible except that which is proven to be impossible (like a married bachelor of stuff that is ALREADY proven to be not true which of course excludes all future events that are not paradoxical like having a married bachelor in the future). You could be ten times as good a debater as I am and I will still prevail on this point because this point is clearly correct.
    How can I say something is impossible if there is no detail? How can *you* say it's possible? I'm not disputing that you're making a logical argument by the way. I am disputing you have any argument at all!

    You're pointing some some vague situation that can happen and claiming that this situation somehow helps your argument that 2A is will help. Not only have I already come up with better scenarios, I have already also come up with reasons why, given your scenario, 2A would hinder and not help. You're the one that wanted to backtrack to say that your scenario is possible when I had already moved passed it.

    But since we *are* here, and doing a bit of googling, I have seen you pull this debate tactic in other debates. What I fear is that you're just going to pull "ahh, but it's *possible*" argument at every stage and for every rebuttal I provide. We have already gone way past this point and for some reason you chose to go back all the way to the beginning



    So further attempts to defeat this argument will go nowhere. It's really just an issue of when you are going to let this point go and move on to a different point. And if you never let this point go, then we will never move on to another point and the debate is stalled indefinitely.
    We are here because you took us to this point. You already know how I am going to rebut you at every stage because we have already done it. It was your choice to go back to the start where I now see your arguments have no clothes and no foundation of plausibility or detail. Youíre literally arguing from thin air. I have already established that youíre in fantasy land but it is apparent you donít even have that.


    So you have a really long way to go before we even get to 2A even if you get past this point and provide more detail. I will have arguments to show that 2A makes things worse, I will have counter scenarios which are going to be more fact based than yours and I will challenge that it is even relevant to 2A.


    What I fear is that youíre just going to rely on this so-called ďlogicĒ throughout every stage as you run out of ideas and rebuttals. Youíre just going to have a series of contingencies such that your whole argument is:



    1. a civil war between north and south is possible
    2. it is possible that guns will help this scenario (how? Who knows, given your lack of detail)
    3. it is possible that the 2A will help in some way (how? Who knows, given your lack of detail?)



    So in about a month, so youíre just going to end up with a stack of possibilities that will feature your characteristic lack of depth or detail or real world evidence.


    At that point this stack of fantasies will be weighed against the actual facts, which I have consistently provided, and youíre going to spend another week arguing that you should prevail because I canít prove that your stack of fantasies is *impossible*. Even if I show it is unlikely or improbable, which I currently canít because you have no details to rebut, you're still going to try and claim I haven't made my case even though I have counter-cases, counter-points and facts.

    So I have to cut you off at this early point and insist that you provide detail as to what your 'scenario' really is to avoid a repeat of this at every tiny step. I know you don't want to do this because you either don't have something specific, or you know that it is easily defeated (and being fantasy, it likely will be).

    You're the one being stubborn here. I have asked you for details at every single point in this debate and I have defeated you whenever you have done so since you always go back to these vague points of logic that it's *possible*.


    But obviously I'm not going to ever retract a point I have supported and it's unreasonable to ask me to do that. So it's up to you to move the debate forward or just let it stall indefinitely.
    Yes, but what point are you actually making? You keep claiming this 'scenario of a future civil war' but you really haven't stated any scenario at all. This isn't stalling, it is preventing you from moving forward on arguments based on nothing and it is to show you this is what you have to go through at every stage of equally vague and unsupported arguments.

    And the thing is you have a lot of better points of your own to forward. What about the issue of whether guns are overall too dangerous for private ownership? What about the point that people generally can't effectively defend themselves even if they do have a gun? Do you want to get back to them? If so, then you should drop your attacks on this one point an move on.

    Really the only two outcomes here are:
    1. You let my point stand and move on to another point
    2. You never let my point go and we just stay with it until one of us gets tired of running in circles and ends the debate without resolution of any of our points, including this one.

    I'd prefer the first option.
    I know what you prefer - not providing details about any argument whilst simultaneously claiming that they're 'possible' and repeating the same point ad nauseum.

    I have to insist that you have no point *stand* and you're not going to get to move onto another similarly unproven/unevidenced point based on this one. We've already sketched out your trajectory and my trajectory and I have detailed how they're likely going to end up. You may as well cut to the chase and admit that you have no real scenarios, that you're basing your whole argument on a fear that your un-founded scenarios have the possibility of coming about while ignoring the actual probability of them occurring; the latter we can't determine because you refuse to provide details.

    I understand that you *think* you have a good point to make here but you really don't. You're certainly not trying to speak for ALL civil war scenarios, right? In which case you MUST describe what scenarios you're talking about. Then we can move forward.

  9. #89
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't know what your 'future civil war' scenario' even means though.
    It refers to this scenario.

    The US government turns tyrannical and half of the US military supports the tyrant and half of the US military opposes the tyrant. The armed citizens, who number in the millions, join the side against the tyrant and help defeat him, thus preserving their freedom.

    That's what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What about 'future civil war'? Between who, how does it occur, who is in this war, what parties, what locations, why they are they fighting? You haven't even related it to the topic at hand, nor justified how it can happen (not surprising, since you lack details about what this civil war is about). So you are being wholly unclear. You are literally saying 'muh civil war' is possible without details for anyone to examine whether your claim is possible or not.
    I provided details. The scenario above provides some details.

    Details: There's a tyrannical US government. There is a division in the military between supporters and opposers. The citizens join the opposers. The opposers win the war.

    Those are four details.

    And the notion that I need to provide more details than that in order for my support to stand up is not supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So by the same token, even though you are saying it is "possible", whatever "it" is, you have not established it can actually happen
    Yes I have. First off, I didn't just say that it's possible - I have supported that it's possible via the logic chain. And obviously once someone supports that an event is possible, they have established that it can actually happen (since the two things are pretty much the same).

    -------------------------------

    I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of your post.

    I was suggesting that you let this point go and move on to a different point. You can do it or not do it.

    If you don't want to do it, then I guess you can just keep trying to attack my argument that I've supported that the scenario is possible.

    I would say your assessment of my debate in your following points is wildly incorrect but it's absolutely not arguing over. I don't care to debate the debate. I just want to debate the points of the debate and I agreed to take them one at a time and not move on to another until the first point is settled and we apparently have not settled it.

  10. #90
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It refers to this scenario.

    The US government turns tyrannical and half of the US military supports the tyrant and half of the US military opposes the tyrant. The armed citizens, who number in the millions, join the side against the tyrant and help defeat him, thus preserving their freedom.

    That's what I mean.
    Then I would say it is impossible for the entire US government to go rogue. That's several hundred people plus their staff and somehow half the army too? Also, what do you even mean by 'half' the army and 'half' the citizens? How is that possible that there is a scenario that reaches to the level of an actual war?

    I don't by this scenario as even being possible. There is just too much coordination and too much to prevent that from happening or even getting to that stage. This was the nonsense peddled around when Obama was president and I don't doubt there are those that fear that Trump will do the same thing but it's all just unsupported rubbish on top of fantasy. As I pointed out before there are too many institutions and too much investment to pull off such a civil war.


    I provided details. The scenario above provides some details.

    Details: There's a tyrannical US government. There is a division in the military between supporters and opposers. The citizens join the opposers. The opposers win the war.

    Those are four details.

    And the notion that I need to provide more details than that in order for my support to stand up is not supported.
    There's no need to repeat yourself. You have to note that I snigger every time you do it.

    You have provided more details that makes this even more impossible. Now somehow, the citizens, which are made up of the SAME PEOPLE as the government and the military somehow ONLY end up supporting the one side. That is definitely impossible. It's a naive and childish view of how the world works - it's like you're imagining that somehow the government somehow doesn't represent the people that voted them and that somehow half the army, also drawn from the same set of voters somehow agree with this tyrant. And not only is everyone living all over the country with relatives and friends, all living the American Dream, it is impossible for your scenario will result in the deaths of Americans at the hands of the army.

    Note also, your scenario doesn't really make it clear how guns are to help so it's incomplete anyway.


    Yes I have. First off, I didn't just say that it's possible - I have supported that it's possible via the logic chain. And obviously once someone supports that an event is possible, they have established that it can actually happen (since the two things are pretty much the same).
    Firstly, you have not *supported* anything - you have just *asserted* it is true and putting the burden of proof onto your opponent to prove otherwise.

    As per usual, I have to do all the work and thinking for you. I can confidently say that your scenario is impossible in addition to it being a fantasy based on how a lack of knowledge as to how the world works. You're ignoring logistics as well as a basic understanding of how people interact and how these things come about.

    So you need to drop this scenario, it would be most uncouth if you take my criticisms to refine your already poor ideas but if that's how you want to proceed, then I truly am doing all the leg work.

    -------------------------------

    I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of your post.

    I was suggesting that you let this point go and move on to a different point. You can do it or not do it.

    If you don't want to do it, then I guess you can just keep trying to attack my argument that I've supported that the scenario is possible.

    I would say your assessment of my debate in your following points is wildly incorrect but it's absolutely not arguing over. I don't care to debate the debate. I just want to debate the points of the debate and I agreed to take them one at a time and not move on to another until the first point is settled and we apparently have not settled it.
    You're the one that went meta over this. I just want to make it clear that I was not being unduly stubborn and that I had good reasons for my dissatisfaction over your approach. I'm fine taking each point one at a time, and wasn't it my idea in the first place?

    Anyway, now that the details of your scenario are finally are laid out, it is clear my original assessment of your position as being a fantasy was accurate so it's not a great loss.

  11. #91
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then I would say it is impossible for the entire US government to go rogue. That's several hundred people plus their staff and somehow half the army too? Also, what do you even mean by 'half' the army and 'half' the citizens? How is that possible that there is a scenario that reaches to the level of an actual war?
    First off, my scenario is only half the army but the citizenry is against the tyrant so half of them don't join. And asking me how something is possible is not support that it's impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't by this scenario as even being possible. There is just too much coordination and too much to prevent that from happening or even getting to that stage. This was the nonsense peddled around when Obama was president and I don't doubt there are those that fear that Trump will do the same thing but it's all just unsupported rubbish on top of fantasy. As I pointed out before there are too many institutions and too much investment to pull off such a civil war.
    But I'm referring to a scenario that takes place 200 years in the future. How do you know that everything that prevents such a scenario today will apply in 200 years? The answer is you don't.

    So your opinion that such at thing is impossible is not support that it's impossible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There's no need to repeat yourself. You have to note that I snigger every time you do it.
    First off, I wasn't repeating myself. You asked for details and I pointed out to you FOR THE FIRST time what details are present in my scenario. And saying that you are personally laughing at me is essentially trolling. Please be polite when addressing me.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You have provided more details that makes this even more impossible. Now somehow, the citizens, which are made up of the SAME PEOPLE as the government and the military somehow ONLY end up supporting the one side. That is definitely impossible.
    Support or retract that it's impossible that the citizenry will support the side that opposes the tyrant. And I'm not necessarily referring to every single one of them but speaking generally as in the citizens generally oppose the tyrant. If there is a minority that supports the tyrant it doesn't really change the scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's a naive and childish view of how the world works - it's like you're imagining that somehow the government somehow doesn't represent the people that voted them and that somehow half the army, also drawn from the same set of voters somehow agree with this tyrant. And not only is everyone living all over the country with relatives and friends, all living the American Dream, it is impossible for your scenario will result in the deaths of Americans at the hands of the army.
    My scenario does not say that no American citizens will be killed in the civil war. My scenario is that the citizens will help the half of the army that opposes the tyrant will help overthrow the tyrant. And you have not shown that it's impossible that a democratically-elected President will become a tyrant and you've not shown that it's impossible that once that happens, the people in general will oppose him even though they elected him in the first place.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Note also, your scenario doesn't really make it clear how guns are to help so it's incomplete anyway.
    Well, I kind of assumed that I didn't need to point out that in a war, having guns helps your side win the war.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Firstly, you have not *supported* anything - you have just *asserted* it is true and putting the burden of proof onto your opponent to prove otherwise.
    Sigh. Sorry for repeating myself but I guess you made it necessary (but at least you'll get a good snigger out of it). I have supported that my scenario is possible via the logic chain. Here it is AGAIN

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.


    By ODN rules, THAT counts as support. So it is supported even if you aren't personally impressed.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    As per usual, I have to do all the work and thinking for you. I can confidently say that your scenario is impossible in addition to it being a fantasy based on how a lack of knowledge as to how the world works. You're ignoring logistics as well as a basic understanding of how people interact and how these things come about.
    And you have not convinced me that you have a better understanding of any of this than I do nor have you demonstrated that you just thinking that it's impossible means that it really is.

    So basically you have not supported that it's impossible. You are just saying that you think it is impossible.

    And likewise attacking me personally by saying that I lack an adequate understanding to make a good argument is trolling. Please don't troll.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So you need to drop this scenario, it would be most uncouth if you take my criticisms to refine your already poor ideas but if that's how you want to proceed, then I truly am doing all the leg work.
    Well, you do need to do the leg work to support your own argument. And if you are going to support that my scenario is impossible you will need something more than just your belief that you know what will or won't happen. I honestly don't think that you have a better handle on what would or would not happen than I do (asking me how guns would help in a civil war gives me that impression). At best, we are equal. So your appeal to your own understanding is not an adequate base for support. To be clear, I am not saying that your understanding is actually inadequate or lesser than my own but only that I see no reason to accept that your understanding is better than mine and therefore you can't appeal to your own understanding for support.

    If you are going to say that the facts about our government and warfare show that my scenario is impossible, you will need to source actual experts to back up what you are saying. You saying "I think" is no more credible than me saying "I think". And my logic chain does not contain any "I think". Every point is clearly accurate or logically flows from prior points.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You're the one that went meta over this. I just want to make it clear that I was not being unduly stubborn and that I had good reasons for my dissatisfaction over your approach. I'm fine taking each point one at a time, and wasn't it my idea in the first place?

    Anyway, now that the details of your scenario are finally are laid out, it is clear my original assessment of your position as being a fantasy was accurate so it's not a great loss.
    Again, the point is whether the scenario is possible or impossible. Fantasies are not impossible. Sometimes a person fantasizes about something and it comes true so whether my scenario qualifies as a fantasy (and I would argue that it does not fit the definition of "fantasy" but that's not too relevant right now). And I'm saying that I would like to move on to another point but I agree that you don't have to move on until you are finished with my first point. So I guess you are going to continue attacking it. Again, that's up to you.
    Last edited by mican333; May 5th, 2018 at 06:12 PM.

  12. #92
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, my scenario is only half the army but the citizenry is against the tyrant so half of them don't join. And asking me how something is possible is not support that it's impossible.
    No it doesn't, but just as you are now forced to go into more detail before, you need to do so here. Exactly what do you mean by "half the army", is this an ideological distribution or a geographic one? Or some other breakdown? And how does this half organize? And what tyrant are you even talking about? The President? Since when does a President have this much power? None of this makes sense so you need to provide more details and support them.

    Just saying it is "possible" is insufficient because there are definitely scenarios that are impossible, but you have not determined which of those scenarios you are aiming for. So we are back to the point where your lack of thought is insufficient to say whether it is possible or not. Unless you are saying that ALL scenarios of half an army and ALL scenarios of tyrants (assuming you can show that this even makes sense) you must provide information. Or back your the claim that ALL possible scenarios are possible.

    And just to checkpoint where we are, you are still far from being able to show you even have a case:

    1. You have to show that your scenario of a Tyrant makes sense: you haven't describe what you even mean by Tyrant. Once you do that, and I accept it then you need to demonstrate again, the specific scenario that you're talking about wherein this said Tyrant will need to be fought against in the first place. You also haven't described what specifically this so-called Tyrant is doing and why he needs to go down a route that requires a civil war. And you haven't said how he can implement any of this without the power of the purse that Congress controls.
    2. You have to show how 'half the army' will join said Tyrant. You have certainly not shown that this is a possible scenario under ALL circumstances. If you're not making that claim then you need to show what scenario you're talking about.
    3. Then you have to also explain what you mean by ALL the citizenry and how their political alignment is somehow magically different from said Tyrant and his supporting army. You need to do this before we can even consider whether it is possible or not.

    So currently you have nothing. Your civil war scenario is contingent on three separate claims that are not of sufficient detail for you to claim that they are possible. You cannot say that all three claims are possible yet because you're certainly not saying that call possible sub-scenarios are possible. Since you cannot say that then you need to provide the details about specific sub-scenarios BEFORE you can say that they are possible.


    But I'm referring to a scenario that takes place 200 years in the future. How do you know that everything that prevents such a scenario today will apply in 200 years? The answer is you don't.

    So your opinion that such at thing is impossible is not support that it's impossible.
    We will see since per your usual tactic, you're making broad statements and excessive claims of possibilities without providing details as to what you're really saying. You are currently holding onto a 'future civil war' scenario that is currently still as meaningless as it was when you first stated it. I think once we have delved into the details it will be found to be impossible.


    First off, I wasn't repeating myself. You asked for details and I pointed out to you FOR THE FIRST time what details are present in my scenario. And saying that you are personally laughing at me is essentially trolling. Please be polite when addressing me.
    It's not trolling: I am telling you in advanced to provide good arguments and solid details and to avoid your propensity to repeat yourself. It isn't to mock you but to give you pause as you write your responses. I have to tell you because even after a few rounds of discussing it, you literally forgot and did it again. I am merely reinforcing our agreement to be non-repetitive.


    Support or retract that it's impossible that the citizenry will support the side that opposes the tyrant. And I'm not necessarily referring to every single one of them but speaking generally as in the citizens generally oppose the tyrant. If there is a minority that supports the tyrant it doesn't really change the scenario.
    Per above, this currently cannot be done. Until you provide detail about how this will specifically come about, you do not have a scenario. So I withdraw that the citizenry will support the side that opposes the tyrant is currently impossible - it just doesn't make sense since you have provided zero details.

    Well, I kind of assumed that I didn't need to point out that in a war, having guns helps your side win the war.
    No, having guns kills more people and makes all potential battles even more dangerous than they need to be. You haven't shown at all why having guns will help anyone on either side. BUt don't get ahead of yourself. We're taking this one step at a time - you cannot discuss how guns help your scenario since you have no scenario to speak of currently.

    Sigh. Sorry for repeating myself but I guess you made it necessary (but at least you'll get a good snigger out of it). I have supported that my scenario is possible via the logic chain. Here it is AGAIN

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.


    By ODN rules, THAT counts as support. So it is supported even if you aren't personally impressed.
    Sure, but the weakness in ALL your cases isn't that something is possible. It is that you haven't provided sufficient information to determine whether they are possible or not. Hence, you do not have a scenario and you do not have an argument. I get you have your little gotcha technique but it falls apart immediately when we try and examine what you're really saying. You were forced to describe your 'future war scenario' in detail so that we can understand it and now you are forced to described the details that you're further claiming.

    I hope that your next response will anticipate your flaws and provide sufficient details to determine what you can say whether your scenario is possible or not. I doubt it but you can try. Otherwise, we're going to be here a long time as you struggle to support your overly broad claims.

    And you have not convinced me that you have a better understanding of any of this than I do nor have you demonstrated that you just thinking that it's impossible means that it really is.

    So basically you have not supported that it's impossible. You are just saying that you think it is impossible.

    And likewise attacking me personally by saying that I lack an adequate understanding to make a good argument is trolling. Please don't troll.
    Well, fantasy stories are rarely convincing so I'm confident in that position. It's clear that you think your scenarios aren't fantasy and there's some kind of plausibility that you think they have. However, it's clear that you haven't thought these things through in enough detail to claim anything. These aren't personal attacks - the details you provide are an indication of how deeply you have considered what you have said and those details are lacking.

    Details are important because otherwise you're making very broad claims of possibilities where clearly there are definitely scenarios that are impossible. I realized that in saying that your scenario is impossible I was doing your thinking for you. So rather than going through all the impossible scenarios, you need to provide information about the one specific scenario that you have in mind. And that is what we're exploring. That I have to ask for more specifics so that you can narrow your broad claims tells me that and I doing most of the work to fill in the lack of specificity in your claims.

    It's a little insulting that you take my work to help you define your own case as trolling! Some thanks could be nice for a change.


    Well, you do need to do the leg work to support your own argument.
    We haven't even started on my argument yet. We're currently establishing whether your scenario to support the 2A even makes sense enough to support *your* case. If in the unlikely case you find a civil war scenario to support your case, it still has to be examined in more detail as to whether it is likely or probable when weighed against my much better scenarios:

    1. You need to support your scenario is possible (you're at least 3 steps away from being able to do this.)
    2. You need to support that your scenario is beneficial vs my alternate view of your civil war scenario.
    3. Then we need to see how likely your scenario is going to happen.
    4. Then we need to compare against my better supported alternative scenarios
    5. And only then can we start comparing the HYPOTHETICALS against the ACTUAL deaths that are happening now to decide whether the 2A is worth the trouble.

    You haven't provided step 1 yet and we're at least a couple of steps away where I even need to bring up an argument!


    Again, the point is whether the scenario is possible or impossible. Fantasies are not impossible. Sometimes a person fantasizes about something and it comes true so whether my scenario qualifies as a fantasy (and I would argue that it does not fit the definition of "fantasy" but that's not too relevant right now). And I'm saying that I would like to move on to another point but I agree that you don't have to move on until you are finished with my first point. So I guess you are going to continue attacking it. Again, that's up to you.
    Of course I am going to have to make you support your own case with something more than pithy logic about a scenario that you clearly haven't thought through properly. Your "muh civil war" is now "muh tyrant", "muh half army" and "muh all citizens". It's three times less convincing than it was.

    It's not an attack to ask you to clarify what you're saying. If you're making claims on a fantasy that you're going to eventually use to justify the current deaths of children, you really should do so with a clear idea of what risks you're currently weighing against.

    And yes, fantasies aren't necessarily impossible but the ones you're relying on don't have the necessary details for you to say they are possible. That you've spent more time complaining that you now have to work at your debate rather than make broad generalizations that you've previously gotten away with, tells me that you should drop your fantasies because I can do this all day. Each iteration, where you are forced to provide more details or retract that your scenario is possible, will bring on at least 3 more problems (that's just my personal limit - you have many more flaws and questions you need to answer).

    So stop complaining I am trolling, stop these meta-discussions and actually do some work on your own argument. Stop providing scenarios with so many holes in them and if you're going to say something is POSSIBLE, then BE PRECISE; otherwise you open yourself up to my challenge that you're being over broad in all your claims. Better still, drop your truism, it's a nonsensical tactic that thus far have got you nowhere.

  13. #93
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    I've looked through your post and I see nothing new in your arguments. It seems to boil down to the argument that I need to provide more detail to show that my scenario is possible. I mean I've seen the same thing said in practically every single one of your responses in your last post (So I guess the "don't repeat yourself" rule only applies to me, huh?).

    Well, I'm not going to repeat my argument by responding to all of your repetitive arguments. I'm going to pick just one and it's likewise the one that is responding directly to my support that my scenario is possible (the one that uses the logic chain). So i'm going to paste my original argument and then your response.

    ------------------------------------

    I have supported that my scenario is possible via the logic chain. Here it is AGAIN

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    By ODN rules, THAT counts as support.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but the weakness in ALL your cases isn't that something is possible. It is that you haven't provided sufficient information to determine whether they are possible or not.
    Actually I have provided sufficient information to determine whether my scenario is possible or not. Lack of evidence that it's impossible means that it's possible (via my logic chain).

    But I assume you mean that I need to provide more detail in my scenario before it qualifies as something that can be shown to be possible or impossible. And to that Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I need to provide more detail of my scenario before we can determine whether it's possible or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Hence, you do not have a scenario and you do not have an argument.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my scenario is not a scenario and that my logic chain does not qualify as an argument.

    And to be clear, you just saying that it is so does not count as support. External evidence of some sort will be required. But I'm pretty sure that if we consult one of the most basic sources of information on what is a "scenario" and is an '"argument", the dictionary, it will confirm that my scenario fits the definition of "scenario" and my argument fits the "definition" of argument.

    And you don't need to concede the point. Not repeating a claim counts as retraction. So don't repeat that I have no scenario nor argument unless you are going to provide support that it is so.

    To be clear, all you need to do to move on is stop arguing this point and move to a different point.
    Last edited by mican333; May 6th, 2018 at 08:39 AM.

  14. #94
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I've looked through your post and I see nothing new in your arguments. It seems to boil down to the argument that I need to provide more detail to show that my scenario is possible. I mean I've seen the same thing said in practically every single one of your responses in your last post (So I guess the "don't repeat yourself" rule only applies to me, huh?).

    Well, I'm not going to repeat my argument by responding to all of your repetitive arguments. I'm going to pick just one and it's likewise the one that is responding directly to my support that my scenario is possible (the one that uses the logic chain). So i'm going to paste my original argument and then your response.
    My argument follows the logic chain:

    1. You are making a claim that X is possible and putting the burden upon me to prove X is impossible.
    2. In order for me to do that I need to understand specifically what X is.
    3. Now since X is not specific, I can create an X that is impossible and thus your point is defeated.
    4. However, you will then move the goal posts and say that that is not the X that you have in mind.
    5. In order to save time, you need to be specific about those things you are claiming as possible.

    Or you are saying that X is possible under any condition. Is that what you are saying?

    ------------------------------------

    I have supported that my scenario is possible via the logic chain. Here it is AGAIN

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    By ODN rules, THAT counts as support.
    Sigh. I am not disputing your simplistic logic. I am disputing that you have described the scenario and the parts of the scenario sufficiently in order to make such a judgment. Since somehow, I am responsible for proving your scenario impossible, this is what you are asking me to do.

    So YOU haven't supported a single thing. You are literally asking me ME to do so. And this is what I am doing.


    Actually I have provided sufficient information to determine whether my scenario is possible or not. Lack of evidence that it's impossible means that it's possible (via my logic chain).
    You have not at all provided sufficient information. It's why I have to ask for more questions. Since you have made it incumbent upon me to move it forward, it's not about whether YOU feel that you have a good case, but whether *I* agree. I currently do not agree and have explained multiple times in many different ways. Apparently, since you've been called out for repeating yourself, your revenge is to make me do so!

    But I assume you mean that I need to provide more detail in my scenario before it qualifies as something that can be shown to be possible or impossible. And to that Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I need to provide more detail of my scenario before we can determine whether it's possible or not.
    And I have already explained it in my last post and again here. You need to provide more details on all parts of your scenario - none of it makes sense and assumes much and is over broad.

    To make it easy for you, let's break down your scenario and discuss the first detail. The president turns into a tyrant. However, what is he a tyrant of? Is he a tyrant of fashion that insists that everyone wears orange? Well, that's an impossibility per your scenario because that would not cause a civil war. So you need to describe what is President did to become a tyrant such that is is possible and consistent with your scenario. Until you have filled in the details, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to prove it possible


    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my scenario is not a scenario and that my logic chain does not qualify as an argument.
    And to be clear, you just saying that it is so does not count as support. External evidence of some sort will be required. But I'm pretty sure that if we consult one of the most basic sources of information on what is a "scenario" and is an '"argument", the dictionary, it will confirm that my scenario fits the definition of "scenario" and my argument fits the "definition" of argument.
    What you're calling a scenario is a poor fantasy with no details as to judge it's possibility or impossibility. And as much as I hate to repeat myself, you appear to be at a loss as to where we are in the debate since you've asked three times. I am NOT DISPUTING YOUR SIMPLISTIC LOGIC CHAIN. I ACCEPT YOUR LOGIC CHAIN BUT I AM UNABLE TO FULFILL IT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH DETAILS IN ORDER TO DO SO.

    And you don't need to concede the point. Not repeating a claim counts as retraction. So don't repeat that I have no scenario nor argument unless you are going to provide support that it is so.

    To be clear, all you need to do to move on is stop arguing this point and move to a different point.
    Nope. I won't stop because you're going to keep pulling this trick. Since you've placed the burden on ME to disprove your case, I have to ask for additional information. Or I come up with my own details that you're just going to deny whilst keeping your actual scenario secret. So we have to proceed.

    Note that I made it easy for you and we're going to break your 'scenario' down into the three specific claims you are making is POSSIBLE. We are going to examine your claim that the duly elected President becomes a TYRANT. However, you have not described what he is being a tyrant about, what he's doing about being such a tyrant, how the rest of government goes along with it and how this could lead to a civil war such that only half the army joins but bizarrely the rest don't, and neither does nearly all the citizens.

    So there's a lot to go through before I can perform the job you have tasked me with. Now stop stalling and come up with the details.

  15. #95
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    My argument follows the logic chain
    Great! I highly encourage logic chains as it makes argument very clear. And I will stop you as soon as you make an incorrect or illogical statement (and fully expect you to do the same for my logic chain)

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. You are making a claim that X is possible and putting the burden upon me to prove X is impossible.
    Incorrect. I have SUPPORTED that X is possible, not just claimed it. My logic chain has three points and one can challenge any of them. ONE way to challenge it is to show that the scenario is impossible. Whether you seek to defeat my logic chain that way is up to you. You can try to defeat it a different way. You can just let the support stand and move to a different point. Whatever burden you take is purely your choice. I myself have put no burden on you.

    And with a logic chain, once a point is invalidated, the following points don't help make the conclusion so I'll skip the rest of the points in your logic chain.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sigh. I am not disputing your simplistic logic. I am disputing that you have described the scenario and the parts of the scenario sufficiently in order to make such a judgment.
    And you can use whatever reason/excuse you want for not challenging the logic chain which supports my argument. If you refuse to judge it because YOU THINK that you don't have enough detail to even attempt to argue that my scenario is impossible, then you are declining to challenge the chain.

    BUT the logic chain stands until it is challenged and therefore my support stands until you successfully challenge the chain.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And I have already explained it in my last post and again here. You need to provide more details on all parts of your scenario - none of it makes sense and assumes much and is over broad.
    That is the very claim that I challenged you to support or retract. You are just repeating it without supporting it.

    So again, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I need to provide more detail of my scenario before we can determine whether it's possible or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    To make it easy for you, let's break down your scenario and discuss the first detail. The president turns into a tyrant. However, what is he a tyrant of? Is he a tyrant of fashion that insists that everyone wears orange? Well, that's an impossibility per your scenario because that would not cause a civil war. So you need to describe what is President did to become a tyrant such that is is possible and consistent with your scenario. Until you have filled in the details, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to prove it possible
    But since you have no need to prove it possible, that doesn't matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What you're calling a scenario is a poor fantasy with no details as to judge it's possibility or impossibility. And as much as I hate to repeat myself, you appear to be at a loss as to where we are in the debate since you've asked three times. I am NOT DISPUTING YOUR SIMPLISTIC LOGIC CHAIN. I ACCEPT YOUR LOGIC CHAIN BUT I AM UNABLE TO FULFILL IT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH DETAILS IN ORDER TO DO SO.
    Fulfill it?

    I have think you DON'T understand my logic chain if you think you need to "fulfill it". Let me make al logic chain about my logic chain.

    1. FACT - the logic chain's conclusion is that my scenario is possible
    2. If one accepts the logic chain (as you just said you did) then they accept the conclusion of the logic chain
    3. Therefore, you are saying that you accept the logic chain's conclusion that the scenario is possible.

    Now I'm not going to play "gotcha" and take your "acceptance" of my logic chain as an inadvertent admission on your part that you just actually concede that my scenario is possible. But I WILL say that if you maintain that you accept the logic chain, then you are saying that you accept the conclusion that my scenario is possible. And if it is your position that my logic chain is valid, then it likewise is your position that my scenario is possible.

    And let me forward another logic chain regarding it.

    1. FACT - the logic chain's conclusion is that my scenario is possible
    2. If one is to defeat the chain's conclusion that the scenario is possible, they must defeat the logic chain and not doing so means the conclusion still stands
    3. You have not defeated the logic chain
    4. Therefore it is supported that my scenario is possible.

    Why you won't/can't/don't want to challenge the logic chain is not relevant. You either have defeated the logic chain's support that the scenario is possible or you have not. And so far you have not.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Nope. I won't stop because you're going to keep pulling this trick. Since you've placed the burden on ME to disprove your case, I have to ask for additional information.

    Or I come up with my own details that you're just going to deny whilst keeping your actual scenario secret. So we have to proceed.

    Note that I made it easy for you and we're going to break your 'scenario' down into the three specific claims you are making is POSSIBLE. We are going to examine your claim that the duly elected President becomes a TYRANT. However, you have not described what he is being a tyrant about, what he's doing about being such a tyrant, how the rest of government goes along with it and how this could lead to a civil war such that only half the army joins but bizarrely the rest don't, and neither does nearly all the citizens.

    So there's a lot to go through before I can perform the job you have tasked me with. Now stop stalling and come up with the details.
    Um, no. First off, I think the tactic you are attempting is a waste of time and therefore helping you out is assisting in wasting time. And IF me providing you with details does really help you defeat my argument, then I'm just helping you defeat me and therefore just doing your leg work for you. So I have absolutely no incentive to give you more details. Likewise the notion that I need to do so in order to support my own argument is rejected and in fact I have directly challenged you to support such an assertion. ]

    So in short, I see no reason to provide you with details and therefore I refuse to do so. And I also ask that you not ask me for details again. You have my answer on whether I will give them and harassing me for details to try to get them from me is, well, harassment.

    Of course you may proceed with the knowledge that no further details will be forthcoming from me but again, you should not ask me for details. If you want to provide your own details, that's up to you.

    And I haven't tasked you with anything at all. In fact, if I were going to give you a task, I would give you the task of moving on from this point and make a different argument. And of course since your actions are you own, you can refuse that task.

    But please understand. What you do is YOUR choice. If you want to proceed with what you seem to be doing, that's your choice. I'd rather you do something else and I certainly don't have to, nor want to, help you along with this. So I'm not going to. So just go ahead and do what you want but don't say that I'm tasking you with anything.
    Last edited by mican333; May 6th, 2018 at 11:38 AM.

  16. #96
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Great! I highly encourage logic chains as it makes argument very clear. And I will stop you as soon as you make an incorrect or illogical statement (and fully expect you to do the same for my logic chain)

    Incorrect. I have SUPPORTED that X is possible, not just claimed it. My logic chain has three points and one can challenge any of them. ONE way to challenge it is to show that the scenario is impossible. Whether you seek to defeat my logic chain that way is up to you. You can try to defeat it a different way. You can just let the support stand and move to a different point. Whatever burden you take is purely your choice. I myself have put no burden on you.

    And with a logic chain, once a point is invalidated, the following points don't help make the conclusion so I'll skip the rest of the points in your logic chain.
    No, you havenít support anything because ďXĒ is a bare claim with insufficient detail. Are you saying that ALL cases of ďa civil war caused by a tyrant that has half the army on its side but none of the citizenĒ is possible?

    Or are you saying that there exists at least one combination of events where your scenario is possible? In which case, thatís a positive claim that you have to back up.

    Currently, with the information at hand it is impossible to determine anything about your scenario because it is too broad.

    And you can use whatever reason/excuse you want for not challenging the logic chain which supports my argument. If you refuse to judge it because YOU THINK that you don't have enough detail to even attempt to argue that my scenario is impossible, then you are declining to challenge the chain.

    BUT the logic chain stands until it is challenged and therefore my support stands until you successfully challenge the chain.
    I have problems with your logic chain but thereís no need to get into that yet.



    That is the very claim that I challenged you to support or retract. You are just repeating it without supporting it.

    So again, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I need to provide more detail of my scenario before we can determine whether it's possible or not.
    I already explained this. Letís take your part of your claim that a ďtyrant causes a civil warĒ.

    1 You are saying that this tyrant is possible because no one has proven that a tyrant is impossible.
    2. I am attempting to prove that your tyrant is impossible and gave an example in my previous answer - that this is a tyrant on fashion - she wants everyone in the country to wear pink. And she is tyrannical about it and forces her cabinet and staff to do so. Well, this is a situation that would NOT cause a civil war because it is such a ridiculous claim. It is *IMPOSSIBLE* that such a scenario of a tyrant would cause a civil war.
    3. Then I have PROVEN that your scenario is IMPOSSIBLE because that TYRANT-SCENARIO is impossible.
    4. So are you saying that ALL TYRANT-SCENARIOS (what they are being tyrannical over, how they took over the entire government, why half the army supports him and why no citizens do) are POSSIBLE? Or do you have SOME SPECIFIC SUBSET?

    Thatís why you have to provide more details. Itís more apparent from your lack of specificity that youíre talking about ALL TYRANT-SCENARIOS and I have disproven that claim. If on the other hand you donít mean ALL TYRANT-SCENARIOS then you need to provide details as to which scenarios you mean.

    I hope that makes sense but if it doesnít, here it is a third time:

    1. Are you claiming ALL TYRANT-SCENARIOS are POSSIBLE?
    2. Do you agree that my fashion-tyrant is POSSIBLE?
    3. If no to any of the above, then you need to provide more details says to what TYRANT-SCENARIOS you mean.


    But since you have no need to prove it possible, that doesn't matter.
    Um, youíre the one claiming it is POSSIBLE. I disagree that it is POSSIBLE and I am trying to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE. In the course of doing so, I find that there are scenarios where there are IMPOSSIBLE TYRANT-SCENARIOS and need more specifics as to what YOU HAVE IN MIND about TYRANT-SCENARIOS that are possible.

    Once I have that then I can judge whether you have proven your case. At which point, I will challenge you on your logic chain. But at THIS juncture, you havenít described your scenario with sufficient detail to judge either way.


    Fulfill it?

    I have think you DON'T understand my logic chain if you think you need to "fulfill it". Let me make al logic chain about my logic chain.

    1. FACT - the logic chain's conclusion is that my scenario is possible
    2. If one accepts the logic chain (as you just said you did) then they accept the conclusion of the logic chain
    3. Therefore, you are saying that you accept the logic chain's conclusion that the scenario is possible.
    I havenít accepted your logic chain at all yet. I am saying your logic chain is irrelevant because you havenít provided sufficient detail to understand your scenario in the first place.

    You canít magically pluck a tyrant from nowhere, and not detail how he can have an entire governmentís support, and half the armyís support but somehow not all the citizensí support. Well, you can obviously, but you canít claim that it CAN happen because there you have not provided sufficient information to show that you have a scenario that is realistic or plausible or even possible.

    You appear to be using a (flawed) logic chain to claim that anything can happen. In which case why even bother with a civil war scenario. You might as well claim that itís because ďthe Bagful of Blue made a quifly GungeĒ and add on your ďlogicĒ chain.

    Well, you canít since:
    1. I donít know what a ďBagful of BlueĒ is.
    2. I donít know what ďquiflyĒ means
    3. I donít know what a ďGungeĒ is.

    By the same token:
    1. I donít know that you mean by Tyrant
    2. I donít know what this Tyrant did
    3. I donít know how he brought the entire government to his side.
    4. I donít know why or how HALF the army is on his side.
    5. I donít know why or how the CITIZENS are not.

    With all that information, you donít have a scenario that can be determined possible or impossible. And weíre just talking about the Tyrant at the moment, just one of the sub-claims.

    Now I'm not going to play "gotcha" and take your "acceptance" of my logic chain as an inadvertent admission on your part that you just actually concede that my scenario is possible. But I WILL say that if you maintain that you accept the logic chain, then you are saying that you accept the conclusion that my scenario is possible. And if it is your position that my logic chain is valid, then it likewise is your position that my scenario is possible.
    I understand that. It would be easy for me to say, yep, itís possible for your scenario to be true and we move on. But there are multiple problems in doing that:

    1. I actually donít believe your scenario is possible since I have already gone through a few scenarios in my head. I just have no idea of what you have in mind about the scenario youíre arguing for. So we have to delve into that in order to make a separate judgment. Itís your scenario so you have to provide the details. I could spend all day coming up with impossible scenarios but the burden is upon YOU to provide those details because it is YOUR scenario!

    2. I donít actually accept your logic chain either. But that logic chain is IRRELEVANT because you donít have any scenario to begin with. We will go on to discuss the logic chain ONCE we have determined you have a realistic scenario in mind.

    And let me forward another logic chain regarding it.

    1. FACT - the logic chain's conclusion is that my scenario is possible
    2. If one is to defeat the chain's conclusion that the scenario is possible, they must defeat the logic chain and not doing so means the conclusion still stands
    3. You have not defeated the logic chain
    4. Therefore it is supported that my scenario is possible.

    Why you won't/can't/don't want to challenge the logic chain is not relevant. You either have defeated the logic chain's support that the scenario is possible or you have not. And so far you have not.
    Nope. It is NOT a FACT that your logic chainís conclusion is that your scenario is possible. That is a further claim that youíre making. BUT STOP THERE - we are NOT discussing your logic chain YET!

    We are CURRENTLY discussing how your scenario lacks the relevant details to make falsifiable or provable. Since I have come up with a scenario of Tyrant where it is clearly impossible, you need to provide one where it is possible. Then we can discuss the logic chain. Until then THE LOGIC CHAIN IS NOT IN PLAY.

    Um, no. First off, I think the tactic you are attempting is a waste of time and therefore helping you out is assisting in wasting time. And IF me providing you with details does really help you defeat my argument, then I'm just helping you defeat me and therefore just doing your leg work for you. So I have absolutely no incentive to give you more details. Likewise the notion that I need to do so in order to support my own argument is rejected and in fact I have directly challenged you to support such an assertion. ]
    Well, if youíre holding out because you think it will help me win then youíre trolling. Youíre not debating in an open an honest manner to determine the truth.

    I have explained multiple times throughout our entire discussion that your scenario is fantasy and that it lacks sufficient detail to determine whether it is true or not. Asking you for details of your own argument is not wasting time - whatís wasting time is me thinking of all the ways that your scenario is impossible and I did that for your Tyrant-scenario already. So we can cut this short if you accept MY Tyrant-scenario and withdraw your scenario.

    So in short, I see no reason to provide you with details and therefore I refuse to do so. And I also ask that you not ask me for details again. You have my answer on whether I will give them and harassing me for details to try to get them from me is, well, harassment.
    How can it be harassment if youíre making claims that your scenario is possible and that youíre also challenging me to prove it impossible? If I find that there is insufficient information and also come up with my own scenario where it is clearly impossible then I am doing all the work. Youíre just making broad claims and you need to be precise and specific about what you have in mind.

    To ask me to do all the work and then whine when I do so is trolling. So put up or shut up and provide the details necessary to determine the the truth or falsity of your scenario. Quit delaying and claiming to be a fiction - itís your scenario, you need to prove it is possible by supplying information about it.

    Of course you may proceed with the knowledge that no further details will be forthcoming from me but again, you should not ask me for details. If you want to provide your own details, that's up to you.
    I did provide details and determined that your scenario is IMPOSSIBLE. So are we done? Youíre going to drop your scenario?

    And I haven't tasked you with anything at all. In fact, if I were going to give you a task, I would give you the task of moving on from this point and make a different argument. And of course since your actions are you own, you can refuse that task.
    Your task is implicit in your logic chain - youíre saying that I have to prove your scenario is impossible. I did that. So youíre now either going to withdraw the scenario or provide details as to why it is.

    But please understand. What you do is YOUR choice. If you want to proceed with what you seem to be doing, that's your choice. I'd rather you do something else and I certainly don't have to, nor want to, help you along with this. So I'm not going to. So just go ahead and do what you want but don't say that I'm tasking you with anything.
    Youíre not helping ME - youíre providing details for your own scenario that youíre further claiming is possible. I found found a scenario where it isnít possible so Iím done. If you want to further support your claim then you have to either:

    1. Accept that my tyrant-scenario is impossible and give up on your scenario
    2. Prove my tyrant-scenario is possible, in which case I will come up with another one.
    3. Provide details as to what your actual scenario is so that I can determine for myself that it is possible.

    I donít understand why this is so hard - if you have a plausible scenario then you should be able to go into a little more detail. You canít just make general sweeping statements full of holes and expect to be able to move on from them and hand-wave the actual weaknesses in your argument.

    This isnít the first gun debate and this isnít the first time the civil war scenario has come up. And it isnít the first time either that such scenarios are discovered to be full of smoke and the fantasy. That you had to justify ďfantasies can come aboutĒ earlier tells me that you have nothing forthcoming.

    You need to drop your scenario and move on to another portion of the debate.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  17. #97
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, you haven’t support anything because “X” is a bare claim with insufficient detail.
    No. X is supported because I used a valid logic chain to support X.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    By ODN rules, THAT counts as support.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Are you saying that ALL cases of “a civil war caused by a tyrant that has half the army on its side but none of the citizen” is possible?
    No.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Or are you saying that there exists at least one combination of events where your scenario is possible? In which case, that’s a positive claim that you have to back up.
    Wrong. While you can request my support in a certain fashion, I am not bound by what YOU THINK counts as qualified support. At ODN, a valid logic chain where the conclusion necessarily follows valid facts, logic, and/or truism counts as support at ODN. Whether you are impressed or whether you think that I need to do more than what I did is beside the point. Since you seem to be consistently claiming that I have not supported my argument despite using a logic chain and have done so continuously, I think a challenge is in order.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my logic chain is insufficient to support my argument that my scenario is possible.

    And when supporting, you will need to present something more than your opinion that I need to do more than what I did.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I already explained this. Let’s take your part of your claim that a “tyrant causes a civil war”.

    1 You are saying that this tyrant is possible because no one has proven that a tyrant is impossible.
    2. I am attempting to prove that your tyrant is impossible and gave an example in my previous answer - that this is a tyrant on fashion - she wants everyone in the country to wear pink. And she is tyrannical about it and forces her cabinet and staff to do so. Well, this is a situation that would NOT cause a civil war because it is such a ridiculous claim. It is *IMPOSSIBLE* that such a scenario of a tyrant would cause a civil war.
    3. Then I have PROVEN that your scenario is IMPOSSIBLE because that TYRANT-SCENARIO is impossible.
    No you haven't. There are multiple scenarios where a tyrant can take control. For it to be impossible for there to be a tyrant in the future, ALL of the potential scenarios must be impossible, not just one of them. So you have supported that ONE of the scenarios is impossible but you have not supported that all of the scenarios are impossible and therefore have not supported that it's impossible for there to be a tyrant in the future.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That’s why you have to provide more details. It’s more apparent from your lack of specificity that you’re talking about ALL TYRANT-SCENARIOS and I have disproven that claim. If on the other hand you don’t mean ALL TYRANT-SCENARIOS then you need to provide details as to which scenarios you mean.
    No I don't. The only person engaging in arguing about individual detailed scenarios and their individual possibility is YOU. I'm only obligated to address your arguments when they provide support that my arguments are incorrect.

    But I would point out that one does not have to believe that ALL of the scenarios are possible to think that it's possible that a tyrant will exist. They just need to believe that ONE of them is possible. Even if a million are impossible but one is possible, then it's possible that there will be a tyrant. But again, I'm not making a specific argument either way. This is your attack and and I will respond to it to the extent that it succeeds in invalidating my support. But I will say that I certainly don't accept either the notion that ALL of the scenarios are impossible or that ALL of the scenarios are possible.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um, you’re the one claiming it is POSSIBLE. I disagree that it is POSSIBLE and I am trying to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE. In the course of doing so, I find that there are scenarios where there are IMPOSSIBLE TYRANT-SCENARIOS and need more specifics as to what YOU HAVE IN MIND about TYRANT-SCENARIOS that are possible.

    Once I have that then I can judge whether you have proven your case. At which point, I will challenge you on your logic chain. But at THIS juncture, you haven’t described your scenario with sufficient detail to judge either way.
    If you don't want to challenge my logic chain or feel you can't challenge it for any reason, that's fine with me. Again, the logic chain counts as support and therefore my argument is supported by it. So feel free to not judge it or challenge it for any reason you care to forward for not engaging with it.

    Again, I actually want you to move on to another point. I understand that you have the right to refuse to do so and continue challenging this point but I certainly don't have to help you do it by giving you what you think you need to make an argument against it. So I'm not.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I haven’t accepted your logic chain at all yet. I am saying your logic chain is irrelevant because you haven’t provided sufficient detail to understand your scenario in the first place.
    You don't get to decide if my logic chain is irrelevant. Like I said, it counts as support by ODN standards. You saying "nope. Nuh-uh. not buying it. not convinced. don't accept it. don't think it's relevant" makes no different whatsoever to whether the logic chain counts as support.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You can’t magically pluck a tyrant from nowhere, and not detail how he can have an entire government’s support, and half the army’s support but somehow not all the citizens’ support. Well, you can obviously, but you can’t claim that it CAN happen because there you have not provided sufficient information to show that you have a scenario that is realistic or plausible or even possible.
    Once again, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I need to provide more detail of my scenario before we can determine whether it's possible or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    By the same token:
    1. I don’t know that you mean by Tyrant
    2. I don’t know what this Tyrant did
    3. I don’t know how he brought the entire government to his side.
    4. I don’t know why or how HALF the army is on his side.
    5. I don’t know why or how the CITIZENS are not.
    Well, if you feel you can't attack my logic chain until you get all of those details, then you are never going to be able to attack my logic chain.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I understand that. It would be easy for me to say, yep, it’s possible for your scenario to be true and we move on. But there are multiple problems in doing that:

    1. I actually don’t believe your scenario is possible since I have already gone through a few scenarios in my head. I just have no idea of what you have in mind about the scenario you’re arguing for. So we have to delve into that in order to make a separate judgment. It’s your scenario so you have to provide the details. I could spend all day coming up with impossible scenarios but the burden is upon YOU to provide those details because it is YOUR scenario!

    2. I don’t actually accept your logic chain either. But that logic chain is IRRELEVANT because you don’t have any scenario to begin with. We will go on to discuss the logic chain ONCE we have determined you have a realistic scenario in mind.
    Yes I do have a scenario. I was even able to provide four details about my scenario. You just want scenarios about the details about my scenario. And you aren't getting them.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    We are CURRENTLY discussing how your scenario lacks the relevant details to make falsifiable or provable. Since I have come up with a scenario of Tyrant where it is clearly impossible, you need to provide one where it is possible. Then we can discuss the logic chain. Until then THE LOGIC CHAIN IS NOT IN PLAY.
    Once I introduced the logic chain, it was in play. And you can refuse to address it for whatever reason you want. But until it is challenged, it stands.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, if you’re holding out because you think it will help me win then you’re trolling. You’re not debating in an open an honest manner to determine the truth.
    I don't think it will help you win. I think it will help you bog down the debate with further arguments that will not resolve anything. I'm pretty sure I know where the debate will go if I provide some details and I don't want the debate to go there.

    And you need to proceed with the knowledge that you will not be getting any detailed scenarios from me. So stop asking. Stop trying to talk me into it. Accept that I won't be providing them and if you think it's an issue that I've not provided them, then proceed with an argument based on that.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    How can it be harassment if you’re making claims that your scenario is possible and that you’re also challenging me to prove it impossible?
    I DID NOT challenge you to prove it impossible. In fact, I DON'T WANT YOU TO TRY TO PROVE THAT MY SCENARIO IS IMPOSSIBLE. I want you to drop this point entirely and move to another point. The only person who feels that it's important for you to show that my scenario is impossible is YOU.

    And when one makes it clear that they won't be doing as you ask, it is harassment to continually bug them to do it anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    To ask me to do all the work and then whine when I do so is trolling. So put up or shut up and provide the details necessary to determine the the truth or falsity of your scenario. Quit delaying and claiming to be a fiction - it’s your scenario, you need to prove it is possible by supplying information about it.
    I did not ask you to do any work. Again, if I am to ask you anything, it would be to quit working on it and move to another point.

    I'm not officially asking that you move on btw, but just correcting you on what I would like from you if it were up to me (which I acknowledge that it's not).
    Last edited by mican333; May 8th, 2018 at 04:22 PM.

  18. #98
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. X is supported because I used a valid logic chain to support X.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    By ODN rules, THAT counts as support.
    Sure, but "X" is not describe in sufficient detail to determine whether it can be true or not. So how can you claim it to be true?


    No.
    Then your scenario is not of sufficient detail since it covers BOTH impossible (my claim) and possible (your claim) details. Without those details, you CANNOT say that your scenario is TRUE.



    Wrong. While you can request my support in a certain fashion, I am not bound by what YOU THINK counts as qualified support. At ODN, a valid logic chain where the conclusion necessarily follows valid facts, logic, and/or truism counts as support at ODN. Whether you are impressed or whether you think that I need to do more than what I did is beside the point. Since you seem to be consistently claiming that I have not supported my argument despite using a logic chain and have done so continuously, I think a challenge is in order.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my logic chain is insufficient to support my argument that my scenario is possible.

    And when supporting, you will need to present something more than your opinion that I need to do more than what I did.
    I haven't said that your logic chain is insufficient yet. I am saying that your scenario isn't of sufficient detail in order to determine possibility or impossibility. The reason why is that you concede that you don't cover every possible scenario of your details. If you don't then you need to qualify your statements further so that we can determine whether it is true of not.


    No you haven't. There are multiple scenarios where a tyrant can take control. For it to be impossible for there to be a tyrant in the future, ALL of the potential scenarios must be impossible, not just one of them. So you have supported that ONE of the scenarios is impossible but you have not supported that all of the scenarios are impossible and therefore have not supported that it's impossible for there to be a tyrant in the future.
    Sure, but I don't know ALL the scenarios. What I *do* know is that YOU have a scenario and you need to supply the details of such a scenario. There may well be a single scenario that is possible but I you currently have not supported that in any kind of detail because I can poke holes in your scenario. Therefore, you need to restrict your statement from ANY TYRANT-SCENARIO to only the ones you have in mind.

    It's hardly asking for something unreasonable - I can't read your mind about what TYRANT-SCENARIO you're thinking of. Only you can expose those details. So why are you hiding them?



    No I don't. The only person engaging in arguing about individual detailed scenarios and their individual possibility is YOU. I'm only obligated to address your arguments when they provide support that my arguments are incorrect.
    Well, they are already incorrect. You have already conceded that you do not mean all TYRANT-SCENARIOS. You agree I have found a TYRANT-SCENARIO that is impossible. So you need to modify your scenario to be more restrictive. Otherwise, your just making false statements.

    But I would point out that one does not have to believe that ALL of the scenarios are possible to think that it's possible that a tyrant will exist. They just need to believe that ONE of them is possible. Even if a million are impossible but one is possible, then it's possible that there will be a tyrant. But again, I'm not making a specific argument either way. This is your attack and and I will respond to it to the extent that it succeeds in invalidating my support. But I will say that I certainly don't accept either the notion that ALL of the scenarios are impossible or that ALL of the scenarios are possible.
    Sure, but I cannot think of a single scenario that is possible. However, you're the one claiming it is possible so you need to supply those as to what that TYRANT-SCENARIO is. I already found an impossible case and can come up with more but you have been not forthcoming at all as to what your scenario is. Until then, I consider your TYRANT-SCENARIO impossible, since those are the only scenarios we have at hand and therefore, your general scenario has failed.


    If you don't want to challenge my logic chain or feel you can't challenge it for any reason, that's fine with me. Again, the logic chain counts as support and therefore my argument is supported by it. So feel free to not judge it or challenge it for any reason you care to forward for not engaging with it.

    Again, I actually want you to move on to another point. I understand that you have the right to refuse to do so and continue challenging this point but I certainly don't have to help you do it by giving you what you think you need to make an argument against it. So I'm not.
    Sigh, your logic chain has NOTHING to do with the fact that you do not have enough information to determine possibility or impossibility. I have shown it impossible so you have to accept that and give up your scenario but you cannnot continue saying that your TYRANT-SCENARIO is possible until you restrict it further in such a way I cannot find an impossible solution.


    You don't get to decide if my logic chain is irrelevant. Like I said, it counts as support by ODN standards. You saying "nope. Nuh-uh. not buying it. not convinced. don't accept it. don't think it's relevant" makes no different whatsoever to whether the logic chain counts as support.
    Sure, I'm not currently disagreeing that you can claim it to count as support. But what exactly are you supporting? You're claiming that one day there will be a tyrant and I have given you a scenario where such a tyrant is impossible. So you need to provide details as to what TYRANT-SCENARIO you're talking about. If not, then withdraw the TYRANT.



    Once again, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I need to provide more detail of my scenario before we can determine whether it's possible or not.
    You don't. Since we already have a scenario that is impossible. Therefore, per your logic chain, I have shown it impossible and you can concede. If you have a TYRANT_SCENARIO that is possible then state it. Otherwise, you are making a claim that covers both possible and impossible TYRANT-SCENARIOS. Since I only have your word that such a possible scenario exists, that is insufficient and you need to reveal those details.

    Yes I do have a scenario. I was even able to provide four details about my scenario. You just want scenarios about the details about my scenario. And you aren't getting them.
    Then I accept your concession on the matter. We cannot move forward until you have provided enough information to determine whether your scenario is actually possible or you only believe it possible. It's fine if you don't have the details but we have to stop since I cannot move foward.


    I don't think it will help you win. I think it will help you bog down the debate with further arguments that will not resolve anything. I'm pretty sure I know where the debate will go if I provide some details and I don't want the debate to go there.

    And you need to proceed with the knowledge that you will not be getting any detailed scenarios from me. So stop asking. Stop trying to talk me into it. Accept that I won't be providing them and if you think it's an issue that I've not provided them, then proceed with an argument based on that.
    It's not about winning though. You're the only claiming that we should keep the 2A because of a TYRANT. I am merely asking you how you think such a tyrant can come about. If you cannot then there is no reason to continue to take you seriously on the matter. You're just fantasizing about something you cannot explain in any great detail. So I will stop asking but only because the debate has ended since you have REFUSED to provide information that you're already supposed to have. And you're not doing to for any reason but to prevent me from "winning".

    That's not what debating is supposed to be about. It is about how much depth or detail or how persuasive your case is. And currently, your scenario stands as being impossible to me and you have no further details to provide so we have to go with the one scenario we have and you must concede your scenario.

    I DID NOT challenge you to prove it impossible. In fact, I DON'T WANT YOU TO TRY TO PROVE THAT MY SCENARIO IS IMPOSSIBLE. I want you to drop this point entirely and move to another point. The only person who feels that it's important for you to show that my scenario is impossible is YOU.
    I already did prove it impossible and you accepted my scenario as impossible. Therefore your statement that about the existence of a tyrant needs to be qualified.

    And when one makes it clear that they won't be doing as you ask, it is harassment to continually bug them to do it anyway.
    Then don't and move onto another portion of the debate. You just can't move forward with a scenario that exists only because it can't be proven false; especially after I just did that and you accepted my scenario was impossible.

    Then just drop the civil war scenario and we can move onto other reasons, hopefully in more detail and more defined in such a way that is readily provable or falsifiable.

  19. #99
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,081
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but "X" is not describe in sufficient detail to determine whether it can be true or not. So how can you claim it to be true?
    I didn't claim that it was true. I supported that it was possible via the logic chain.

    And until I see support that I need to provide more detail in order to determine if my scenario is possible, all such claims that I need to provide more detail will be ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but I don't know ALL the scenarios. What I *do* know is that YOU have a scenario and you need to supply the details of such a scenario. There may well be a single scenario that is possible but I you currently have not supported that in any kind of detail because I can poke holes in your scenario. Therefore, you need to restrict your statement from ANY TYRANT-SCENARIO to only the ones you have in mind.
    No I don't. Again, you can ask me to support my argument in a fashion other than the one that I did support it (the logic chain) but I don't have to abide by your request.

    And quite simply, I'm going to ignore any further requests for details.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but I cannot think of a single scenario that is possible. However, you're the one claiming it is possible so you need to supply those as to what that TYRANT-SCENARIO is. I already found an impossible case and can come up with more but you have been not forthcoming at all as to what your scenario is. Until then, I consider your TYRANT-SCENARIO impossible, since those are the only scenarios we have at hand and therefore, your general scenario has failed.
    Consider it however you want. Your opinion that my scenario is impossible does not invalidate the support of my logic chain.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sigh, your logic chain has NOTHING to do with the fact that you do not have enough information to determine possibility or impossibility.
    Once again, I Challenge you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I need to provide more detail of my scenario before we can determine whether it's possible or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have shown it impossible
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you have shown my scenario to be impossible. So far you have only voiced your opinion on the matter.

    Use a logic chain. Start with an established fact - such as "Mican refuses to give a specific scenario where the President becomes a tyrant" and logically follows to "Therefore it's impossible that in 200 years the President will become a tyrant".

    If you do that, then I will agree that you have logically shown that my scenario is impossible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, I'm not currently disagreeing that you can claim it to count as support. But what exactly are you supporting? You're claiming that one day there will be a tyrant and I have given you a scenario where such a tyrant is impossible. So you need to provide details as to what TYRANT-SCENARIO you're talking about. If not, then withdraw the TYRANT.
    No, I said that it's possible, not that there will be one.

    And you presented ONE impossible scenario of tyranny. You have not addressed all of the other potential scenarios but you apparently think that they ALL are impossible. But you just thinking that's the case is not support that that is the case. So you have not shown that all of the other potential scenarios are in fact impossible and therefore have not supported that tyranny is impossible.

    As far as possibility of all of the future scenarios there are three options.

    1. They are all possible
    2. They are all impossible
    3. Some of possible and others are impossible.

    Since you have supported that there is at least one impossible scenario, we can eliminate option 1 and we have left over

    2. They are all impossible
    3. Some of possible and others are impossible.

    Either of them can be true one we accept that there is an impossible scenario. But if option 3 is correct, then future tyranny is still possible. And since the existence of your scenario does not invalidate option 3, it likewise does not prove that the tyranny scenario is impossible.

    So in short, you impossible scenario does not show that a future tyranny cannot happen.

    So I consider this a rebuttal of all of your arguments that you have shown my scenario impossible by forwarding one impossible scenario and therefore will not address other arguments to avoid repeating myself.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then I accept your concession on the matter. We cannot move forward until you have provided enough information to determine whether your scenario is actually possible or you only believe it possible. It's fine if you don't have the details but we have to stop since I cannot move forward.
    You can move forward. You just choose not to.

    But since my argument stands, I'm fine with no further attempts to rebut it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's not about winning though. You're the only claiming that we should keep the 2A because of a TYRANT.
    No I'm not. My argument is that because such a thing is possible, 2A is still relevant. Where we go from there will be determined once we move on from this point. And if we don't move on, then it stops here.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I am merely asking you how you think such a tyrant can come about. If you cannot then there is no reason to continue to take you seriously on the matter. You're just fantasizing about something you cannot explain in any great detail. So I will stop asking but only because the debate has ended since you have REFUSED to provide information that you're already supposed to have. And you're not doing to for any reason but to prevent me from "winning".
    WRONG! I stated directly why I don't want to provide details. Here it is again, this time in bold for emphasis.

    I think it will help you bog down the debate with further arguments that will not resolve anything. I'm pretty sure I know where the debate will go if I provide some details and I don't want the debate to go there. And where it will go is nowhere. You won't win by using what I've forwarded but you will keep us arguing over something that won't resolve anything. So I'm not going to go along.

    And I think it's really bad form to tell me what my alleged motive is, especially after I told you why I am not going to do it. Essentially you are calling me a liar when you say my motivation is something other than what I told you it is. Please display better manners in the future.

    And for that manner, if me not giving you the information is preventing you from winning, then aren't you admitting that you need my help to win the debate?





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That's not what debating is supposed to be about. It is about how much depth or detail or how persuasive your case is.
    Actually, you are only right on the last point. An argument should have no more depth and detail than it needs to get its point across. All else being equal, the shorter and simpler the argument, the clearer it is. Unnecessary detail is a waste of time and can cause confusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And currently, your scenario stands as being impossible to me and you have no further details to provide so we have to go with the one scenario we have and you must concede your scenario.
    Go with it if you want. But it does not show that my scenario is impossible for it says nothing about all of the other potential scenarios and how possible or impossible they all are.

    I mean if I argued that the Red Sox will win the World Series in 2020 because Superman is going to join their team, I have presented an impossible scenario of them winning the world series. Now, do I need to provide a scenario where it's possible for them to win before it can be accepted that they possibly could win? Of course not. One impossible scenario says NOTHING about all of the other potential scenarios. Nothing at all.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then don't and move onto another portion of the debate. You just can't move forward with a scenario that exists only because it can't be proven false; especially after I just did that and you accepted my scenario was impossible.

    Then just drop the civil war scenario and we can move onto other reasons, hopefully in more detail and more defined in such a way that is readily provable or falsifiable.
    Nope. Since I've supported that it's possible, I have no reason to drop my assertion that it's possible.
    Last edited by mican333; May 8th, 2018 at 06:21 PM.

  20. #100
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    I mean if I argued that the Red Sox will win the World Series in 2020 because Superman is going to join their team, I have presented an impossible scenario of them winning the world series. Now, do I need to provide a scenario where it's possible for them to win before it can be accepted that they possibly could win? Of course not. One impossible scenario says NOTHING about all of the other potential scenarios. Nothing at all.
    Right! Which is why your logic chain is so flawed! I could come up with millions of impossible scenarios yet unless there are more details about the kinds of possible scenarios then is is an impossible question to answer! I believe that you have defeated your own logic chain and showed what an intellectual fraud it is.
    That's why the burden on proof is on the one making the claim and you're the one making a claim that a tyrant is possible. It doesn't matter how many impossible scenarios I come up with - if you have one that is possible, then it is up to you to provide those details!

    Debates are performed on shared worlds and if we can't agree on the world then there is really no debate. I don't see any problems with the baseball scenario but I see many many flaws in your tyrant scenario. And you need to provide details to narrow it down into something that we can both agree to. Hiding information that you should have (since it's your scenario) is just trolling.

    If you don't want to provide details then don't but I will have to consider your scenario both incomplete and withdrawn and your logic chain flawed PER YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!

 

 
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. There is no tenable stance against gay marriage
    By Zhavric in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2011, 10:57 AM
  2. Your stance on overpopulation
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 09:11 AM
  3. Something from nothing: the THEIST stance.
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 08:27 AM
  4. Abortion Stance
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 10:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •