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 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 170
  1. #121
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I could still be in a simulation and it could still happen. So even if I don’t expect it to happen then it could still happen. But my point was to show that there are plenty of scenarios that cannot happen even though they still might.
    You are contradicting yourself. Scenarios that cannot happen are not scenarios that might happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, this logic chain seems to have the same flaws as the old one.
    Nope. I have supported point 1, which is the first part of a logic chain. You have not offered a rebuttal to it. So point 1 stands. So will you concede that point 1 is supported?

    1. If one does not know if X will happen or not, it must be considered possible that X will happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Perhaps you want to try another logic chain with a slightly different spin on the same thing?
    I will try something different once you defeat my current logic chain. So far I've offered the first point and you have provided no rebuttal. So it stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Or should we address the real issue at hand that you have never described any scenario in enough detail to determine what you’re talking about is possible or not.
    You told me to support the truism. I'm doing that. So no, I'm not going to change topic and move into better describing the scenario. I'm not addressing the scenario at all right now but just supporting point one of the logic chain.

    If you want to concede the entire logic chain, THEN we can move on to the scenario.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I understand if you don’t have the detail but then that just stalls your logic chain.
    You told me to support the truism which by itself is not about my specific scenario. You are stalling the debate by not addressing whether I have supported point 1 or not.

    So I'm keeping the focus right here.

    Is

    "1. If one does not know if X will happen or not, it must be considered possible that X will happen."

    accepted or not?

    If yes, then I will move to the next point in my logic chain. If not, then tell me why you don't accept it.

  2. #122
    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
    You are contradicting yourself. Scenarios that cannot happen and not scenarios that might happen.




    Nope. I have supported point 1, which is the first part of a logic chain. You have not offered a rebuttal to it. So point 1 stands. So will you concede that point 1 is supported?

    1. If one does not know if X will happen or not, it must be considered possible that X will happen.




    I will try something different once you defeat my current logic chain. So far I've offered the first point and you have provided no rebuttal. So it stands.



    You told me to support the truism. I'm doing that. So no, I'm not going to change topic and move into better describing the scenario. I'm not addressing the scenario at all right now but just supporting point one of the logic chain.

    If you want to concede the entire logic chain, THEN we can move on to the scenario.




    You told me to support the truism which by itself is not about my specific scenario. You are stalling the debate by not addressing whether I have supported point 1 or not.

    So I'm keeping the focus right here.

    Is

    "1. If one does not know if X will happen or not, it must be considered possible that X will happen."

    accepted or not?

    If yes, then I will move to the next point in my logic chain. If not, then tell me why you don't accept it.
    No. Your logic is wrong. If I know nothing about X then it doesnít follow that I MUST consider the possibility of it happening. It could equally be that it doesnít happen. So why MUSTNíT I also consider the possibility of it it *not* happening?

    In other words, if I donít know if X will happen or not, we cannot determine whether it will happen or not without additional information. Without more information, we can draw no conclusions as to whether it is possible or not. We can no more consider it possible or impossible.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  3. #123
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No. Your logic is wrong. If I know nothing about X then it doesn’t follow that I MUST consider the possibility of it happening.
    That's not what I said. I didn't say that if you know nothing about X, you must consider that it possibly will happen.

    I said if you don't know if X will happen, you must consider it possible that it will happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It could equally be that it doesn’t happen. So why MUSTN’T I also consider the possibility of it it *not* happening?
    That's one and the same. If it possibly can happen, then it might not happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    In other words, if I don’t know if X will happen or not, we cannot determine whether it will happen or not without additional information.
    Again, I didn't say that you know nothing about X.

    The scenario I presented is the potential of a car accident the next time you drive. You will know PLENTY about a car trip. But what you don't know is if you will have an accident (although you would guess the odds are small). So do you concede that the next time you take a drive you don't know if you will have a car accident or not and therefore it's POSSIBLE that you will have an accident (and of course that means that it's possible that you won't).

    Do you agree?

  4. #124
    Registered User

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

    Gun Control and your stance

    That's one and the same. If it possibly can happen, then it might not happen.
    So your actual logic is:

    If you donít know if X can happen then you MUST consider that it is impossible to happen.


    Again, I didn't say that you know nothing about X.

    The scenario I presented is the potential of a car accident the next time you drive. You will know PLENTY about a car trip. But what you don't know is if you will have an accident (although you would guess the odds are small). So do you concede that the next time you take a drive you don't know if you will have a car accident or not and therefore it's POSSIBLE that you will have an accident (and of course that means that it's possible that you won't).

    Do you agree?
    I still donít know enough to decide whether itís possible or not. If Iím driving on my own island then I know itís impossible. Unless I know where your situation takes place, I canít say. You might have a trick up your sleeve and reveal additional information as such after I agree with you. So, you need to put all the details in context so that I know that thereís no trick.

    Note that your logic says I MUST - I have no choice - in determining it is possible. But that can only happen if we share the same universe of discourse. Which I know we donít - because I already know you believe in fantasies. I canít even rely on the car being a real car. It could be a toy car, in which case the accident might even be guaranteed. Or it could be that itís a car in a video game, in which case, it would be impossible for me to have a (real) car accident.

    You cannot force your logic on me unless you provide information in order to do so.

  5. #125
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So your actual logic is:

    If you don’t know if X can happen then you MUST consider that it is impossible to happen.
    Well, unless you are going to refrain from making any statement regarding the possibility of X happening, then you MUST choose the position that it's possible or that it's impossible.

    So when it comes to my car scenario, which do you choose:

    1. Possible
    2. Impossible
    3. No answer



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I still don’t know enough to decide whether it’s possible or not.
    Okay. So no answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If I’m driving on my own island then I know it’s impossible. Unless I know where your situation takes place, I can’t say. You might have a trick up your sleeve and reveal additional information as such after I agree with you. So, you need to put all the details in context so that I know that there’s no trick.
    Well, the scenario is that you get in your car (so you are where you are now and not on some island) and you drive somewhere else. I can't see how the destination makes a difference since you could possibly get hit by another car no matter where you drive. As soon as you leave your driveway, an accident can happen (like if another car hits you or your brakes fail and you end up in your neighbors yard).

    But let me re-do my first point to adjust for your objection.

    1. Assuming one is going to take a position on whether it's possible if X will happen or not, if one does not know if X will happen or not, they must conclude that it's possible that X will happen.

    Again, my car scenario is support for that. So assuming you are going to consider the issue of whether driving will result in an accident, and you don't know whether you will have an accident if you drive, then you must conclude that it's possible that you will have an accident.

    Again, that IS support for the point. If you are going to counter it, you will need to provide an argument saying that it's incorrect.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Note that your logic says I MUST - I have no choice - in determining it is possible. But that can only happen if we share the same universe of discourse. Which I know we don’t - because I already know you believe in fantasies. I can’t even rely on the car being a real car. It could be a toy car, in which case the accident might even be guaranteed. Or it could be that it’s a car in a video game, in which case, it would be impossible for me to have a (real) car accident.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I believe in fantasies. Likewise SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the "Future Civil War" scenario qualifies as a fantasy - and please use a dictionary definition as part of your support. If you make up your own definition, you will be challenged to support that it is a valid definition so again, just use a dictionary definition for your support.

    To be clear, until you support that the FCW scenario qualifies as fantasy, you cannot repeat your assertion that it is fantasy.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You cannot force your logic on me unless you provide information in order to do so.
    But I can force my logic into the debate by making a logically valid argument and then showing that no one has rebutted it. To be clear, providing an excuse to not address my argument is not addressing my argument. You will need to address it in order to defeat it.

    So I have supported my first point.

    1. Assuming one is going to take a position on whether it's possible if X will happen or not, if one does not know if X will happen or not, they must conclude that it's possible that X will happen.

    I'm not asking you to concede it. I'm asking you to rebut it. If you don't offer a valid rebuttal in your next post, I will consider it established and move on to my next point in the logic chain.
    Last edited by mican333; May 13th, 2018 at 09:16 AM.

  6. #126
    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
    Well, unless you are going to refrain from making any statement regarding the possibility of X happening, then you MUST choose the position that it's possible or that it's impossible.

    So when it comes to my car scenario, which do you choose:

    1. Possible
    2. Impossible
    3. No answer
    No, my answer is that there is insufficient information to determine this.


    Well, the scenario is that you get in your car (so you are where you are now and not on some island) and you drive somewhere else. I can't see how the destination makes a difference since you could possibly get hit by another car no matter where you drive. As soon as you leave your driveway, an accident can happen (like if another car hits you or your brakes fail and you end up in your neighbors yard).

    But let me re-do my first point to adjust for your objection.

    1. Assuming one is going to take a position on whether it's possible if X will happen or not, if one does not know if X will happen or not, they must conclude that it's possible that X will happen.

    Again, my car scenario is support for that. So assuming you are going to consider the issue of whether driving will result in an accident, and you don't know whether you will have an accident if you drive, then you must conclude that it's possible that you will have an accident.

    Again, that IS support for the point. If you are going to counter it, you will need to provide an argument saying that it's incorrect.
    Nope. I already did provide an argument. I said that you do not have enough information to make a determination as to whether it is possible or not possible. Therefore, the conclusion is NOT to conclude that it is possible. I don't think I can make it any simpler!

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I believe in fantasies. Likewise SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the "Future Civil War" scenario qualifies as a fantasy - and please use a dictionary definition as part of your support. If you make up your own definition, you will be challenged to support that it is a valid definition so again, just use a dictionary definition for your support.

    To be clear, until you support that the FCW scenario qualifies as fantasy, you cannot repeat your assertion that it is fantasy.
    Um, that's what we've been doing for the last 10 days or so. It is my POSITION that it is a fantasy and that you have no details to make it a plausible scenario. It took about a week to get some minor details about your scenario and we are just examining one of them: namely that America votes itself a tyrant. We still do not know what this guy did to become a tyrant and we don't know what he started this supposed war. So that tells me that this is the same old wet dream that gun supporters use: also with no realism, details or plausibility.

    You prove my point yourself by refusing to provide information and wasting time on poorly defined logic chains. But this is where we are. I have every right to ASSERT that you believe in fantasies because that is what the debate currently is about. And you have done nothing to prove otherwise: According to your own logic chain:

    1. An American Tyrant should be considered a fantasy until proven otherwise.
    2. You have not proven otherwise
    3. Therefore, An American Tyrant is a fantasy.

    Therefore, you have no American Tyrant and your FCW scenario collapses also into a fantasy.

    Forbidding me to state my case is NOT conducive to a good debate. I have every right to do so and to bring in my arguments into this one since they are related. If you don't like to be accused of supporting fantasies then either a) don't support fantasies or b) prove that they're not. It's that simple. Until then, you cannot tell me what I am allowed to believe.

    But I can force my logic into the debate by making a logically valid argument and then showing that no one has rebutted it. To be clear, providing an excuse to not address my argument is not addressing my argument. You will need to address it in order to defeat it.

    So I have supported my first point.

    1. Assuming one is going to take a position on whether it's possible if X will happen or not, if one does not know if X will happen or not, they must conclude that it's possible that X will happen.

    I'm not asking you to concede it. I'm asking you to rebut it. If you don't offer a valid rebuttal in your next post, I will consider it established and move on to my next point in the logic chain.
    I have rebutted it. A few times!

    The only correct conclusion is if you don't know don't have enough information on ANYTHING, is to maintain a neutral agnostic position. Also, until YOU have supplied information to make such a conclusion, which you haven't, to make X possible, we cannot conclude anything. However, since I have provided an argument where X is impossible, then it must also be considered that X is impossible since that is where the current evidence lies.

    Since it's your own scenario, you have to provide sufficient information as to whether your scenario makes X possible. It's your scenario so the burden is upon you to do the work, you can't expect other people to find flaws in your scenario.

  7. #127
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, my answer is that there is insufficient information to determine this.
    `
    And because you believer you have insufficient data, you are giving NO ANSWER on whether it is possible or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Nope. I already did provide an argument. I said that you do not have enough information to make a determination as to whether it is possible or not possible. Therefore, the conclusion is NOT to conclude that it is possible. I don't think I can make it any simpler!
    I understand perfectly. Do you understand that to not conclude means that you are forwarding no conclusion and therefore not taking a position on whether it is possible or not?



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um, that's what we've been doing for the last 10 days or so. It is my POSITION that it is a fantasy and that you have no details to make it a plausible scenario.
    Right and now I'm CHALLENGING you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that position (the fantasy part, that is).


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It took about a week to get some minor details about your scenario and we are just examining one of them: namely that America votes itself a tyrant. We still do not know what this guy did to become a tyrant and we don't know what he started this supposed war. So that tells me that this is the same old wet dream that gun supporters use: also with no realism, details or plausibility.
    Your opinion on whether it's a "wet dream" is noted. But you have not supported that the scenario qualifies as a fantasy. It's certainly not something that I want to see happen so it's no fantasy of mine. And there's no fairies or elves involved so it's not that kind of fantasy either. So I don't agree that it's fantasy and ask that you either support your assertion or retract it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You prove my point yourself by refusing to provide information and wasting time on poorly defined logic chains. But this is where we are. I have every right to ASSERT that you believe in fantasies because that is what the debate currently is about.
    Right, when you are challenged to support it, you either MUST support it or cease repeating it. We are now at that point. Your opinion that that is what is going on is not support. You need to provide, well, support.

    To repeat, you have been challenged to support or retract that the FCW is a fantasy. Either support your assertion or retract it (and not repeating it counts as a retraction so you don't need to "wave the white flag" - you can just drop the issue).


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And you have done nothing to prove otherwise: According to your own logic chain:

    1. An American Tyrant should be considered a fantasy until proven otherwise.
    2. You have not proven otherwise
    3. Therefore, An American Tyrant is a fantasy.
    That's not my logic chain. That is your logic chain. And since your first point engages in the argument from ignorance fallacy, your chain does not support the conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have every right to do so and to bring in my arguments into this one since they are related. If you don't like to be accused of supporting fantasies then either a) don't support fantasies or b) prove that they're not.
    Shifting the burden. If you want to accuse me of engaging in fantasies you either need to:
    1. Support your assertion
    2. Stop making the assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have rebutted it. A few times!

    The only correct conclusion is if you don't know don't have enough information on ANYTHING, is to maintain a neutral agnostic position.
    which in now way rebuts my point. Here it is again.

    "1. Assuming one is going to take a position on whether it's possible if X will happen or not, if one does not know if X will happen or not, they must conclude that it's possible that X will happen."

    If you take the agnostic position, then you are not taking a position on whether X will happen or not. But per the point, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE A POSITION and don't know if X will happen or not, then you must conclude that it's possible that X will happen. And I have supported that by showing that those who DO take a position have to conclude that X is possible if they don't know if it will happen or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Also, until YOU have supplied information to make such a conclusion, which you haven't, to make X possible, we cannot conclude anything. However, since I have provided an argument where X is impossible, then it must also be considered that X is impossible since that is where the current evidence lies.
    But clearly it's insufficient evidence to reach a valid conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Since it's your own scenario, you have to provide sufficient information as to whether your scenario makes X possible. It's your scenario so the burden is upon you to do the work, you can't expect other people to find flaws in your scenario.
    I agree that I need to support my position. BUT I CAN CHOOSE THE METHOD OF SUPPORT. And the method I choose is the logic chain. I've done my work.

  8. #128
    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
    `
    And because you believer you have insufficient data, you are giving NO ANSWER on whether it is possible or not.

    I understand perfectly. Do you understand that to not conclude means that you are forwarding no conclusion and therefore not taking a position on whether it is possible or not?
    I gave you an answer - I am saying it is inconclusive.

    Right and now I'm CHALLENGING you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that position.
    Um, do you forget that this is what we're doing? I am trying to show you that your own position is a fantasy and you are using a ridiculous logic chain in order to prove it. We are now trying to prove the logic chain using ANOTHER logic chain, which are you also failing to support. So thus far:

    You haven't supported your current logic chain.
    You haven't supported your original logic chain.
    You haven't supported a single detail of your original 'scenario'
    You haven't supported your scenario.
    You haven't weighed your scenario against other risks in keeping 2A.

    You have literally done NOTHING except dodge and roll and moan and complain whilst engaging in terrible debate tactics. Your entire argument is a fantasy!


    Your opinion on whether it's a "wet dream" is noted. But you have not supported that the scenario qualifies as a fantasy. It's certainly not something that I want to see happen so it's no fantasy of mine.
    Of course it qualifies as fantasy - you have been able to supply any realistic detail to any part of this. All you have been able to do is to describe a bare minimum description of what *you* think could happen yet you have failed to describe what it is that is happening. That makes it a dream, a fantasy, a vague idea of something to be fearful about. It certainly NOT a scenario of any measure and certainly not one that is even possible to examine given your lack of information.


    Right, when you are challenged to support it, you either MUST support it or cease repeating it. We are now at that point. Your opinion that that is what is going on is not support. You need to provide, well, support.

    To repeat, you have been challenged to support or retract that the FCW is a fantasy. Either support your assertion or retract it (and not repeating it counts as a retraction so you don't need to "wave the white flag" - you can just drop the issue).
    I have shown above that your TYRANT scenario - you keep forgetting this is NOTHING to do with your FCW scenario yet because you haven't described your TYRANT in sufficient detail. No Tyrant, no FCW. If you can support your Tyrant then we move onto the next detail. But currently we're stuck within TWO logic chains as you avoid having to to describe what that tyrant actually is!


    That's not my logic chain. That is your logic chain. And since your first point engages in the argument from ignorance fallacy, your chain does not support the conclusion.
    As are you. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or would you prefer me to say that it is POSSIBLE that you are engaging in fantasy - is that wording better? Yes, I believe it is, so I do withdraw my previous statements and say;

    1. It is possible that your tyrant scenario is a fantasy until proven otherwise.
    2. You have no proven your scenario is possible
    3. Therefore, your tyrant scenario is a fantasy

    which in now way rebuts my point. Here it is again.

    "1. Assuming one is going to take a position on whether it's possible if X will happen or not, if one does not know if X will happen or not, they must conclude that it's possible that X will happen."

    If you take the agnostic position, then you are not taking a position on whether X will happen or not. But per the point, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE A POSITION and don't know if X will happen or not, then you must conclude that it's possible that X will happen. And I have supported that by showing that those who DO take a position have to conclude that X is possible if they don't know if it will happen or not.
    I don't think you have supported ANYTHING yet - it's just a nested stack of fake logic that says nothing. And you can conclude whatever you want, if you're asking me to take a position then it is my right and your burden to provide information so that I can make a decision. Since you have failed to do so your entire logic chain fails all the way up and I can conclude you are engaging in 2A fantasy and dismiss your FCW as such.


    Only if one can hold that that is the only possible scenario. Otherwise, it says nothing at all regarding whether it can or can't happen.
    Who knows what your scenario is, it's so evasive and lacking in detail.


    I agree that I need to support my position. BUT I CAN CHOOSE THE METHOD OF SUPPORT. And the method I choose is the logic chain. I've done my work.
    Sure. And I have done mine in showing you have no position to speak of. Thanks for playing. Your concession on the matter is done since you have failed at every turn.

    Perhaps now we can stop engaging in fantasies and start with some realistic reasons as to why you support 2A. Currently, all your scenarios have been exposed as fantasies and fraught with ADDITIONAL risks that cause ACTUAL DEATHS OF CHILDREN. I think after a couple of weeks of nothing, you need to just resign from this debate. You're literally getting nowhere and forgetting your place in the debate and just throwing out logic bombs one after the other; each one failing in the SAME WAY as the previous.

  9. #129
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I gave you an answer - I am saying it is inconclusive.
    Which means you are not asserting that it's possible and you are not asserting that it's impossible. That's what I mean by "no answer". Is this really that hard to understand? Do I need to phrase it differently or something? Whatever term you want to use for one who does not assert that's possible or impossible is what I mean.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um, do you forget that this is what we're doing? I am trying to show you that your own position is a fantasy
    Then how about offering some support that it is. As far as the rest of this comment, it is just a bunch of complaining that does not forward the debate and likewise is rude so I'm ignoring it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course it qualifies as fantasy - you have been able to supply any realistic detail to any part of this. All you have been able to do is to describe a bare minimum description of what *you* think could happen yet you have failed to describe what it is that is happening. That makes it a dream, a fantasy, a vague idea of something to be fearful about.
    There is no definition of "fantasy" that I'm aware of that "an overly vague scenario that one thinks could happen but has failed to describe well enough for someone else' satisfaction". Support that something qualifies as a "fantasy" likely requires a link to a dictionary site.

    So no, you have not supported that my position is fantasy. You just repeated it without support.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It certainly NOT a scenario of any measure and certainly not one that is even possible to examine given your lack of information.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I have given insufficient information.

    I have given four details. I think that's enough. You obviously disagree and think I need to provide more. Well, that just seems to be an opinion so in response I will say that your opinion about the amount of detail being insufficient is noted. If you are going to say that I NEED to give more, you will need to support that.

    I will likely ignore any further comments that I need to provide more details until you support that I actually do.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have shown above that your TYRANT scenario - you keep forgetting this is NOTHING to do with your FCW scenario yet because you haven't described your TYRANT in sufficient detail. No Tyrant, no FCW. If you can support your Tyrant then we move onto the next detail. But currently we're stuck within TWO logic chains as you avoid having to to describe what that tyrant actually is!
    So let me ask. IF I describe the tyrant in better detail, would the THEN agree that I've given you enough detail? If yes, then let me know what information you want and I may give it. If not, then as far as I know, if I give you more detail on the tyrant, you will still claim "it's not enough" and may claim that no matter how much more detail I give.

    So tell me what information you need regarding the tyrant and/or the scenario in general and I may give you that detail. If you refuse, then I have no reason to think that you even know how much detail is enough and therefore cannot judge when enough is given.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    As are you. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or would you prefer me to say that it is POSSIBLE that you are engaging in fantasy - is that wording better? Yes, I believe it is, so I do withdraw my previous statements and say;

    1. It is possible that your tyrant scenario is a fantasy until proven otherwise.
    2. You have no proven your scenario is possible
    3. Therefore, your tyrant scenario is a fantasy
    Nope. 3 does not follow points 1 and 2. Point 3s conclusion would be "There is it possible that the tyrant scenario is a fantasy". And I agree with that. But it possibly being fantasy does not support that it IS a fantasy. So you have not supported that the scenario is a fantasy with that logic chain.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't think you have supported ANYTHING yet - it's just a nested stack of fake logic that says nothing.
    Your opinion is noted but I have supported this:

    1. Assuming one is going to take a position on whether it's possible if X will happen or not, if one does not know if X will happen or not, they must conclude that it's possible that X will happen

    I have provided a scenario that shows that if one considers the issue of possibilities and doesn't know if they will have a car accident if they drive, then they must conclude that it's possible that they will have a car accident.

    And really, this is just simple logic. If you disagree, you need to at least state WHY you disagree.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And you can conclude whatever you want, if you're asking me to take a position then it is my right and your burden to provide information so that I can make a decision.
    And of course since how much information you need is not determined beforehand, you can ask for more and more and more and more and more information no matter how much I give and stall the debate indefinitely.

    That is why I am asking you to tell me how much detail you need and/or what specific things you want before I even consider providing it. I see no reason why you can't do that unless it would ruin the tactic of being able to ask for more and more information in order to stall the debate.

    So I'm offering to give you want you want (although I will have to see the questions before I agree to answer them in case you ask for something completely unreasonable, like the names of every soldier involved). So seriously, put up or shut up.

    If you need more details, either tell me what details you need or stop claiming that you need them.


    And your final comment is not worth responding to so I won't respond.
    Last edited by mican333; May 13th, 2018 at 12:39 PM.

  10. #130
    Registered User

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

    Gun Control and your stance

    I see you have said nothing to forward the discussion so weíre at an impasse until you do so. Please do so or Iíll have to consider your points al retracted and we can move on.

    If it helps, just make one statement to help your most important point.

  11. #131
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I see you have said nothing to forward the discussion so we’re at an impasse until you do so. Please do so or I’ll have to consider your points al retracted and we can move on.
    My points are retracted when I retract them, not when you decide to consider them retracted.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If it helps, just make one statement to help your most important point.
    Well, I think I may have a way to get past this.

    The whole point of my scenario is to demonstrate that your argument that 2A is irrelevant (which of course means that it will always be irrelevant) is incorrect. But I realize that by arguing against your claim before you've supported your claim, I've let you shift the burden (my error entirely - no blame on you). So if you retract your argument that 2A is irrelevant, then my argument becomes irrelevant as well and I have no need to continue forwarding it (which I guess would count as a retraction which by no means should be seen as an admission that my argument is at all incorrect).

    So we may be able to move past this. So let me ask you a question.

    Do you claim that the 2nd Amendment is, and will always be, irrelevant because no scenario where it will be relevant will ever occur?

    If no, we can move on (and you can argue other points).

    If yes, then I will address this claim.
    Last edited by mican333; May 14th, 2018 at 01:32 PM.

  12. #132
    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
    My points are retracted when I retract them, not when you decide to consider them retracted.




    Well, I think I may have a way to get past this.

    The whole point of my scenario is to demonstrate that your argument that 2A is irrelevant (which of course means that it will always be irrelevant) is incorrect. But I realize that by arguing against your claim before you've supported your claim, I've let you shift the burden (my error entirely - no blame on you). So if you retract your argument that 2A is irrelevant, then my argument becomes irrelevant as well and I have no need to continue forwarding it (which I guess would count as a retraction which by no means should be seen as an admission that my argument is at all incorrect).

    So we may be able to move past this. So let me ask you a question.

    Do you claim that the 2nd Amendment is, and will always be, irrelevant because no scenario where it will be relevant will ever occur?

    If no, we can move on (and you can argue other points).

    If yes, then I will address this claim.
    I recall my argument is that we're weighing your fantasy scenarios, whose details are woefully lacking, against the actual scenarios of children's deaths. I have been stating this for 10 days now so I have no idea what you think you've been arguing against. And your scenarios are not out of line with what is normally forwarded and neither is the fact that you've failed to fill in some essential details a new occurrence either. So my argument is that if gun proponents cannot justify the existence of 2A in a way that is plausible then we obviously don't need it.

    It is very easy to support other rights enumerated in the Constitution to the point that we can clearly come up with scenarios where we weigh in on restricting or repealing such rights (e.g. crying fire in a crowded theater is a good reason why we should restrict free speech). However, the arguments for 2A echo the original reasons why 2A was declared in the first place and we end up with fantasies that proponents haven't been able to explain in any great detail.

    So we have to weigh the risk that some poorly defended fantasy comes true against the ACTUAL deaths CAUSED by 2A and decide whether we need to continue to keep it. Just as we can restrict free speech to prevent harm, we should all restrict gun ownership to remove harm too. I would go further and say 2A is completely unnecessary and much easier to just repeal the whole thing rather than chipping away at it.

    I think you're going on a new pointless tangent to say that 2A will never be needed - it might be possible that aliens attacking the Earth might have a harder time in the US rather than any other country. Or there might well be some scenario that could be plausible enough to discussion but it has yet to be revealed in the real world, never mind in this debate. So the weight of evidence lies towards getting rid of it and none at all to keep it.

    If you're going to rest your case based on the off chance that some, currently unknown, future fantasy might come about where we might regret removing 2A then that's hardly a good argument either and certainly of no consolation to those parents whose children have been killed.

    But I do consider your scenarios all withdrawn and we can finally move onto another point. Defending a poorly supported fantasy is always going to be hard, I'm glad you finally realized what a bad idea it was all along and thank you for doing so.

  13. #133
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I recall my argument is that we're weighing your fantasy scenarios, whose details are woefully lacking, against the actual scenarios of children's deaths. I have been stating this for 10 days now so I have no idea what you think you've been arguing against. And your scenarios are not out of line with what is normally forwarded and neither is the fact that you've failed to fill in some essential details a new occurrence either.
    I reject the notion that I've failed to fill in essential details and have asked you multiple times to tell me what details you require before you consider my scenario detailed enough to consider and you've balked every time.

    So I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I have provided insufficient details for my scenario.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So my argument is that if gun proponents cannot justify the existence of 2A in a way that is plausible then we obviously don't need it.
    Which is shifting the burden. If you are going to argue that 2A is no longer needed, you need to support that with your own argument, not telling the other side that they must support the opposite conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It is very easy to support other rights enumerated in the Constitution to the point that we can clearly come up with scenarios where we weigh in on restricting or repealing such rights (e.g. crying fire in a crowded theater is a good reason why we should restrict free speech). However, the arguments for 2A echo the original reasons why 2A was declared in the first place and we end up with fantasies that proponents haven't been able to explain in any great detail.
    Until you support your assertion that the reasons for 2A are fantasies, any argument with that as a premise will be ignored for being based on a false premise. So this argument is ignored for that reason.

    In fact I, again, Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the FCW scenario is a fantasy. And you must use something other than what you think as support (like a dictionary).




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So we have to weigh the risk that some poorly defended fantasy comes true against the ACTUAL deaths CAUSED by 2A and decide whether we need to continue to keep it. Just as we can restrict free speech to prevent harm, we should all restrict gun ownership to remove harm too.
    And I'm not opposing reasonable restrictions to gun rights, like universal background checks. The current debate is over doing away with 2A altogether, isn't it?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I think you're going on a new pointless tangent to say that 2A will never be needed - it might be possible that aliens attacking the Earth might have a harder time in the US rather than any other country. Or there might well be some scenario that could be plausible enough to discussion but it has yet to be revealed in the real world, never mind in this debate. So the weight of evidence lies towards getting rid of it and none at all to keep it.
    You have not presented enough evidence to reasonably draw that conclusion. You have provided no evidence that shows that you can say what the odds of 2A being needed in the next 10. 50. 100, 200 years actually are. Just, without support, saying that any scenario where it would be necessary "fantasies" does not come close. You can think whatever you want to think but if you are going to argue that we will never, or are very unlikely to ever, benefit from the protections of 2A you will need some real evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But I do consider your scenarios all withdrawn and we can finally move onto another point. Defending a poorly supported fantasy is always going to be hard, I'm glad you finally realized what a bad idea it was all along and thank you for doing so.
    Why on Earth are you pretending that I've conceded this issue? If you are going to play that game, then let me make it clear.

    I DO NOT RETRACT A SINGLE POSITION THAT I'VE TAKEN HERE. I said that I MIGHT retract certain arguments IF you decided to drop the argument that 2A is irrelevant. You have not so I do not drop any of my arguments.

    You have provided nothing that would convince anyone, beyond yourself of course, that what I've described could reasonably be considered a fantasy or that my logic chain does not hold up.

  14. #134
    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 reject the notion that I've failed to fill in essential details and have asked you multiple times to tell me what details you require before you consider my scenario detailed enough to consider and you've balked every time.

    So I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I have provided insufficient details for my scenario.
    I believe I have done that many times and throughout the last 10 days. You have provided insufficient details because unless you show what kind of Tyrant you are claiming to exist then you donít have a realistic scenario.

    Your scenario isnít a bad President, which doesnít require any explanation but you have gone to the trouble to call this President a Tyrant. I have asked multiple times as to what this Tyrant did to become one and you have continue to fail to provide information.

    And thatís just a start - I cannot provide you more prompts to flesh out your poorly defined scenarios since you canít answer even a basic question about him.

    Please do so.

    Which is shifting the burden. If you are going to argue that 2A is no longer needed, you need to support that with your own argument, not telling the other side that they must support the opposite conclusion.
    Not at all. Iíve already seen most of the scenarios in your earlier posts. You have presented nothing new or innovative to forward why we should still need 2A. Your fantasies hark back to the original reasons for 2A but you continue to fail to make them appear plausible enough to take seriously. Not least of which youíre invoking Tyrants and very odd combinations of the countryís support for such a Tyrant.

    So if the original reasons for 2A arenít really plausible any more, especially when so poorly presented by supporters of the 2A, then there is no reason to continue having it.

    Until you support your assertion that the reasons for 2A are fantasies, any argument with that as a premise will be ignored for being based on a false premise. So this argument is ignored for that reason.

    In fact I, again, Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the FCW scenario is a fantasy. And you must use something other than what you think as support (like a dictionary).
    Um, a dictionary does provide support:

    an idea with no basis in reality.
    "it is a misleading fantasy to suggest that the bill can be implemented"

    This is the only support I need but it is proven out by your lack of being able to put a it on par with ANY basis in reality. You may have some information but after 10 days of you avoiding to answer some simple questions about your own scenario, I have to conclude that it is indeed a fantasy.

    And I'm not opposing reasonable restrictions to gun rights, like universal background checks. The current debate is over doing away with 2A altogether, isn't it?
    Sure. I become more convinced that there is no need for 2A with the main proponents relying on. Reasonable gun restrictions are certainly a place to start so I do not disagree with your stance.

    But until someone can demonstrate a clear need for 2A, I see no reason why we should not get rid of it.

    You have not presented enough evidence to reasonably draw that conclusion. You have provided no evidence that shows that you can say what the odds of 2A being needed in the next 10. 50. 100, 200 years actually are. Just, without support, saying that any scenario where it would be necessary "fantasies" does not come close. You can think whatever you want to think but if you are going to argue that we will never, or are very unlikely to ever, benefit from the protections of 2A you will need some real evidence.
    Calling the opposing sideís scenarios fantasies should be sufficient since they are the best arguments for keeping 2A. And everyone (or at least both of you) have continued to fail to provide such scenarios. Indeed, with your own FCW, youíve somehow got all the citizens to disagree with a president and the entire congress they voted for. This is a pretty implausible scenario, even given you can explain how your President becomes a Tyrant (which you havenít).

    So if the best the other side has is just fantasy then I think we can take the risk to save some actual lives now. And what can be repealed can be brought back - thereís no reason why if people feel they need to have guns that 2A couldnít come back. Until then, at least there would be a lot of lives saved.


    Why on Earth are you pretending that I've conceded this issue? If you are going to play that game, then let me make it clear.

    I DO NOT RETRACT A SINGLE POSITION THAT I'VE TAKEN HERE. I said that I MIGHT retract certain arguments IF you decided to drop the argument that 2A is irrelevant. You have not so I do not drop any of my arguments.

    You have provided nothing that would convince anyone, beyond yourself of course, that what I've described could reasonably be considered a fantasy or that my logic chain does not hold up.
    Your logic chains are pointless excuses to avoid having to provide details that would make your scenario plausible. I would imagine that there are a lot of people that find your bare bones, barely explained, Ďscenarioí realistic enough to justify keeping their guns. But to me they are unsupported fantasies and until you can provide answers to some very simple questions, it remains my position.

    And you can keep all your scenarios if you wish. Like I said, you have said nothing new and provided no more information than other 2A supporters do in such debates. You have had your say and you have failed to provide a scenario that can be taken seriously. And certainly not as scenario that is worth killing children over.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  15. #135
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I believe I have done that many times and throughout the last 10 days. You have provided insufficient details because unless you show what kind of Tyrant you are claiming to exist then you don’t have a realistic scenario.
    Because you say so? Your OPINION does not qualify as support and therefore your OPINION that I need to tell you what kind of Tyrant exists in my scenario before I've provided sufficient details does not qualify as support either.

    So no, just saying something does not equate support

    So again, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I've provided insufficient detail for my scenario.

    And as I recall, you asked that I focus on one issue. So this is where I will focus it. We will debate nothing but whether my scenario has sufficient detail until either:

    1. You support that I have provided insufficient detail

    or

    2. You retract the claim that I have provided insufficient detail.

  16. #136
    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
    Because you say so? Your OPINION does not qualify as support and therefore your OPINION that I need to tell you what kind of Tyrant exists in my scenario before I've provided sufficient details does not qualify as support either.

    So no, just saying something does not equate support

    So again, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I've provided insufficient detail for my scenario.

    And as I recall, you asked that I focus on one issue. So this is where I will focus it. We will debate nothing but whether my scenario has sufficient detail until either:

    1. You support that I have provided insufficient detail

    or

    2. You retract the claim that I have provided insufficient detail.
    You appear (and not for the first time) inventing things to argue against. It took you 10 days to realize that you were barking up the wrong tree yet now you continue to bark up the same tree.

    I have supported you provided insufficient detail because I do not see how a tyrant can realistically be voted in by the citizens (who bizarrely now fight against said tyrant).

    Without those details, it is may opinion, that your scenario is a fantasy, per the definition of fantasy I forwarded earlier - that it has no basis in reality.

    I have no reason to conclude you are offering a scenario that is plausible. And it may be opinion but thatís all there is. Itís better than fantasy, which is all you have.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  17. #137
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have supported you provided insufficient detail because I do not see how a tyrant can realistically be voted in by the citizens (who bizarrely now fight against said tyrant).
    That is not a valid basis for support that insufficient detail has been provided.

    If you are going to have a bar where we go from "insufficient detail" to "sufficient detail", there needs to be some kind of objective (or agreed upon) standard. By all appearance, the standard you are using is entirely subjective. I mean you just said that it's insufficient because "I do not see how". So that means that standard of sufficiency is based on your own PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING. Since that is a completely unreasonable standard for support that sufficient detail has been provided, you cannot use "I don't see how" as a standard. I mean if you were a complete moron (and I am not for a moment suggesting that you actually are) then the bar for making you "see how" would be incredibly high. And if you were a dishonest debater (and again, I am not saying that you are), then you can just say "I don't see how" no matter how well I explain it. So one's personal understanding is a completely invalid basis for sufficiency.

    So try again. Support or retract that insufficient detail has been provided. And to give you some advance notice, you do need to establish an acceptable standard of sufficiency before you can say it has not been met. And the standard that is based on whatever you happen to think or feel will never suffice.

  18. #138
    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
    That is not a valid basis for support that insufficient detail has been provided.

    If you are going to have a bar where we go from "insufficient detail" to "sufficient detail", there needs to be some kind of objective (or agreed upon) standard. By all appearance, the standard you are using is entirely subjective. I mean you just said that it's insufficient because "I do not see how". So that means that standard of sufficiency is based on your own PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING. Since that is a completely unreasonable standard for support that sufficient detail has been provided, you cannot use "I don't see how" as a standard. I mean if you were a complete moron (and I am not for a moment suggesting that you actually are) then the bar for making you "see how" would be incredibly high. And if you were a dishonest debater (and again, I am not saying that you are), then you can just say "I don't see how" no matter how well I explain it. So one's personal understanding is a completely invalid basis for sufficiency.

    So try again. Support or retract that insufficient detail has been provided. And to give you some advance notice, you do need to establish an acceptable standard of sufficiency before you can say it has not been met. And the standard that is based on whatever you happen to think or feel will never suffice.
    I have already listed some specific points that would make your scenario better explained. Namely, *what* did the Tyrant do to cause this FCW in the first place. That is a perfectly reasonable and objectively important detail as to whether your Tyrant is possible. I showed you an example of a Tyrant that is clearly impossible and since it is your scenario, the burden is upon you to show a Tyrant that is possible.

    Since you fail to do so, you do not provide sufficient objective and necessary information to demonstrate that your scenario is anything more than smoke and mirrors to win a debate. If you have no details, as an ďhonestĒ debater, I would expect you to say that you donít know and you donít have that information and we can dismiss the scenario. Instead, youíve spent a week avoiding your obligations to provide information necessary to make your scenario plausible!

    To now suggest that I have set the bar high is ridiculous. I have asked simple questions as to each of your four details, all of which should be apparent if you intended to give your scenario some credibility. Instead, youíre working on a misapprehension that providing information will be points for me somehow, when really theyíre points for you to show that there are legitimate reasons to believe that a tyrant could cause a civil war as you described.

    And if you are looking for a sufficient standard, then common sense should tell you that you do not have a scenario that can be taken seriously against a dead child.

    If you want more then consider that I have shown you that your scenario about a Tyrant also covers impossible Tyrants. You need to provide information so that the set of Tyrants are possible and it is up to you to describe what constitutes a possible Tyrant. At the very least you should be able to describe what that Tyrant did to cause a civil war.

    But you have revealed that you havenít answered only because I may ask more questions and what is wrong with that? Surely it would have been more productive to explore your ideas about a Tyrant than to spend a week avoiding it? Perhaps in doing so, you will come to realize how unrealistic your scenario is. But the only way to find out is to explore not to hide. So stop hiding.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  19. #139
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have already listed some specific points that would make your scenario better explained.
    But you have not supported that those points are necessary for my scenario to be sufficiently detailed. Of course any additional details will make it "better explained" but that doesn't mean that the current level of explanation is inadequate and you have not supported that it's inadequate.

    Let me put it this way. I've provided four details. And if they are insufficient, then there is a bar of "sufficiency" that I have not met. So unless you can show that there is a bar of sufficiency and I've fallen short of it with just those four details, the notion that my details are not enough is unsupported. in other words, you are just baselessly claim that it's insufficient. If I'm incorrect that your claim is baseless, then please show me the "base" because so far it really just seems like whether the level of detail is sufficient is based on nothing more than your say-so.

    In fact, let me ask you this directly

    Question to opponent. Is your determination for when a sufficient level of detail has been given based on anything other than whatever you happen to think it is?

    Assuming the answer to that question is "no", then theoretically I can never give enough detail as you can always say "that's not enough" if the standard is based on just whatever you think it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Namely, *what* did the Tyrant do to cause this FCW in the first place. That is a perfectly reasonable and objectively important detail as to whether your Tyrant is possible.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that it is an objectively important detail as to whether the Tyrant is possible.

    To me it's looks entirely subjective that it's important - based on nothing more than your own opinion that it's important.
    Last edited by mican333; May 14th, 2018 at 09:52 PM.

  20. #140
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    The staff was asked to step in an adjudicate a challenge and request for support.


    While there were preceding lines of argumentation, the orginal claims, made by Sharmak in post 124, is that Mican believe in fantasies and, further, that the tyranny scenario is a fantasy.

    Mican formally request support for those two claims in post 125;

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I believe in fantasies. Likewise SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the "Future Civil War" scenario qualifies as a fantasy

    In post 126, Sharmak responds and makes the claim again;

    It is my POSITION that it is a fantasy and that you have no details to make it a plausible scenario.

    He offers no support for that position and is, therefore, in violation of the rules. This claim is officially retracted and cannot be used in this thread again without support. Violation of this finding will result in an infraction and possibly being banned from this thread.

    If there are questions or concerns about this finding, please send us a PM or use the "Ask the Staff" forum.


    So additional clarification on our finding;

    1) Sharmak is incorrectly substituting the criteria for plausibility for that of possibility. He is insisting that Mican convince him personally that this is a plausible scenario. That is not Mican's claim, nor does Sharmaks position on acceptence mean anything to the truth value of Mican's claim. ["So that tells me that this is the same old wet dream that gun supporters use: also with no realism, details or plausibility."]

    2) Sharmak's attempt to copy Mican's argument from earlier are incorrect. Mican's argument relied on the scenario being possible. Possibility is, essentially, not being contradictory to known facts nor logically contradictory, thus Mican's reasoning constitutes support since he is defending it based on the definition of the word at issue. It is an argument aimed at defending his claim. Sharmak's claim, however, is not about something being a possibility, but about something being true. You cannot assert that something is actually a true state of affairs by appealing to the mutual exclusion rule without further defense.

    To serve man.

 

 
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 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
  •