It's not really a debate

[FreightTrain]

It's quite laughable debating something with the ill-equipped.

Debater #1: "How do you define a given word?"
Debater #2: "Sometimes I do what my phone tells me, sometimes I make up my own definitions."
Debarer #1: "That's not very logical."
Debater #2: "I made up my own definition for the word logical to fit my argument."
Debater #1: "Have a nice day. It was fun talking to you."
Debater #2: "Thank you, you're very courteous."
Debater #1: (to self) "Wow, that person doesn't really get sarcasm nor logic!"

 

[FreightTrain]

Another debate ploy I enjoy:
Debater #1: "How come the earth revolves around the sun?"
Debater #2: "Because somebody told me it did."
Debater #1: "Was it a reliable source?"
Debater #2: "I noticed that your shoe's untied."
Debater #1: "Yeah, but I was wondring where you heard that fact from."
Debater #2: "And you misspelled the word, 'wondering.'"
Debater #1: "I really don't care, but thanks for correcting me instead of answering my question."

 

[JoeCool10]

What...?

 

[Rai Dimitri]

^ im with u there girlfriend :24:

 

[Darrell]

Cool?

 

[HK]

People who answer sarcasm with complete seriousness drive me fucking crazy. I'll avoid talking to them if I realise they're doing it, because it's just awful.

That said, I also try to avoid using sarcasm in debate because I feel like it has the potential to make the recipient angry, rather than making them think about your words. It sounds disrespectful a lot of the time because you're basically making fun of someone, which is hilarious in most areas but out of place if you're genuinely trying to have a serious discussion.

 

[Tim]

Do you know what really bothers me in debates?

When the conversation is logically progressing along and the other person goes off into a completely irrelevant tangent. Not only is the topic forgotten, but trying to get them back on subject is impossible. One can only assume that they ran up against irrefutable logic and needed to distract or retreat.

 

[Tim]

It's quite laughable debating something with the ill-equipped.

Debater #1: "How do you define a given word?"
Debater #2: "Sometimes I do what my phone tells me, sometimes I make up my own definitions."
Debarer #1: "That's not very logical."
Debater #2: "I made up my own definition for the word logical to fit my argument."
Debater #1: "Have a nice day. It was fun talking to you."
Debater #2: "Thank you, you're very courteous."
Debater #1: (to self) "Wow, that person doesn't really get sarcasm nor logic!"

I'm not sure how you came to see it this way.


The topic of discussion was "Proof of God - for or against???"
Religion was being discussed in this topic
You say the following...

If you want to continue to have a logical debate, please use the word "religion" correctly and separate it from spirituality. Otherwise, we may as well be communicating in different languages. People do all kinds of things religiously. Rarely, does it involve any form of belief in a god, afterlife, or anything pertaining to spirituality. People take drugs, religiously. People post on this very, fucking site, religiously. People masturbate, religiously. If you don't follow my train of thought, look up the word, religion in a Webster's dictionary as opposed to anywhere on the MISinformation superhighway.

Yet the topic didn't change since the very first post. So when someone is referencing religion in the thread, it is automatically put into context of the discussion. We are all aware that religion can be used in several different contexts.

So where is the confusion here?

 

[Tim]

So does this mean that you are done with the debate? You aren't going to finish explaining your point of view on this topic?

 

[retro]

 

[FreightTrain]

I'm not sure how you came to see it this way.


The topic of discussion was "Proof of God - for or against???"
Religion was being discussed in this topic
You say the following...

Yet the topic didn't change since the very first post. So when someone is referencing religion in the thread, it is automatically put into context of the discussion. We are all aware that religion can be used in several different contexts.

So where is the confusion here?

The confusion lies in where you want me to go with this debate. You continue to say that I never countered your initial rebuttal, but I don't know what you're talking about. I've said everything I could on the topic and I felt I explained it quite well. It's frustrating when others persist with the debate in an illogical fashion and that's what I was pointing out in this thread of satire. This thread isn't aimed at just one individual, but at several particular and many inparticular ones.

 

[retro]

This thread isn't aimed at just one individual, but at several particular and many inparticular ones.

You do realize that inparticular isn't a word, right? Furthermore, if you just missed putting a space in there, you said the same thing twice, albeit in a horribly grammatically mangled fashion.