Why does this guy have a wikipedia page?

they should of thought about that before everything we own was made in japan

I thought that was china?

Oh god, no. I also explained concrete definitions to you, you just ignored them.



I actually think a forum is a perfectly proper venue for discussion. So it's just in the eye of the beholder, then. Oh wait, look, it's user discretion again.



Not wanting to disappoint judges or your school is also, incidentally, your own discretion. Conversely, you could "actually" debate properly on a forums because you want to have a good argument that will unequivocally illustrate your point.

You mean the concrete definitions that talked about how generally things were like that.

Yeah, real concrete there.

*sighs* You really don't read what I'm saying.

I am NOT saying it's not at the user's discretion. But that doesn't mean there is no effect from the venue.

To say that the environment has no effect on the situation, is an entirely naive point that is crossing into the point of stupidity.

Again, are you suggesting that you would only loosely provide so so credible proof in a proper debate at a debate club like you are doing here on these forums?

You can cry about discretion all you want, but how people go judging the situation will depend on the environment, the venue.

Yes, you CAN have a proper debate on the internet, but it's not conducive to it.

I never used "generally" or "probably" in my definitions. You assumed they were there because that is how YOU view the definitions. Also, I don't think anyone here would agree with you that forums and blogs are the same.



And to generalize that the environment would have a negative impact on the quality of the argument is just as stupid.



I haven't loosely provided so-so credible proof anywhere. You're the one doing that, when you do provide proof.



Having a proper debate on the internet is not conductive to having a debate on the internet? What?[i]

Im guessing you're a fan of sonic brain farts XD

No, it's because the thing that you provided that you said "Is basically what I said" used words like that. I never said you used generally in your definitions. But you did use descriptors that mean along the same lines. But no, let's turn the result into a popularity contest instead, good idea. One of the usual way debates end up on the internet anyways.

I generalized that the environment had a negative impact? No, I did suggest that the internet environment had a negative impact on it though. Which has been shown to be true from past experience. Or are you saying that the majority of internet debates are actually ran just like a real debates are? Heck, is there even an internet debate you've been in that has really ran like a real debate?

Yes you have, at best, loosely provided proof for what you say. You are doing it currently in this argument right now. I'm not disagreeing that I haven't been. But you need to accept that you do it too.

Well first off, I said conducive, not conductive. But I can see how you might be confused by that. They are both words and mean different things.

And being conducive to it applies to just the internet part of it doll, not the entire phrase. I didn't think your comprehension was that bad to read something like that wrong, since the rule of the English language would imply the noun internet only on the receiving in of the phrase. But hey, you learn something new everyday.

come on everybody love Juuulie
Behold, the Mistake of God: Christian Weston Chandler.

it was troll bait, as in getting me to troll back.

This isn't trolling.

Logic fail.

You think I'm upset because I'm calmly debating?

I once debated a guy for over an hour on the principals of hypocrisy, for shits and giggles.

So because I said bait, instead of troll bait, you immediately assume that instead of the most proper usage for the word bait on the internet, that I was totally meaning something else.

Especially when I posted a picture of a troll right after it?

You're stupid aren't you.

.....And then from the mist a challenger appears.

No, the source I provided was this. I don't see a single instance of "generally" or "probably" in this article. But I also told you to take a look at the Google search, but you apparently ignored that.



Yes, you DID. You sardonically said that our discussion was taking place on an internet forum, the implication of which is that it automatically is a detriment to the quality of our discussion. That is a GENERALIZATION.



I have, incidentally.



The only proof I needed to provide was proof of something you said. I could fetch it for you, but I honestly hope you remember your own arguments.



Indeed, they do, one is an adjective and the other is a verb.



Arguing on the internet may not be conductive to proper debate, but it isn't automatically a detriment to it either.



Is THAT what that was? You see, I totally missed that, because it looked nothing like a troll. It looked like someone used the Liquify tool on a picture of a baby.



Kalistean previously insisted that forums can be blogs and blogs can be forums. If I'm not right in telling him he's wrong, well, what do?

"Used words like that" not "Used those words" Off the top of my head, often is a word like generally.

So I agreed that I generalized the internet environment, not the environment. And you go and say, that I generalized the internet environment? Umm, congrats?

Well good for you, you have apparently found one of the few forums that have seem to have such a debate. That still doesn't change the fact that as a general rule, you won't find such.

See. This is why you're a hypocrite. "I could fetch it for you, but I thought you would remember your own argument." This is not how you would try and "prove something" in a real debate. And this is not the only instance you have down this. You have also done so in other arguments. You are defeating that point of your own argument. Congratulations.

Indeed, Conducive is an adjective describing the internet in this case. Good for you? It's like saying This girl is not pretty. Pretty is not a verb, is it? It is an adjective. It's so nice to see you have a proper lesson in English.

For something to not be conducive to the argument, means it is a detriment to it. Even if it has a neutral effect. If you don't argue properly. Then something that isn't neutral won't make you argue better.

Well actually, you were trying to hop onto my thread and trying to bait me by "shoving my words back at me" with something you "thought" was a contradiction.

Except I didn't state anything that was a contradiction, and what I stated in this thread that you tried to "shove back down my throat" did not contradict what I stated before.

But that's nice you think you did.


edit: Oh, btw, you keep mistaking that I said forums could be considered blogs because of the broad definition. I said threads could be. Threads.

Holy fuck! we've almost got enough text to write a book about debates on fakku.

Well Tegumi, as "vivid" as this argument has been. I must go to bed now as I have to wake up in about three hours for work.

"Often" was never used in that article to define differences.



You didn't agree. But now you do. Okay.



Says you, generalizer.



Yes it is, actually. You would say, "This is what you said previously." The rest is up to their ability to recollect.



Well, you used it correctly. I was mistaken in that part. See, I have the grace to admit I made a mistake when I do. You, on the other hand, well...



How does that even make sense? Are you trying to say that in a proper debate forum, since the podium is neutral and doesn't actually help you argue better, it's a detriment?



I didn't shove a contradiction back into your face. I shoved a clearly wrong statement back in your face.



Oh, you do. You just cover it every time by claiming "vague" and "broad" as excuses.



Threads are not blogs.





I understand you're trying to be neutral, but there's simply not a middle ground here. I brought issue with his statements, and tried arguing against them from various standpoints. He continuously covers himself with vague responses and clearly fallacious logic which he refuses to back down on. The one with the wall of concrete is Kalistean here; I believe it has even been inferred to in a previous thread.



This is exactly how I argued the day before yesterday, except more concise and definitive. As you can see, it had no effect.