Debating Style

[|MP|Buccaneer]

It is you that have turned this into a pointless battle of wills.

Now that is funny.  Complete bullshit, but funny.  No Loud, you and Bondo turned it into a battle of wills.  You did that as soon as you didn't take my first no for an answer.  You see, you aren't arguing a point.  You aren't bringing up debate styles, their pros and cons.  You haven't named one.  All you've done is attack me and my use of a technique.  I've told you that I'm versed in other techniques, and this is the one that fits me.  You are free to not like it.  But I'm free to listen to you and not change a thing.  I said this all long ago.  You don't like my style, fine.  You tell me to change it, I say no.  Tell me again and again, I say fuck off.  

It is the fact that you and Bondo continue to harp on the subject that makes it an endless battle.  

You've asked me to change, I've asked why I should.  You've given some reasons, I don't feel those opinions are enough to warrant a change.  I've said it too many times now.  You continuing to mention it isn't going to change it.  

Furthermore, as I've stated before, I started this thread with the intention that the community itself should make some comment as opposed to our repeating ourselves, or restating ourselves, if you will, for each other constantly.  

To what end?  It is yet another attack on me and my style, to try to convince me to change it, right?  You couldn't convince me, so you start a thread trying to gander support, right?  That's how I see it, tell me how it isn't these things?

Would it pain you to consider what he's said?  Have I not shown myself to be open to compromise?

How presumptuous of you to imply that I haven't considered it.  This is the type of insult and attack you use against me, while trying to play the innocent.  I don't buy it.

Or does consider it mean I have to agree with it all and change something?  Not in my dictionary.

And I don't care if you are open to compromise or not.  It's not on point.  You've asked me to change my style, all because it's hard for you to respond.  I've said no, that isn't enough reason for me.  What about that don't you get?

I was already debating in those threads, which were drawn off topic, as you say, but if you make attacks in those threads, I'll respond to them.

I call bullshit and direct your attention to the post you made to Ace and I, in a thread you were not in, that just said we were playing devils advocate and to back off.  There was nothing on topic about that, and you weren't in the conversation yet either.

And Buccaneer, there's a huge difference between calling someone an asshole and "snidely" saying that they're wrong.  

Loudnotes, there you go again, implying that your way is better.  To me, your way is worse.  I'm more open and up front about my insults, but you insult just as much.  All those snide comments you make are just as insulting, and being the one you are making them at, I would know, wouldn't I?  

So don't tell me what's more insulting, that's completely subjective.  I find you insulting as hell, so get off your high horse.  Difference is, I don't pretend not to insult back.

One last though, and I'll even make it stand out here, in another post.  I made two very big points that you still haven't addressed, that I would like addressed.

First, I managed to do it in less posts, which you deemed impossible.  I often combine many responses into one post, which using quotes enables me to do with ease.  Some acknowledgment of that is called for I think.

Second, and more importantly, I repeated over and over that you are mixing issues.  Is it the mass of points I bring, my style of using quotes, or both?  You really need to distinguish the issues to be dealt with.  I don't know how many times I said it, but you either missed or dismissed it.  So I'm asking again.  Because while you focus most of your comments in the past on my use of quotes, your biggest bitch seems to be in the volume of points I make to be responded to.  Do you not see that these are actually two issues?  

[AK_Rap1d]

Props to LoudNotes and Bondo.  Thank god somebody has time around here to put this bigmouth ass in his place.  

It's obvious Bucc is a problem around here, trying to override everybody's opinion and what not.   The guy has so many negative opinions on EVERYTHING, it only leads to the fact he has no life other than reading Game Forums and trying to argue to feel better about his "loser status".   Hope it's working for yah bud

Loth, the guy doesn't want none of me.  I put him in his place everytime.  In fact, I put him in his place so hard, he often has to resort to the "Inner Forum Circle" to help him out, by deleting my facts about his dumbass.  Now isn't that "0wn3d"

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Props to Evill for Banning Rapid too.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

pffff Hal gets no props on his excellent peaceable debating style post? At any rate Bucc you do sometimes rant on and on and if there was a clear concise point Im sure people would be more inclined to answer. Sometimes your full page arguments can be summed up in one paragraph. That goes for others too just Bucc does it a lot

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Zaitsev, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.  That doesn't make me inclined to change my style at all though, being your opinion.  Which is what I've been explaining all along, because the first few times I said it that simple, wasn't enough.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, here is my suggestion, and I think it is reasonable.  You are smart, instead of using your intelligence to try and demolish others' arguments, use it to make your own.  If someone else's argument is indeed weak, then yours will stand out and will be the one people accept.

Basically, don't consider it your duty to attack another person's stance or make sure there are no factual or logical inaccuracies.  Just consider it your duty to make factual, logical arguments and let things be as they will.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo, I've heard that suggestion, and rejected it.  

Here's my suggestion.  Accept the fact I do it differently then you and let it be.

[AK_Rap1d]

We've all accepted the fact you're a overgrown and overweight kid in need of attention.  That's the only reason you have so much negative energy you carry around here.  We just wanted to give you another chance at becoming the better person.  Too bad you ate him too.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bondo, I've heard that suggestion, and rejected it.  

Here's my suggestion.  Accept the fact I do it differently then you and let it be.

I'm sorry to hear that.  You will continue to look like a pathetic person who is desperate to be thought of as smarter because he can tell other people that they are wrong or have weak arguments (them actually being wrong or having weak arguments being quite unrelated to the claim).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'm sorry to hear that.  You will continue to look like a pathetic person who is desperate to be thought of as smarter because he can tell other people that they are wrong or have weak arguments (them actually being wrong or having weak arguments being quite unrelated to the claim).

Ah, but that wasn't a personal attack, was it?

Where is Loudnotes and his talk of moderation?  I'll tell you, only directing it in one place.  We have Rapid doing his normal job of taking pathetic little pot shots at me any chance he gets (not that I expect any better from him), and we have this crap from Bondo, that, since I don't take his advise, he's going to thow out that crap.  You see Loudnotes, that is why I scoff at your talk about moderation.  It's one sided.

Bondo, you are the ultimate in arrogance (ok, it's a close race between you and Rapid).  Since I chose to continue in my own technique, regardless of your feelings, you are going to be a cocksucker.  Go right ahead then.  Way to embrace differences.  Way to accept others.  Asshole.  

Yes Bondo, and you'll continue to look like an illogical fop that forms opinions which can never stand scrutiny, who can't actually defend a position with reason and fact, and who makes up excuses about not having the time, while spending more time then anyone posting.  Oh, and bitchy, I forgot bitchy.  So, like I said when this all started, fuck off.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Personal attack...yes.  The truth about how your posts reflect on you...yes.

Bucc, you continue not to understand that you aren't proving anything about my ability to argue because the reasons you use for saying it is weak are based on your opinion.  We are arguing subjective issues, no one is right, but you have the arrogant assumption that some are wrong.  Like you've said many times, it isn't black and white.  Now stop acting like an argument is either good or bad because it isn't.  What is bad to you because you interpret information in one way is not bad to another interpretation.

I don't know why I bother since you are so clearly above getting off your high horse and realizing the bullshit you spout trying to disregard people's stances.  You do it to mine and you do it to Loud's.  You simply write off the views because you don't agree with the interpretation.

[jn.loudnotes]

This has gotten blown way out of proportion.  

1.  I interjected in your and Ace's bashing of Bondo because I personally was tired of it.  I don't think I'm the only one.  As a moderator, I felt within my grounds to make that judgement.
2.  You are annoyed when people fail to respond to the total of your posts.
3.  I simply cannot respond to everything you say when you quote as you have been doing.
4.  In my 5-post example, you failed to respond to every unique idea.  That was the point, no one needs to   pick out each detail.  
5.  It doesn't help much that the people who've been responding here are the ones for whom you have the greatest disdain - Bondo and Rapid.  I'm not trying to question whether that's called for - I only wanted to control the vitriol.
6.  I have no dog in this fight.  So you may say it's arrogance, but it's really just the viewpoint of an outsider.  I am someone who likes to debate in this community though, and you've made that increasingly difficult.

7.  For the first 4 months you posted on this board, your first 200 posts or so, you used quotes intermittently - about as often as I do.  Your arguments were no less effective - so don't say other styles don't work for you.  In mid October you switched to this method almost exclusively.  Fine - your choice.  But if deep in the wells of a multi-post response you say something offensive in passing, it provokes this kind of response

8.  I have not, do not, and will not slander you personally, simply because I disagree with you.  Show me something I've said that's as insidious as you claim - that isn't anything more than criticism.  
9.  Whether it's my fault or yours, you have not taken my criticism well.  You don't have to.  But what's with all the spite?  In the past I called you on your attacking Bondo - and it was resolved for a while.  We were pretty amicable.  Was I arrogant then?
10.  I accept that I can't force you to change your posting style.  But why do you reject my suggestions so precipitously - does it have anything to do with my agreeing with Bondo to some extent?  There is one issue - you ask that your posts not be ignored, yet you tell me to fuck off for wanting you to post in a way in which I won't have to ignore part of it.
11.  Ultimately, I don't understand why you are completely inflexible on this.  I'll admit I may not have gone about suggesting change in the best manner. But how would it hurt you to accomodate me a little.  You've done it before.  I know you don't want to do it for Bondo, but I've frequently enjoyed debate with you - and since I've brought this up you've only intensified the way you quote.
12.  I have no intention of moderating your posting style.  But as I see it, I will edit excessive profanity or insults towards anyone in the future.  Notice that I haven't done anything at all up until now.

You asked in italics what exactly I'm objecting to.  The main issue for me is two-fold.  Quotes in general are fine - I've just "named" your "style" quoting for convenience.  So, my suggestion:
1.  Length.  While no one wants their points ignored, try focusing more on any one issue, instead of feeling like you have to respond to everything.  When I mentioned the whole of the argument, or Bondo used his walls analogy, the idea was that you don't have to object to every detail.  Mention them in passing, but concentrate on the main idea.  
2.  Offensive.  This style is very forward in attacks.  Perhaps that played into my dislike of the infamous "personal attacks" against Bondo - but it's very easy to move from breaking down every statement to breaking down the person behind them.  Even when used in response to someone else's attack, it inevitably puts them on the defensive.  If you've taken the time to address every detail I say, and especially if you interpret a detail other than the way I meant it, I feel compelled to answer in kind.  Can you see where, in a place such as this, that could be a pain?

I'd like to stress that I don't think your style is invalid at all.  In fact, the main problem I have with it is that it's a little too good.  Can we have debate without being so argumentative that every question is a contest?

Now, Bucc.  This post hasn't been exactly submissive, but I've tried to make it clear that I haven't been perfect, nor have I been completely wrong.  I'd like to end this - and if only Rapid will refrain from agreeing with me, there might be a chance for that.

[jn.loudnotes]

I should mention, I'm sorry for things I've said that have been construed as personal attacks.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Personal attack...yes.  The truth about how your posts reflect on you...yes.

As per usual, you spout your opinion as being "the truth".  

Bucc, you continue not to understand that you aren't proving anything about my ability to argue because the reasons you use for saying it is weak are based on your opinion.  

Ah, yes, I couldn't possibly understand, could I?  Bondo, I'm really sorry that you don't have a full grasp of logic, but that's not my problem.  There aren't different logic's, as you once claimed (and I'm still waiting to hear the name of the text book for it).  Pointing out a weak argument isn't any more opinion then a math teacher pointing out that 3+3 does not equal 9 to a child.  Logic and math are both like that.  

Now stop acting like an argument is either good or bad because it isn't.  

Again, you are dead wrong there Bondo.  An argument can be good or bad.  Really, where do you come up with this bullshit?  2+2=4 is a good argument, 2+2=5 is a bad argument.  I'm putting it in it's simplest terms for you.  You can have both good and bad arguments.  

The flaw I point out most often in yours would translate to:
3 + _ * 85 - (4+_-_) = 27  With those spaces, missing numbers, the argument has holes.  It's not a valid argument.  

You simply write off the views because you don't agree with the interpretation.

LOL.  Now that is profound.  Of course I write off the views because I don't agree with your interpretation.  Why in the hell would I take your suggestions when I don't agree with your interpretation?  Are you really this stupid Bondo?  Duh, yeah, I'll listen to you Bondo, duh, what you say doesn't make much sense to me, but that's no reason not to listen to you, duh.  That has to be one of the stupidest things you've said so far.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ah, use of numbers, now for this, I don't have to quote as much.

1. First you denied doing it, now you did it as a moderator.  My point is you still did it, I wasn't talking about your motives.

2. Yes, that does annoy me.  As I said, I think it's rude.

3. Bullshit.  You've done it.  Others do it.  What you should say is you CHOSE not to.  Which I've said, is your choice.

4. You forget that I asked what I missed.  I intended to answer all your points.  If I missed one, let me know so I can correct it.

5. It doesn't help that they are both dumbasses either.  Rapid hasn't contributed anything but his normal background noise of bitching.  And Bondo is his normal self.  I'm bad, I'm wrong, and I should just listen to his opinion.  Worse, he talks out of his ass about logic and debate styles, calling mine invalid, when I've pointed him to texts on it.  Not much there to change my mind.

6. Your viewpoint is fine.  Your insistent driving of this is where the arrogance started.  You couldn't just take no for an answer.  You decided to question my technique, and keep questioning it.  You don't like it, great, thanks for your opinion.  But, as I've said many times, it takes more then your opinion for me.  You and Bondo both seem to think I should do it based upon opinion alone.  When I've asked your opinion on other classic styles, I haven't heard a response.  I told you before.  If you want to debate about technique, then debate about technique, it's pro's it's cons, it's application, and other techniques.  Don't keep telling me it's hard for you, because I'll just keep telling you that's not reason enough for me.  

7. My style is my own.  Yes, it can evolve.  But it's not going to change based upon your opinion.  Sorry.

8. Loudnotes, just because you don't find it as insulting to say shit like "I really don't understand why a 30 year old man spends, blah blah blah" as calling someone an "asshole", doesn't mean that others don't find it that insulting.  I'm one of those others.  I find those comments every bit as rude as profanity.  

9. The spite comes from not your initial comments, but from your habit of bringing it up in every thread of late (something you didn't do last time).  The spite comes from the arrogance that is in your posts this time, that was lacking before.  Most of all, it's in the fact that you basically demanded that I make the change, regardless of how I felt about it.

10. No, it has nothing to do with whom you agree.  It has to do with the fact that I just haven't seen enough reason to change it.  Face it, you are trying to change me, you have to convince me.  So far, you haven't.  I've even defended my position, not that I had to, but you and Bondo seem to reject that as well.

11. As I've said, I really haven't seen a reason to change it yet.  Sorry, but I, above all others, am entitled to my own opinion on my debate style.  Right?  It's my opinion, that counts in the end on this specific issue.  And you haven't given me enough to change that opinion.  I do admit to upping my intensity every time I was told I wasn't allowed to do it, because either of you telling me what I am allowed or not allowed to do is unacceptable.  And both of you quit asking long ago, and went to telling.  Telling fell upon deaf ears, and always will.

12. If that's the standards for the board, that's the standards for the board.  If board standards are applied equally, I have no problem with it.  I'll be interested to see what you define as insults, since things you do that I find insulting, you don't.  Where are the guidelines anyway?  And if you really care about moderation, why the hell does Rapid get away with attempting to start flame wars all over the forums?  Seems he tries to pick a fight with me in every thread he's in, even when I'm not.  And not just me either.  So if you are really serious about moderating, I'd love to hear why that is allowed.  Heated debate is one thing, trooling for flame wars is another.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

While no one wants their points ignored, try focusing more on any one issue, instead of feeling like you have to respond to everything.  

Here's one of the reasons I think you are arrogant (it's either that, or you just ignore my points).  I've stated, often, why I disagree with this point of view.  Instead of talking to me about it, discussing my opinions and what I've learned on it, you just keep telling me not to.  I find that arrogant.  I disagree with you on this point, and you repeating it isn't going to change my mind about it.  Repeating yourself while ignoring what I've said on this issue isn't debate, it's you preaching.

If you've taken the time to address every detail I say, and especially if you interpret a detail other than the way I meant it, I feel compelled to answer in kind.  Can you see where, in a place such as this, that could be a pain?

First, the fact that I often ask for someone to better explain their position when I don't understand it seems to have gone overlooked.  

Second, you feel compelled to answer in kind, I see nothing wrong in that at all.  You are the one that has the problem with it, not me.  So restating it in this manner doesn't really change anything, does it?

Third, I see some people having trouble with it, I see others not.  Bondo having trouble with it doesn't concern me in the least.  Bondo will have trouble with what I say, no matter how I say it.  He's proven that often enough in the past.  Even when, as you talked about earlier, I tried to compromise, and not attack him so much, it didn't change a whit in how he responds to me.  Hence, my style doesn't matter.  That's even more reason not to change my style, when I have, it did no good from my point of view.  It may have made you and Bondo happier in that time, but it didn't change a thing for me.  So why should I bother with it?  I have no gain, and I sure as hell don't like Bondo enough to do something just to be nice to him.  You also haven't given me much reason to want to do it for you.

I'd like to end this - and if only Rapid will refrain from agreeing with me, there might be a chance for that.

Ending it has always been in your power.  You have always been allowed to accept me for how I debate, or not.  To this point, you've chosen not so far.  You can accept it or not.  If you want to convince me it's wrong, you've gone about it in the entirely worst way.  I've told you where those keys are, but you don't seem to pick up on them at all.  So, in the end, you will do what you want, and I will do what I want.  It's not me that has asked you to change, it was you telling me.  So you've always been able to keep it from going this far.

[jn.loudnotes]

Well so much for that.

As long as you post as you have, I will answer only parts of your arguments - don't object to me if some idea goes unanswered.  If you ever write a coherent set of paragraphs again, I will do my best to respond to that whole entity.

By the way - try starting a thread sometime.  I can't remember the last time you did - it'd be nice to see you initiate some debate instead of always reacting to it.