Pure GeniusKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Why contribute when you can just post random thoughts that have nothing to do with the topic?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Whats right and whats wrong with D+ST, all in one post
abazaba, youre my only friendS3v3N wrote:
Pure GeniusKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Why contribute when you can just post random thoughts that have nothing to do with the topic?
big but so what
For some really screwed up reason.. I kinda miss the Sandbox..
So what your saying is that nothing in DST is right? If Wrong = Right and Right = Left when simplified Wrong = Left.m3thod wrote:
Right: Left.
Wrong: Right.
Betcha didn't see that one comming.
Am i right?
Actually I think the use of a semicolon means it is a ratio.David.P wrote:
So what your saying is that nothing in DST is right? If Wrong = Right and Right = Left when simplified Wrong = Left.m3thod wrote:
Right: Left.
Wrong: Right.
Betcha didn't see that one comming.
Am i right?
I was being a smartass by using the word 'right' in its moral, directional and political context.David.P wrote:
So what your saying is that nothing in DST is right? If Wrong = Right and Right = Left when simplified Wrong = Left.m3thod wrote:
Right: Left.
Wrong: Right.
Betcha didn't see that one comming.
Am i right?
And your attempt at simplicfication blows.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
^ This is the kind of shit I'm talking about (not just methods post, but davids as well)m3thod wrote:
I was being a smartass by using the word 'right' in its moral, directional and political context.David.P wrote:
So what your saying is that nothing in DST is right? If Wrong = Right and Right = Left when simplified Wrong = Left.m3thod wrote:
Right: Left.
Wrong: Right.
Betcha didn't see that one comming.
Am i right?
And your attempt at simplicfication blows.
Basically, when you can't win an argument, give the person you're debating some bait to start a fight with and make it look like they started it. Works everytime.
Win? There is never a win. Hence teh debate.
You know what I meant.. when you run out of things to say, whatever.usmarine2005 wrote:
Win? There is never a win. Hence teh debate.
I guess you can never win a debate. I could dispute the fact that the Earth is round and it'd be a debate.
You can only win a debate over something factual rather than opinion-based.Spearhead wrote:
You know what I meant.. when you run out of things to say, whatever.usmarine2005 wrote:
Win? There is never a win. Hence teh debate.
I guess you can never win a debate. I could dispute the fact that the Earth is round and it'd be a debate.
But people describe their opinion as factual all the time... thats why we see more debate about facts, rather than real debate, on these forums. If you cant support you argument with your own facts, just dispute the facts presented to you by the other side.CameronPoe wrote:
You can only win a debate over something factual rather than opinion-based.Spearhead wrote:
You know what I meant.. when you run out of things to say, whatever.usmarine2005 wrote:
Win? There is never a win. Hence teh debate.
I guess you can never win a debate. I could dispute the fact that the Earth is round and it'd be a debate.
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-01-03 14:17:27)
But a lot of "facts" can be disputed also.
Well if it's a fact, by the very definition of the word fact, it cannot be disputed.usmarine2005 wrote:
But a lot of "facts" can be disputed also.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-03 15:25:51)
So your trolling?m3thod wrote:
I was being a smartass by using the word 'right' in its moral, directional and political context.David.P wrote:
So what your saying is that nothing in DST is right? If Wrong = Right and Right = Left when simplified Wrong = Left.m3thod wrote:
Right: Left.
Wrong: Right.
Betcha didn't see that one comming.
Am i right?
And your attempt at simplicfication blows.
Just trying to make it easier to read for some of your not so smart companions.
Still don't understand it.David.P wrote:
So your trolling?m3thod wrote:
I was being a smartass by using the word 'right' in its moral, directional and political context.David.P wrote:
So what your saying is that nothing in DST is right? If Wrong = Right and Right = Left when simplified Wrong = Left.
Am i right?
And your attempt at simplicfication blows.
Just trying to make it easier to read for some of your not so smart companions.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Name some. Not physical stuff like the earth is round and that you have red hair.CameronPoe wrote:
Well if it's not a fact, by the very definition of the word fact, it cannot be disputed.usmarine2005 wrote:
But a lot of "facts" can be disputed also.
You mean you want me to present a 'fact' that is based on my opinion? That sir would not be a fact, that would be an opinion, as stated previously.usmarine2005 wrote:
Name some. Not physical stuff like the earth is round and that you have red hair.CameronPoe wrote:
Well if it's not a fact, by the very definition of the word fact, it cannot be disputed.usmarine2005 wrote:
But a lot of "facts" can be disputed also.
FACT: No scientific evidence exists to suggest the existence of a higher being.
No scientific evidence exists to disprove the theory that there is a higher being.CameronPoe wrote:
You mean you want me to present a 'fact' that is based on my opinion? That sir would not be a fact, that would be an opinion, as stated previously.usmarine2005 wrote:
Name some. Not physical stuff like the earth is round and that you have red hair.CameronPoe wrote:
Well if it's not a fact, by the very definition of the word fact, it cannot be disputed.
FACT: No scientific evidence exists to suggest the existence of a higher being.
I am not religious.
A example of a so called "fact" would be the "facts" used in global warming, or to say that the Bush Admin was part of the WTC attack. Those things are only a fact in some minds. Hmm, this could be rather confusing.
No Commie Killer - they would not be facts. They would be unproven theories. You do know what a fact is don't you?Commie Killer wrote:
No scientific evidence exists to disprove the theory that there is a higher being.
I am not religious.
A example of a so called "fact" would be the "facts" used in global warming, or to say that the Bush Admin was part of the WTC attack. Those things are only a fact in some minds. Hmm, this could be rather confusing.
1 Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
2 Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-03 15:04:18)
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion. Napoleon said history was a myth that everyone decided to believe.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think we've got something good going here.
Do you believe that the CIA blew up the WTC? Because some people claim to have the facts that say that the CIA did do it. Point is, people can make up facts too, often to support their opinions. If you wanna get philosophical, since people can debate facts, then in truth, everything would be a theory. Doesnt really work that way, because those people just come off as crack heads, but you get the general idea right?CameronPoe wrote:
No Commie Killer - they would not be facts. They would be unproven theories. You do know what a fact is don't you?Commie Killer wrote:
No scientific evidence exists to disprove the theory that there is a higher being.
I am not religious.
A example of a so called "fact" would be the "facts" used in global warming, or to say that the Bush Admin was part of the WTC attack. Those things are only a fact in some minds. Hmm, this could be rather confusing.
1 Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
2 Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
Did you ever see the "Say something and Ill prove it wrong thread"? Title went something along those lines, guy who created the thread actually did damn good at disproving facts. He had a few hundred posts in there. Many facts contradict each other unless you are exact on your statement.
I think we should leave this alone, taking it off topic, maybe Ill make a thread.
Well show me the facts then. I haven't seen any to suggest the CIA did it. It would be highly highly highly improbable given the risk of discovery for one. You still haven't got the difference between fact and theory.Commie Killer wrote:
Do you believe that the CIA blew up the WTC? Because some people claim to have the facts that say that the CIA did do it. Point is, people can make up facts too, often to support their opinions. If you wanna get philosophical, since people can debate facts, then in truth, everything would be a theory. Doesnt really work that way, because those people just come off as crack heads, but you get the general idea right?
I doubt what were posted were actual facts if they were able to be disproved.Commie Killer wrote:
Did you ever see the "Say something and Ill prove it wrong thread"? Title went something along those lines, guy who created the thread actually did damn good at disproving facts. He had a few hundred posts in there. Many facts contradict each other unless you are exact on your statement.
I think we should leave this alone, taking it off topic, maybe Ill make a thread.
It goes like this: someone posts an opinion and it gets refuted by a fact. Is there are no facts to refute the opinion then it just becomes an opinion/theory based tit-for-tat.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-03 15:36:54)
I think this stuff is actually relevant to the thread... I think its a huge problem we've got on DST. EVERYONE does it at one time or another.Commie Killer wrote:
It goes like this: someone posts an opinion and it gets refuted by a fact. Is there are no facts to refute the opinion then it just becomes an opinion/theory based tit-for-tat.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Whats right and whats wrong with D+ST, all in one post