What constitutes a valid argument?

[ChrisV]

I’m making this thread to continue a discussion between @Thoelt53 and myself because we’re spamming up the main Off-Topic thread

Dispute my argument pertaining historical fact.

We can continue from there.

I’m not going to debate you via posting links to citations. That’s bogus. It’s one thing to post links to pieces to introduce an idea, but if we’re going to debate, it’s important that we form our own arguments. If I wanted to debate your citations, I would do so with the author of said citation.

Come to your own opinions and form them in a coherent argument. Your arguments consist of links to citations and paragraphs of demeaning nonsense.

Demeaning nonsense is not debate, no matter how many citations are included.

I’ll respond to this in a few minutes

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Thoelt53]

I’m making this thread to continue a discussion between @Thoelt53 and myself because we’re spamming up the main Off-Topic thread



I’ll respond to this in a few minutes

Until a mod or @MJ DeMarco merges our posts, including MJ’s most recent, I believe moving to a new thread is unfair to readers.

Unless I’m missing something, this is the off topic thread of the forum, and this thread cannot be derailed or spammed by that decree.

If anything, these posts should be merged to the COVID thread where relevant discussion can be had.

 

[ChrisV]

Until a mod or @MJ DeMarco merges our posts, including MJ’s most recent, I believe moving to a new thread is unfair to readers.

People use that thread to post random things, not to hear this debate. Link to the original discussion for “posterity”

HOT! - CHAT - Random Chat, Thoughts, Posts, and/or Rants Thread

Came across some interesting videos yesterday: They're using some algo from Github to turn those old blurry videos into HD. Feels kinda weird when you look at the people in these videos and most have already passed on. There's also some videos on Paris and UK. The dresses worn by the women...

www.thefastlaneforum.com

 

[Thoelt53]

Ah, fooled me Chris. I replied to this thread thinking it was the off topic thread.

The essence of our debate isn’t what constitutes a valid argument.

You’re running away from my proposed argument because you don’t have one. Instead you have chosen to dispute what constitutes an argument rather than dispute the argument we were already having.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Dude I don’t even really care that much about having this debate. Truthfully there’s something else I want to be doing. You just seem invested in it so I’ll go along with it.

If you have a better title for the thread I’ll change it.

 

[Thoelt53]

People use that thread to post random things, not to hear this debate. Link to the original discussion for “posterity”

HOT! - CHAT - Random Chat, Thoughts, Posts, and/or Rants Thread

Came across some interesting videos yesterday: They're using some algo from Github to turn those old blurry videos into HD. Feels kinda weird when you look at the people in these videos and most have already passed on. There's also some videos on Paris and UK. The dresses worn by the women...

www.thefastlaneforum.com

MJ argued against you in that thread.

Until he says otherwise, it doesn’t appear he shares your sentiment.

 

[Thoelt53]

Dude I don’t even really care that much about having this debate. Truthfully there’s something else I want to be doing. You just seem invested in it so I’ll go along with it.

If you have a better title for the thread I’ll change it.

You seem to never care about debates that you can’t win.

Is that your modus operandi?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

You seem to never care about debates that you can’t win.

Is that your modus operandi?

Exactly.

 

[Real Deal Denver]

First of all, worthiness. Does it matter, or put another way - is it important? I just saw a quote by Winston Churchill that said, "You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks." Pick your battles, and pick your opponents. I literally buried an acquaintance with a list of over 200 specific items/facts/examples that directly answered his question. It's obvious that no matter what I say, or what I present to validate my point, he is never going to see things my way. I only did it as kind of a "mercy message" because nobody else would take the time to answer his questions. There is a slim chance he might see the light and change his opinion - but I'm not holding my breath, and it's not important to anyone except him anyway. With that "dog" I am now done "throwing stones."

Secondly, having studied and participated in debate, citing sources should be no more than supporting evidence - but not the argument itself. This is more complicated than it sounds, and a fine line to walk. In debate, we were given a topic to research and argue - what was surprising was that I could make the argument for either side of the debate - and win. When a good debater can do that - how valuable are the sources cited really? Not much - since almost any argument can be supported from any point of view.

 

[Thoelt53]

Exactly.

Boring.

I’m disappointed.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Real Deal Denver]

There is a huge difference between debating and wrestling with a pig or throwing stones at a barking dog.

 

[ChrisV]

Boring.

I’m disappointed.

I’m tired. I’ll respond tomorrow.

 

[Odysseus M Jones]

So G.A.Y. get a room

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

So G.A.Y. get a room

I’m inclined to agree here. I don’t even want to have this discussion but I keep getting tags and replies with people wanting to debate me that it’s better than spamming up the other thread.

 

[ChrisV]

I promised I'd reply here, and even though I don't want to I will.

There really isn't much of an argument regarding the "debate inside of a box" thing.

@MJ DeMarco is simply reciting the argument Noam Chomsky put forth in Manufacturing Consent like 30 years ago.

It's also similar to the argument Edward Bernays made in Propaganda. It's an Ad Hominem argument. Just because news organizations have corporate interests isn't evidence that a particular claim is true or untrue. I don't even get my much of my info from News anyway - I read journals.

The subject is heavily politicized with the Right feeling one way, and the Left feeling another. Both sides feel like they have the objective truth, and neither do because they're just seeing it from their perspective.

But that being said, the book he's referring to is a very good marketing book.

 

[Kevin88660]

Just because some academics say this is the truth it doesn’t mean that history comes to an end on one particular issue.

Why? Because we have seen many things how previous consensus have been overturned many times.

Remember how it is taken for granted that dietary fat was bad? So much have changed and the expert opinions are far more diverse.

What I think is really valuable about academic literature is learning how they think.. being open minded and considering opposing views..not what conclusion they have arrived till date.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

neither do because they're just seeing it from their perspective.

At least they have a perspective.

Your perspective is whatever X chart says (funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and Y Chart (funded by some NGO funded by George Soros) and D research study says (funded by Gilead) and XYZ article (written by some DNC apparatus).

You have no perspective other than the approved perspective approved for your consumption.

Again, the perfect sheep, a "Karen" yelling at his countryman for playing ball with his kid in a park without a Chris approved mask.

My perspective has been honed in 5 decades of wisdom not to mention decades of study of world history (which has become quite a hobby of mine).

Your perspective is built from a propaganda machine built for your consumption -- my perspective comes from thousands of years of human history, and knowing what humans in power are capable of. But some 20 year old kid in New York thinks it's different this time! The humans of the last 10 years, no, they're different than the last 5000 years! They have altruistic "it's for the children" motives! Massive human rights violations continue in places like North Korea, China, and other countries yet to evolve, but you think good old America is immune.

Give me a break. You're naive and insulated from reality because your reality is what they've made it -- kinda like most people's reality is Monday through Friday and wait 50 years to finally earn your freedom... Scripted to right down to the job, the 10% savings, and the indexed-fund.

You be right, I'll be rich -- just some old white "conspiracy theorist" who happens to free of the very system you seek to empower and embolden.

Stop tagging me in your inane posts. If I want mainstream talking points, all I need to do is turn on the TV, open a newspaper, or listen to some infantile late night comedy host -- I'm not going to get suffocated by it here.