That's your arguement...?

[aba1]

Honestly when I am arguing with people if I find it is coming down to me essentially rewording my argument because they just beat around the bush I just leave it and move on. I have found myself in situations tons of times where I see them saying something I want to disagree with really bad but I just say to myself I said what I have to say it is time to move on.

 

[aba1]

My example was "Let's say you have two apples, twice as many oranges and thrice as many bananas. That means our equation is 2 + 2*2 + 2*3. By counting the fruits, you can easily tell that you have a total of twelve fruits. However, if we follow your method, 2 + 2 = 4. 4*2 = 8. 8 + 2 = 10. 10*3 = 30. -insert yelling- So with 2 apples, four oranges and six bananas, we have 30 fruits in total! Thank you oh wise genius of the mathematics!"

Sorry, couldn't let it slip but I think that's just wrong. 2 + (2*2) + (2*3) = 12. So yes, if you don't use math correctly you may get some wrong answers.

OT: Most of the discussions I had with my (religious) family ended in something along the lines of "God works in mysterious way." Which, for me, translates into: Don't think, you sheep!

Captcha: bread of life.

Like manna from heaven. =D

The problem with arguing about religion is it impossible to prove wrong for the same reasons as magic. If you ever do prove something about the religion wrong then they can just say god made it that way and thus it is impossible to ever really make any real ground. I find it funny that we neither prove god exists or doesn't exist but there are so many people all over the world certain of either side.

 

[FalloutJack]

"You said several! That's only four!"

He does know that several doesn't mean seven right?

Funny story. It doesn't MEAN that, by definiton, but in language people tend to use the association rather commonly. As I grew up, I found that generally people refer to the numbers thusly...

1 is 1.
2 is a couple.
3-5 is a few.
6-higher, but not TOO high is several.
Higher numbers can be many, lots, and other corrosponding terms.

It's not an exact science, of course. It's just wordplay.

OT: Still, I come across dumb people all the time. Not even as clever as XKCD's brilliant refuge in audacity. Just stupid people. I throw them into the trash compactor and put them in the landfill under the local mall.

EDIT: This is relevant to the math aspect of things...

 

[Flizzick]

"Yeah well you're a fag who likes dicks in his ass!"
-My Brother at the end of every argument ever

 

[Vault101]

Did that happen to come from this website? I've noticed that a lot of people like to throw around buzz words like "unwashed masses" and "dumbed down" (usually with an implied "for consoles" if it's not outright stated) and "appealing to the lowest common denominator" when they get into debates.

By the way, those buzz words are my answer to this thread. Once I read/hear something like that, I stop taking their argument seriously.

yes

its not unreasonable to say that Mouse/keyboard has advantages over a game conroller or that consoles have a broader apeal (and more casual than PC)

but he took it to insane levels...like insane insane

 

[Aprilgold]

I constantly get the "Well my opinion is much more valid then all YOUR facts put together" whenever I get into a argument on the internet.

Other then that, its either dumb ass name calling because they can't accept their wrong or they simply walk away from it.

 

[shrekfan246]

Did that happen to come from this website? I've noticed that a lot of people like to throw around buzz words like "unwashed masses" and "dumbed down" (usually with an implied "for consoles" if it's not outright stated) and "appealing to the lowest common denominator" when they get into debates.

By the way, those buzz words are my answer to this thread. Once I read/hear something like that, I stop taking their argument seriously.

yes

its not unreasonable to say that Mouse/keyboard has advantages over a game conroller or that consoles have a broader apeal (and more casual than PC)

but he took it to insane levels...like insane insane

Aren't those people the most fun, though? You can almost picture the foam frothing up in their mouths as they type at you.

I don't think it's really worth it to get into heated debates or arguments over the internet, because eventually somebody is going to take something the wrong way, or somebody is going to type the wrong thing, and it's all going to just explode, and it never seems like any good ever comes of it. I don't think I've ever seen somebody change their opinion in any meaningful way after an internet argument. Although somebody could probably prove me wrong, I'm sure.

 

[Vault101]

Aren't those people the most fun, though? You can almost picture the foam frothing up in their mouths as they type at you.

I don't think it's really worth it to get into heated debates or arguments over the internet, because eventually somebody is going to take something the wrong way, or somebody is going to type the wrong thing, and it's all going to just explode, and it never seems like any good ever comes of it. I don't think I've ever seen somebody change their opinion in any meaningful way after an internet argument. Although somebody could probably prove me wrong, I'm sure.

somtimes laying out your opinion to be seen is enough

 

[shrekfan246]

Aren't those people the most fun, though? You can almost picture the foam frothing up in their mouths as they type at you.

I don't think it's really worth it to get into heated debates or arguments over the internet, because eventually somebody is going to take something the wrong way, or somebody is going to type the wrong thing, and it's all going to just explode, and it never seems like any good ever comes of it. I don't think I've ever seen somebody change their opinion in any meaningful way after an internet argument. Although somebody could probably prove me wrong, I'm sure.

somtimes laying out your opinion to be seen is enough

Yeah, just look at my thread about "That-Developer-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named". It's gone about as well as I expected it would.

 

[Signa]

I recently encountered "if you don't back up your facts, I'm not going to believe you." Which is fine, but they refused to supply any facts of their own. It was my burden to prove an opinionated observation while he just sat back and called "bullshit" without any more proof than his own personal observations to back up his own counter argument.

 

[Signa]

I recently encountered "if you don't back up your facts, I'm not going to believe you." Which is fine, but they refused to supply any facts of their own. It was my burden to prove an opinionated observation while he just sat back and called "bullshit" without any more proof than his own personal observations to back up his own counter argument.

You probably utterly failed to notice that not believing you is different from making a counterclaim that needs to be supported. If you don't prove your opinionated 'observation' all someone needs to do is call bullshit on you.

Are you going to bring anything to this thread, or are you just going to stir shit up in here too? I didn't name you. For all you know it was on a different site.

 

[Signa]

I recently encountered "if you don't back up your facts, I'm not going to believe you." Which is fine, but they refused to supply any facts of their own. It was my burden to prove an opinionated observation while he just sat back and called "bullshit" without any more proof than his own personal observations to back up his own counter argument.

You probably utterly failed to notice that not believing you is different from making a counterclaim that needs to be supported. If you don't prove your opinionated 'observation' all someone needs to do is call bullshit on you.

Are you going to bring anything to this thread, or are you just going to stir shit up in here too? I didn't name you. For all you know it was on a different site.

You're a bit of a dead giveaway. But just saying, you've shown yourself to not really be able to easily distinguish between claims that need to be supported and people merely questioning you.

So basically, I need to learn what you disagree with before I can make a judgement call. Good to know.

 

[Eddie the head]

When people argue around the point. I see if often. I was watching someone on youtube saying that Half Life is a bit(key word) overrated, I did not see one person argue the guys points(there might have been one) they just navigated around them to insult the guy.

 

[spartan231490]

I just hate when someone thinks that an argument or a debate consists of ignoring what the other person has to say when it disagrees with you and just shouting the same unsubstantiated opinions around all day.

 

[Signa]

I recently encountered "if you don't back up your facts, I'm not going to believe you." Which is fine, but they refused to supply any facts of their own. It was my burden to prove an opinionated observation while he just sat back and called "bullshit" without any more proof than his own personal observations to back up his own counter argument.

You probably utterly failed to notice that not believing you is different from making a counterclaim that needs to be supported. If you don't prove your opinionated 'observation' all someone needs to do is call bullshit on you.

Are you going to bring anything to this thread, or are you just going to stir shit up in here too? I didn't name you. For all you know it was on a different site.

You're a bit of a dead giveaway. But just saying, you've shown yourself to not really be able to easily distinguish between claims that need to be supported and people merely questioning you.

So basically, I need to learn what you disagree with before I can make a judgement call. Good to know.

No, you need to learn to actually pay attention to what a post says, not act like the poor little victim that's oh so persecuted D=
Oh no, it clearly is because someone disagrees with him and not at all because he can't back up the shit he says D=

I'm not going to do this here, and not now. You're wrong, simple as.

 

[rbstewart7263]

I was having yet another debate on feminism in the News Room a while ago where the person I was debating started saying that pointing out that females in games were often sexualized purely for male entertainment was equivalent to "invoking Sharia Law on the likes of Lara Croft" (direct quote, I wish I were kidding). At that point I washed my hands of the ordeal, because we obviously weren't even on the same planet.

sharias law?
lol

anywho god help you im glad those threads are simmering down.

 

[Signa]

I recently encountered "if you don't back up your facts, I'm not going to believe you." Which is fine, but they refused to supply any facts of their own. It was my burden to prove an opinionated observation while he just sat back and called "bullshit" without any more proof than his own personal observations to back up his own counter argument.

You probably utterly failed to notice that not believing you is different from making a counterclaim that needs to be supported. If you don't prove your opinionated 'observation' all someone needs to do is call bullshit on you.

Are you going to bring anything to this thread, or are you just going to stir shit up in here too? I didn't name you. For all you know it was on a different site.

You're a bit of a dead giveaway. But just saying, you've shown yourself to not really be able to easily distinguish between claims that need to be supported and people merely questioning you.

So basically, I need to learn what you disagree with before I can make a judgement call. Good to know.

No, you need to learn to actually pay attention to what a post says, not act like the poor little victim that's oh so persecuted D=
Oh no, it clearly is because someone disagrees with him and not at all because he can't back up the shit he says D=

I'm not going to do this here, and not now. You're wrong, simple as.

Are you trying to provide a good example for the thread. "You're just wrong!" Well good job, you just have provided a great simple example of a horrible argument. Nothing complicated just a nice classic "No u!"

I told you, I'm done. Either add something to this thread or leave.

 

[spartan231490]

Personally, I love the people who will, instead of typing out "Strawman!" as a response, find a picture of a strawman and just use that.

Still not as bad as the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" picture. Do people honestly not realise how childish it makes them seem?

Do you realize how childish it makes you seem that you are telling people they should care what other people think of them? You live long enough you'll figure out it isn't worth your time to care what other people think about you, especially on the internet. Though I always found that argument odd myself, I love living on planet. I just want several other people not to.

 

[Starik20X6]

Many frustrating arguments against fellow Australians on the pronunciation of the word 'ass'. It is not pronounced 'arse', for that is a completely separate word with a different meaning. This is only really an issue with words like jackass, smart-ass etc. being pronounced as 'jack-arse', 'smart-arse', which aren't real words, and mean nothing. Of course, this is countered by "durr, get out of here American, we pronounce it differently because we're Australian." NO! You're saying it wrong! AAAAAAHHHH!

EDIT:

Also, on the subject of Batman: I'm hearing a lot of arguments to the tune of "Villains like the Joker only exist because of Batman. If Batman didn't exist, there'd be no villains in Gotham." Um, what? So, by that logic, if we got rid of the Fire Department, there'd be no fires? If we get rid of hospitals, nobody will get sick?

 

[Lionsfan]

My example was "Let's say you have two apples, twice as many oranges and thrice as many bananas. That means our equation is 2 + 2*2 + 2*3. By counting the fruits, you can easily tell that you have a total of twelve fruits. However, if we follow your method, 2 + 2 = 4. 4*2 = 8. 8 + 2 = 10. 10*3 = 30. -insert yelling- So with 2 apples, four oranges and six bananas, we have 30 fruits in total! Thank you oh wise genius of the mathematics!"

Sorry, couldn't let it slip but I think that's just wrong. 2 + (2*2) + (2*3) = 12. So yes, if you don't use math correctly you may get some wrong answers.

I believe that was his point. He and his friend were having a disagreement about an equation, 1+1+1+1+1*0, and what it equaled. His friend said it was 0, and that PEMDAS doesn't apply, since there's no parentheses. Meaning that you just do it left to right, so 1+1+1+1+1=5 and then you *0 for an answer of 0. That was where he (the OP) used the fruit argument and his friends logic of going left to right, no PEMDAS because there are no parentheses.