Report, edit, etc...Posted by I-X-King-X-I on 2005-08-12 at 16:42:02
QUOTE(ihatett_da_hated @ Aug 12 2005, 02:38 PM)
Are you saying that SC is dead?
This Sky Proleague was the biggest turnout ever. Back in 2002 (when the game was already old) people were saying that it was the height of BW, and that it had nowhere to go but down. 3 years later, it's still growing.
[right][snapback]286391[/snapback][/right]
This Sky Proleague was the biggest turnout ever. Back in 2002 (when the game was already old) people were saying that it was the height of BW, and that it had nowhere to go but down. 3 years later, it's still growing.
[right][snapback]286391[/snapback][/right]
well because its an excellent game you silly willy
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-12 at 16:42:07
I totally agree with you. I really think the Canadian Government will invade China, but when? That's a question we have to think about for a while..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tavrobel on 2005-08-12 at 16:43:09
QUOTE
*ShadowBrood agrees with devilesk.
Religion is all based on faith. Therefore, you can't accept everything as concrete fact.
Also dude, you said it's existed for 1000s of years, even in persecution. You're wrong. It's existed for much less time than that. Orthodox churches however have lasted a little over 1000 years.
Another thing. You say because of it lasting so long, it HAS to be true. What about when humanity was Pagan? That's lasted longer than Christianity by so much longer it's not even funny. We still have Pagans today, so don't say it's dead. Since it lasted so long, even through the Christian Pagan slaughters, it HAS to be true.
GG no RM
Religion is all based on faith. Therefore, you can't accept everything as concrete fact.
Also dude, you said it's existed for 1000s of years, even in persecution. You're wrong. It's existed for much less time than that. Orthodox churches however have lasted a little over 1000 years.
Another thing. You say because of it lasting so long, it HAS to be true. What about when humanity was Pagan? That's lasted longer than Christianity by so much longer it's not even funny. We still have Pagans today, so don't say it's dead. Since it lasted so long, even through the Christian Pagan slaughters, it HAS to be true.
GG no RM
You make a good point. I think we should just agree to disagree. I for one am tired of having to argue the validity of my beliefs with your own. Peace, can we have?
ADDITION:
QUOTE
Btw, about your other point that "the person might be a great person if he survived, blah blah blah"
Here's another fallacy I think fits:
QUOTE
Ad hoc
As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:
"I was healed from cancer."
"Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."
"So, will He heal others who have cancer?"
"Er... The ways of God are mysterious."
So basically to say that abortion is wrong because the person could have been great or whatever, you must prove that the person could have grown up to be a great person.
Here's another fallacy I think fits:
QUOTE
Ad hoc
As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:
"I was healed from cancer."
"Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."
"So, will He heal others who have cancer?"
"Er... The ways of God are mysterious."
So basically to say that abortion is wrong because the person could have been great or whatever, you must prove that the person could have grown up to be a great person.
We can't disprove it, now can we?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 16:43:12
No, you must admit you're wrong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-12 at 16:43:29
Are you sure? Those Canadians have plans to invade the lower top of china, then use some nukes and other weapons..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SuperToast on 2005-08-12 at 16:43:41
QUOTE(devilesk @ Aug 12 2005, 02:43 PM)
No, you must admit you're wrong.
[right][snapback]286406[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286406[/snapback][/right]
HEY GIVE ME BACK MY JUICE BOX!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 16:44:14
QUOTE(Tavrobel @ Aug 12 2005, 04:43 PM)
ADDITION:
We can't disprove it, now can we?
[right][snapback]286403[/snapback][/right]
We can't disprove it, now can we?
[right][snapback]286403[/snapback][/right]
Sigh, does this fallacy fit:
QUOTE
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-08-12 at 16:44:35
I'm Canadian...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by I-X-King-X-I on 2005-08-12 at 16:45:39
QUOTE(Deathknight @ Aug 12 2005, 02:44 PM)
I'm Canadian...
[right][snapback]286410[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286410[/snapback][/right]
im american...so i pwn you
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tavrobel on 2005-08-12 at 16:45:56
QUOTE
No, you must admit you're wrong.
I'm not wrong though. It is my opinion. You have your own, what would I be if I said flat out "No you're wrong"?
Such is not what we are destined to do. What fallacy does one believe in if he thinks that everything he says is wrong? Debate is a cornerstone of life. Tense decisions are made from argument. To say that I am wonrg in every way, when I have defended it, is not a good thing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-08-12 at 16:47:05
QUOTE
im american...so i pwn you
No, being American is a bad thing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 16:47:17
You have not defended it at all.
Every point you make is illogical and has a fallacy that invalidates that point. Considering that there is one in each one of your points pretty much shows that you are losing this argument.
QUOTE
Such is not what we are destined to do. What fallacy does one believe in if he thinks that everything he says is wrong? Debate is a cornerstone of life. Tense decisions are made from argument. To say that I am wonrg in every way, when I have defended it, is not a good thing.
Every point you make is illogical and has a fallacy that invalidates that point. Considering that there is one in each one of your points pretty much shows that you are losing this argument.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tavrobel on 2005-08-12 at 16:48:08
QUOTE
Sigh, does this fallacy fit:
QUOTE
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"
QUOTE
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"
Not really, but it's worth the argument that ensues because of it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by I-X-King-X-I on 2005-08-12 at 16:48:21
QUOTE(Deathknight @ Aug 12 2005, 02:47 PM)
No, being American is a bad thing.
[right][snapback]286416[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286416[/snapback][/right]
says the canaidian.....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 16:49:00
QUOTE(Tavrobel @ Aug 12 2005, 04:48 PM)
Not really, but it's worth the argument that ensues because of it.
[right][snapback]286420[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286420[/snapback][/right]
It really does fit, because you are saying "can you disprove it" when you are the one claiming that is true. You have the burden of proof.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-12 at 16:49:16
Why are you guys posting in caps locks? That is not nice! I really think we shouldn;t be playing poker/dice/scrabble/pool in here, you guys are dumb.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tavrobel on 2005-08-12 at 16:49:34
QUOTE
You have not defended it at all.
So you're blind, or have you just been slapping random posts trying to say I'm completely wrong when you have no idea what you're talking about?
I should hope it's neither, but your actions haven't proven that it's not one of the two above.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-08-12 at 16:49:35
No maple syrop for you. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 16:51:09
QUOTE(Tavrobel @ Aug 12 2005, 04:49 PM)
So you're blind, or have you just been slapping random posts trying to say I'm completely wrong when you have no idea what you're talking about?
I should hope it's neither, but your actions haven't proven that it's not one of the two above.
[right][snapback]286424[/snapback][/right]
I should hope it's neither, but your actions haven't proven that it's not one of the two above.
[right][snapback]286424[/snapback][/right]
I have shown that each of your arguments is not valid. You are the blind one because you are too stubborn to realize it and admit that you are wrong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-12 at 16:51:20
Deathknight, why all the racist remarks? This isn't your forum, no need to flame everybody and talk about how canadians live in igloos and eat syrup, god you're mean.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tavrobel on 2005-08-12 at 16:51:54
QUOTE
It really does fit, because you are saying "can you disprove it" when you are the one claiming that is true. You have the burden of proof.
Can you disprove it? Can you say with ABSOLUTE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY that I'm wrong, not out of spite, but out of knowledge? Can you really disprove or prove the existence of God, or anything that is on a higher plane of existence? Can you prove that everything I say is completely and uterly wrong? Can you prove that you are right beyond any reasonable doubt? If not, then we should stop arguing, because we will reach the same coclusion. We don't know anything.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SuperToast on 2005-08-12 at 16:52:25
Devilisk, I am starting to understand why you and ihatett are starting to get along so well.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 16:54:38
QUOTE(Tavrobel @ Aug 12 2005, 04:51 PM)
Can you disprove it? Can you say with ABSOLUTE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY that I'm wrong, not out of spite, but out of knowledge? Can you really disprove or prove the existence of God, or anything that is on a higher plane of existence? Can you prove that everything I say is completely and uterly wrong? Can you prove that you are right beyond any reasonable doubt? If not, then we should stop arguing, because we will reach the same coclusion. We don't know anything.
[right][snapback]286429[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286429[/snapback][/right]
Do you understand what burden of proof is?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-08-12 at 16:56:07
QUOTE
Can you disprove it?
That's the problem why arguments with two sides get nowhere. One side sais to prove it, the other side sais to disprove it, regardless if the object they're arguing over exists or not.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ihatett_da_hated on 2005-08-12 at 16:56:28
how the hell did this turn into an abortion argument while I was gone?