SearchN: stewbert: timujin: Coolfusis: minoridiot: MaudlinMutantMollusk: minoridiot: I don't need to argue -- I'm never wrong.

Are too

An argument isn't just contradiction.

It is too.

No it's not. I don't have time to prove it, though, just look it up.

Whatever, the burden of proof is on you. I'm not your personal research service.

Just keep standing up that straw man.

The burden of proof is on the person who is arguing the "positive" (supposedly true) position. You cannot disprove a negative. That's why our legal system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution: "prove that my client committed the crime."

The alternative is:

"We the prosecution say you committed the crime. Prove that you did not."
"I have an alibi; I was at a party with friends when the crime occurred."
"No, we say you were using a double at the party; prove that you did not."
Etc.

Forget it, Jake, it's the Internet.

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: What a shiatty article.

Yeah it left a little to be desired, but I wouldn't say the points they made were wrong.

Correlation does not equal causation! Except sometimes.

LittleSmitty: The fastest way to end and argument is to say "you're right". You don't "win", but it takes the wind out of their sails because they have no ground to argue at that point.

I used that tactic a lot. It works great unless you are the type that needs to have the last word.

I think you misunderstand. They are talking about INTERNET arguments. no one is EVER right that at any point disagreed with you.

Quantumbunny: Oddly enough the div itself: "abPleaBar" is easily blocked...

Go on...

LittleSmitty: The fastest way to end and argument is to say "you're right". You don't "win", but it takes the wind out of their sails because they have no ground to argue at that point.

I used that tactic a lot. It works great unless you are the type that needs to have the last word.

I agree. If you need to get in the "last word" add "That last argument convinced me, you're right" and type nothing else. The thinly veiled sarcasm seems to eat at them. It is kind of like when arguing with a woman and they say "Fine!" and nothing else. You know you really didn't "win" and out of frustration you stick your foot further in your mouth trying to get in that last "zinger" but you fail miserably.

/ Or just don't argue on the internet
// I used to be bad troll bait and learned the hard way

I sound fat: LittleSmitty: The fastest way to end and argument is to say "you're right". You don't "win", but it takes the wind out of their sails because they have no ground to argue at that point.

I used that tactic a lot. It works great unless you are the type that needs to have the last word.

I think you misunderstand. They are talking about INTERNET arguments. no one is EVER right that at any point disagreed with you.

You're right

omeganuepsilon: Quantumbunny: Oddly enough the div itself: "abPleaBar" is easily blocked...

Go on...

With ABP, right click on the banner and "Block this ad". Make sure the ad you are blocking is the div called "adPleaBar".

You can do the same when fark changes their entire background to some car or movie ad.

\According to study after study I thought there were only like... a very small percentage (like 2%) of users that adblocked anything. If it's even 5% it doesn't seem like it would notably impact ad revenues. Or are fark users just so much more technically savy that like half of us do it?

It's a good thing the author is an "award-winning" humorist, as he certainly would starve to death trying to make a living on the debate circuit.

Diagonal: RedVentrue: Ya know who else had a final solution to internet arguments?

Study up on it out.

FTFY

Quantumbunny: omeganuepsilon: Quantumbunny: Oddly enough the div itself: "abPleaBar" is easily blocked...

Go on...

With ABP, right click on the banner and "Block this ad". Make sure the ad you are blocking is the div called "adPleaBar".

You can do the same when fark changes their entire background to some car or movie ad.

\According to study after study I thought there were only like... a very small percentage (like 2%) of users that adblocked anything. If it's even 5% it doesn't seem like it would notably impact ad revenues. Or are fark users just so much more technically savy that like half of us do it?

I don't see that option
/google chrome w/ abp

omeganuepsilon: I don't see that option
/google chrome w/ abp

Nevermind, I have it sorted.
In the tab: Add Your Own Filters
"www.fark.com###abPleaBar"

Thanks to another thread.

/can't go with noscript, html stupid and need the formatting and quote options

giftedmadness: Yeah it left a little to be desired, but I wouldn't say the points they made were wrong.

It left everything to be desired. It was a giant steaming pile of shiat. If you liked it, or agreed with it, then you are a bad person, and should feel bad.

vactech: I drunk what: minoridiot: The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks

no it isn't

/ni

End the argument by invoking a simple logic test. The winner takes all. 

//or perhaps the one who produces....a shrubbery cuts down the mightiest tree in the forest... with....a herring!

we are no longer the knights who say ni

LDM90: Is there an argument on the Internet that hasn't been done over 9000 times? No one ever "wins". Maybe I'm just on Fark too much.

/atheism is a religion

Which is why I don't entirely agree with the "look it up yourself" argument.

Articles on climate have been linked to since the internet was invented. The data is out there; linking to it one more time isn't going to make whatever moron you're arguing with believe it. Sometimes I feel it's just easier to say the information is out there, I'm not going to do the work for you.

StrangeQ: LDM90: Is there an argument on the Internet that hasn't been done over 9000 times? No one ever "wins". Maybe I'm just on Fark too much.

/atheism is a religion

Which is why I don't entirely agree with the "look it up yourself" argument.

Articles on climate have been linked to since the internet was invented. The data is out there; linking to it one more time isn't going to make whatever moron you're arguing with believe it. Sometimes I feel it's just easier to say the information is out there, I'm not going to do the work for you.

But if you are trying to convince someone else, the responsibility is on YOU to show them why you're right and he's wrong.

It's a good way to pick out the trolls - the ones who refuse to EVER back up what they say belong on the Purple 3 list (or ignore, as the case may be).

I drunk what: vactech: I drunk what: minoridiot: The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks

no it isn't

/ni

End the argument by invoking a simple logic test. The winner takes all. 

//or perhaps the one who produces....a shrubbery cuts down the mightiest tree in the forest... with....a herring!

we are no longer the knights who say ni

Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?

I drunk what: vactech: I drunk what: minoridiot: The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks

no it isn't

/ni

End the argument by invoking a simple logic test. The winner takes all. 

//or perhaps the one who produces....a shrubbery cuts down the mightiest tree in the forest... with....a herring!

A better use of fish:

If you claim to have supporting evidence available online, but instead of linking to it you say "Look it up yourself," you lose.

This one is important. It's one thing when it's a news story that's blowing up all over the internet, but when you are citing specific arguments to bolster your facts, but then won't post your sources, it makes all of your credibility go down the drain.

/If you had any left, that is...

vactech: Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?

there is no movie funnier than the Holy Grail.

it is the Holy Grail of Comedy, no discussion (and in real life i separate those who get it and those that do not, and you DO NOT want to be on the list of those that don't get it)

now go away or i will taunt you a second time

rufus-t-firefly: StrangeQ: LDM90: Is there an argument on the Internet that hasn't been done over 9000 times? No one ever "wins". Maybe I'm just on Fark too much.

/atheism is a religion

Which is why I don't entirely agree with the "look it up yourself" argument.

Articles on climate have been linked to since the internet was invented. The data is out there; linking to it one more time isn't going to make whatever moron you're arguing with believe it. Sometimes I feel it's just easier to say the information is out there, I'm not going to do the work for you.

But if you are trying to convince someone else, the responsibility is on YOU to show them why you're right and he's wrong.

It's a good way to pick out the trolls - the ones who refuse to EVER back up what they say belong on the Purple 3 list (or ignore, as the case may be).

This. You can't just say 1+2=42 and except to be taken at face value as right. Citations are needed, and are not always ignored as some proclaim.

Sure, you run into it when one fallible troll is arguing against another fallible troll. But in rational discussion with rational people, if the topic is centered on available information, that information needs to be linked or referred to explicitly more often than not.

There are times, however, that information is common knowledge. A recent example of mine would be " high testosterone can increase aggression" Pretty much a no brainer, one would think, well established science right there, from mice to men. Very observable in the short term by anyone. Yet people will still refute that, and display themselves as wholly ignorant of the subject.
IMO, linking to people that are that grossly disconnected is sort of pointless.

As far as climate goes, that's a different beast all together.

That is the inherent problem of a theory without readily tangible proof, and what corroborating evidence there is, is delivered with 90% or so of arbitrarily assigned "certainty" or "confidence".

The other inherent problem with climate is that implied "consensus" is an illusion. Many of the "warmist" studies have varying results and predictions, not to mention that appealing to popularity doesn't deal with the data itself at all, and thereby "proves" nothing. (IE you can be correct, but if you come to a conclusion based on faulty information, it's no more genuine than the people who doubt your claim without reference)

IMO, it's a judgement call, this need of citation. The asserting party should be ready to back up their claims with a credible source, or simply back down/walk away. If information is requested, it's common courtesy(something lacking on the internet) to provide information. The request, yes, it is a challenge, but it's also a service, you're being handed the "win", so to speak, if you are indeed correct. If you fail to or refuse to do that, you may as well chalk it up to a loss, if for no other reason than you are an irrational dick who chooses to employ straw men and insults to come out on top.

As I mentioned above, the inverse applies. If one's ignorance is so complete as to be repugnant, no link is needed. If they're asking for citations for 1+1=2, they obviously have issues and debating with them is pointless. Facepalm.jpg is perfectly acceptable, but not quite as classy as handing over a citation anyhow.

There's a balance there. Most of us have done one or the other, the legitimacy of each circumstance depends on several variables, there can be no real golden rule in this area.

minoridiot: MaudlinMutantMollusk: minoridiot: I don't need to argue -- I'm never wrong.

Are too

An argument isn't just contradiction.

It can be.

I drunk what: vactech: Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?

there is no movie funnier than the Holy Grail.

it is the Holy Grail of Comedy, no discussion (and in real life i separate those who get it and those that do not, and you DO NOT want to be on the list of those that don't get it)

now go away or i will taunt you a second time

I agree. Life of Brian made me uncomfortable with it's portrayal of an ancient Rome, where religious fanaticism and state corruption was rampant and where a multitude of self-proclaimed prophets rambling off pseudo-religious truisms could easily (sometimes by accident) gain a legendary cult following.

The spaceship scene was funny though. lol

vactech: I drunk what: vactech: Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?

there is no movie funnier than the Holy Grail.

it is the Holy Grail of Comedy, no discussion (and in real life i separate those who get it and those that do not, and you DO NOT want to be on the list of those that don't get it)

now go away or i will taunt you a second time

I agree. Life of Brian made me uncomfortable with it's portrayal of an ancient Rome, where religious fanaticism and state corruption was rampant and where a multitude of self-proclaimed prophets rambling off pseudo-religious truisms could easily (sometimes by accident) gain a legendary cult following.

The spaceship scene was funny though. lol

Life of Brian DOES have the superior ending however.

Fano: vactech: I drunk what: vactech: Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?

there is no movie funnier than the Holy Grail.

it is the Holy Grail of Comedy, no discussion (and in real life i separate those who get it and those that do not, and you DO NOT want to be on the list of those that don't get it)

now go away or i will taunt you a second time

I agree. Life of Brian made me uncomfortable with it's portrayal of an ancient Rome, where religious fanaticism and state corruption was rampant and where a multitude of self-proclaimed prophets rambling off pseudo-religious truisms could easily (sometimes by accident) gain a legendary cult following.

The spaceship scene was funny though. lol

Life of Brian DOES have the superior ending however.

It's on the playlist for my funeral.

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: giftedmadness: Yeah it left a little to be desired, but I wouldn't say the points they made were wrong.

It left everything to be desired. It was a giant steaming pile of shiat. If you liked it, or agreed with it, then you are a bad person, and should feel bad.


Lol, ok then.  Nice debating there, buddy.

"Internet arguments are intrinsically a problem"

No they're not.

"They can't be won."

So what?

"All good things come to an end."

Says who?

"In the absence of an end condition, there's only whoever has the last word."

Reductionist bullshiat.

"So all online arguments come down to the two people who just will not shut up."

They sometimes include such people. The thing about internet arguments is, that they involve more than just two people. They include the people who read them. What they come down to is not one thing, but a set of different things for different observers. But if that's all they come down to for you, that's just dandy.

"The only solution is to come up with a way to declare a winner or a loser"

Declaring winners or losers is not a solution to anything, though it could be a feature of something.

"People who argue endlessly on the Internet are unlikely to literally take a shower."

So what? Noseplugs exist.

//also all of your rules are dumb.

db2: Nine comments with no mention of Monty Python? Huh.

Or Hitchhiker's Guide.

abb3w: Also wrong, vis-a-vis Turing's Halting problem, and the potential lack of a "last" element for an infinite sequence of elements.

Don't you need a description of a program to invoke the halting problem?

Basically what I meant was that I think the author is treating the idea of 'last word' as some kind of epiphenomenon.