So you equate non-Cals who don't want to conform to your debate rules as crack addicts and car thieves packing heat. Yeah, hard to understand why people don't engage you.
Maybe take a nap. Relax a bit.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What Others Believe
- Thread starter Reformed
- Start date
So you equate non-Cals who don't want to conform to your debate rules as crack addicts and car thieves packing heat. Yeah, hard to understand why people don't engage you.
Maybe take a nap. Relax a bit.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
ITL,
You do not seem to grasp the idea of examples being used to illustrate a truth. That's okay. It does not make you a bad person.
People do not engage me because I can be quite annoying.
I many times dispense with tactful niceties and get to the issue head on.
When you avoid answering for example, instead of letting it go, I point it out as you are first in line to demand answers from others and yet you remain silent when other kinds of offenses take place.
If you notice, I do not shy away from any response unless I am forced to.
I can give a current answer that illustrates this perfectly, but it would be better if i did so in a Pm. If you want that let me know.
And there you go
Attachments
It is hard because many have to hide behind some obscure historic person, or they go to philosophy and "debate fallacies" to avoid answering the questions coming their way.
Anytime there is a continuous appeal to debate fallacy excuses, you know the other person cannot answer you and look to divert away from your response.
I doubt people hide behind these things - it's a red herring
The reason I believe so is that fallacies (such as "entitled to an opinion", "agree to disagree", "strawman arguments", ad hominem, "red herring", etc. in themselves divert from any argument.
For example, you have accused members of these fallacies at least 124 times (since 2014). That does not mean you are wrong. It is good to point out argumentative fallicies as simply responding to them is to engage in diversion.
Can you provide an example of someone "hiding behind some obscure historical figure"? I hear this often but it has always proved to be a red herring. Calvinists do not hide behind Calvin. Free-will theorists do not hide behind Arminius or Wesley. People often reference these people to explain something of their position, not to insulate themselves from the argument.
Not to mention Paul said to not do such things.
Other than the monster strawmen, and ad hominem posts, mostly I do it to show that it becomes ludicrous to go to all manner of fallacy defense.I doubt people hide behind these things - it's a red herring
The reason I believe so is that fallacies (such as "entitled to an opinion", "agree to disagree", "strawman arguments", ad hominem, "red herring", etc. in themselves divert from any argument.
For example, you have accused members of these fallacies at least 124 times (since 2014). That does not mean you are wrong. It is good to point out argumentative fallicies as simply responding to them is to engage in diversion.
Can you provide an example of someone "hiding behind some obscure historical figure"? I hear this often but it has always proved to be a red herring. Calvinists do not hide behind Calvin. Free-will theorists do not hide behind Arminius or Wesley. People often reference these people to explain something of their position, not to insulate themselves from the argument.
Reformed did no such fallacy, no red herring at all.
To each his own. I have thick hide when it comes to stuff like that but I respect the right of others not to feel that way. I would rather debate the issue not the person. If a person evades the issue then the wise person knows when to just drop it and move on.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You are right, but it goes both ways. I read a lot of the posts and find them a tedious back and forth about who is evading, or twisting, etc., and very little insight into passages of scripture.
I like hearing what others have to say about scripture, but not what their opinion is of someone who doesn’t see it the way they do.
peace to you
Absolutely! Each of us much judge for ourselves.
In an argument "entitled to an opinion" is a "red herring" fallacy. We all have opinions and conclusions, but they are valid only Insofar as they can be supported by evidence.
Jon, if "it is your opinion" is thrown out there during a conversation in which there has been no rational argument made, it is an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. A red herring. That was not the case in the previous thread that you closed. You and I did, in fact, have a difference of opinion but that was after both of us made our case on biblical truth. Conversations sometimes do reach an impasse and cannot move forward. At that point, whether one or both parties say, "We have reached an impasse" or "That is your opinion", the effect is the same. It is not an attempt to sidetrack or obfuscate, it is a realization that we have reached the end. Unless, of course, you think pistols at ten paces is better.
I was not talking about the other thread. Frankly, I do not recall the conversation so I really can't say either way.
I was speaking of the post (on this thread) suggesting people hide behind fallacies and obscure historical figures. I do not see either occurring (at least on a regular basis).
Opinions (and conclusions) in arguments have to be supported via evidence. That is where the arguments are examined (and that is where the truth of the matter is determined or disputed). Just saying one has an opinion does not legitimize the opinion held. Without evidence as support offering opinions in an argument as a counter point is nothing but a red herring.