ShinySandshrew said:
It's interesting how much you say that TFP is being dishonest and how truthful you are being. I think that most certainly says something about your views. Care to take a guess?
Actually, I haven't mentioned anything about the context. I was just pointing out abdulemahsee's poor debating tactic of repeatedly insulting TFP and saying how truthful he (abdul) was being.
I didn't plan to post again, but this has put a bad damper on the debate.
You complain that all I'm doing is insulting TheFightingPikachu while you yourself have said nothing in way of countering my points besides completely omitting them from your quotes and attacking
my character.
If something is illogical, it's illogical, if it's dishonest, it's dishonest, and so on, and pointing such things out are the nature of debate; it's impossible to debate someone's argument without pointing it out as such, and if you actually read my posts with any other intention than to edit sentences and try to use them against me, you'd see my 'debating tactic' is to prove my own arguments true and the points I'm debating against false.
Part of this process is necessarily 'insulting.' Someone pointing out your fallacies makes you feel angry. You are complaining about the very nature of debate.
You yourself have said nothing to advance the debate and your only statement was to complain about me and effectively
ignore whatever I said; is this a good debating tactic then?
Ad hominem. Refute what I said instead of attacking my character.
Then after your complaints about me, you complained that natie merely attacked you instead of refuting what you said.
And what exactly did you say that needed refuting? Your entire post was a complete omission of everything I said, but only ripped apart segments of text taken completely away from every single point I made in a mud-slinging attempt to attack
my character, followed by an ambiguous statement that I was wrong, and you did nothing besides this.
Also, Jesus himself used 'ad hominem' when he repeatedly complained about the character of the pharisees to warn people against them, and in fact, Jesus' primary mode of debate was to point out the Jews' hypocrisy, their arrogance, their crookedness and desire for position, and every other aspect of their character, so perhaps you should complain about Jesus' 'poor debating tactic.'
Don't advise someone to refute what you say when you didn't say anything to begin with, and don't tell them to refrain from attacking your character when your posts are exactly that with a complete withdrawal from refuting what
they said. You're merely diverting the argument, and if you're worried about feeling insulted, you shouldn't be a part of debates. Especially when you have nothing to say.