BattlefieldFan1's forum posts

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

Social queues are irrelevant, if they prove to be fallacious. Your argument is wholeheartedly incorrect. Without evidence, you cannot simply assume something is true. It's Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and it's what your entire position is posited on.

I've proven that debates don't always point to the truth.

Listen to your gut some more, dumbass. It might help you in life.

Try not to be such a dumbass. It might help you in life

I can do your job. You can't do mine.

lol you don't even know what I do. And no you can't. Aren't you just a student anyways?

I'm a math, econ and computer science triple. I've taken grad-level courses in econ and mathematics. I'm going to work as an engineer at NASA after graduation.

You?

lol, of course you are...

lol... Not everyone on the internet lies. Didn't I already post my schedule for next semester? Certainly, it's doing more to validate my claims, eh?

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@soulitane said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@soulitane said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@soulitane said:

Which would lead to the question, how do you know how they act? Which you'll say, they file a ticket, which I could very well counter with, they don't. You say, but it takes no time at all, to which I say, so does sending a report when a program crashes, who the hell does that? That's the end of the argument because you can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong, thus without logic, we're both right.

Debates use logic, regardless of if it's on here or in an academic setting

Through social skills.

It is clear that I have better social skills than lundy, so my assumptions should hold true. We will use my assumption as fact for the debate and void any assumption lundy makes.

and now the insecurities are shining through again. Maybe it's because you actual lack social skills, or because you're not smart enough to prove come up with a rebuttal.

Apparently my social skills are better than your's, so we'll use my assumptions as fact for the debate and void any assumptions you make.

I've proven lundy is a socially inept buffoon through his inability to differentiate hyperbole from literal statements.

You haven't proven anything that shows us you're more socially adept than I am. Try again. Use logic this time. And evidence.

I don't need to, my intuition tells me that your social skills are lacking, I need no more proof than that. Why get bogged down in the logic and evidence when I know I'm right?

You're allowed to make assumptions after the more socially adept person is known. For that, we need a proper debate with evidence.

Everything after that, we can resort to assumptions and use them as facts.

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

So if your wife is flirting boldly with your neighbor and you're talking ("Debating") with your friend whether your wife is cheating on you or not, a proper conclusion to that debate would say that your wife is NOT cheating on you because you can't produce concrete evidence.

Going by those standards, would that give you ease of mind just because the conclusion was the opposite of what you know your wife is doing behind your back even without damning evidence?

If you're debating whether your wife is cheating, you wouldn't know until proven correct. You can speculate, but that's it. You would not say that they are "not cheating," as that would also be an argument from ignorance.

Correction: lundy wouldn't know because he wasn't blessed with picking up social queues like most other people are.

Social queues are irrelevant, if they prove to be fallacious. Your argument is wholeheartedly incorrect. Without evidence, you cannot simply assume something is true. It's Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and it's what your entire position is posited on.

I've proven that debates don't always point to the truth.

Listen to your gut some more, dumbass. It might help you in life.

Try not to be such a dumbass. It might help you in life

I can do your job. You can't do mine.

lol you don't even know what I do. And no you can't. Aren't you just a student anyways?

I'm a math, econ and computer science triple. I've taken grad-level courses in econ and mathematics. I'm going to work as an engineer at NASA after graduation.

You?

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

So if your wife is flirting boldly with your neighbor and you're talking ("Debating") with your friend whether your wife is cheating on you or not, a proper conclusion to that debate would say that your wife is NOT cheating on you because you can't produce concrete evidence.

Going by those standards, would that give you ease of mind just because the conclusion was the opposite of what you know your wife is doing behind your back even without damning evidence?

If you're debating whether your wife is cheating, you wouldn't know until proven correct. You can speculate, but that's it. You would not say that they are "not cheating," as that would also be an argument from ignorance.

Correction: lundy wouldn't know because he wasn't blessed with picking up social queues like most other people are.

Social queues are irrelevant, if they prove to be fallacious. Your argument is wholeheartedly incorrect. Without evidence, you cannot simply assume something is true. It's Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and it's what your entire position is posited on.

I've proven that debates don't always point to the truth.

Listen to your gut some more, dumbass. It might help you in life.

Try not to be such a dumbass. It might help you in life

I can do your job. You can't do mine.

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@soulitane said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@soulitane said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

You need to stop playing games and learn that assumptions, not logic, rules the world.

Nobody is playing games. This is a debate. Debates have pretty obvious rules... Using evidence, for one.

Also, learn to post your response outside of the quote chain, idiot.

This isn't an academic debate. Hardcore evidence has no place here. The topological structure of earth is science. We're talking about Psychology/Sociology - 2 fields that have anything to do with logic and mathematics.

We are allowed to make as many assumptions as we want as long as the assumptions are obvious.

...We're talking about video games here. You may be on the wrong board...

We're talking about how gamers act when their game session crashes on them. Is that not somewhat related to Psychology?

Which would lead to the question, how do you know how they act? Which you'll say, they file a ticket, which I could very well counter with, they don't. You say, but it takes no time at all, to which I say, so does sending a report when a program crashes, who the hell does that? That's the end of the argument because you can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong, thus without logic, we're both right.

Debates use logic, regardless of if it's on here or in an academic setting

Through social skills.

It is clear that I have better social skills than lundy, so my assumptions should hold true. We will use my assumption as fact for the debate and void any assumption lundy makes.

and now the insecurities are shining through again. Maybe it's because you actual lack social skills, or because you're not smart enough to prove come up with a rebuttal.

Apparently my social skills are better than your's, so we'll use my assumptions as fact for the debate and void any assumptions you make.

I've proven lundy is a socially inept buffoon through his inability to differentiate hyperbole from literal statements.

You haven't proven anything that shows us you're more socially adept than I am. Try again. Use logic this time. And evidence.

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

So if your wife is flirting boldly with your neighbor and you're talking ("Debating") with your friend whether your wife is cheating on you or not, a proper conclusion to that debate would say that your wife is NOT cheating on you because you can't produce concrete evidence.

Going by those standards, would that give you ease of mind just because the conclusion was the opposite of what you know your wife is doing behind your back even without damning evidence?

If you're debating whether your wife is cheating, you wouldn't know until proven correct. You can speculate, but that's it. You would not say that they are "not cheating," as that would also be an argument from ignorance.

Correction: lundy wouldn't know because he wasn't blessed with picking up social queues like most other people are.

Social queues are irrelevant, if they prove to be fallacious. Your argument is wholeheartedly incorrect. Without evidence, you cannot simply assume something is true. It's Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and it's what your entire position is posited on.

I've proven that debates don't always point to the truth.

Listen to your gut some more, dumbass. It might help you in life.

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@soulitane said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

You need to stop playing games and learn that assumptions, not logic, rules the world.

Nobody is playing games. This is a debate. Debates have pretty obvious rules... Using evidence, for one.

Also, learn to post your response outside of the quote chain, idiot.

This isn't an academic debate. Hardcore evidence has no place here. The topological structure of earth is science. We're talking about Psychology/Sociology - 2 fields that have anything to do with logic and mathematics.

We are allowed to make as many assumptions as we want as long as the assumptions are obvious.

...We're talking about video games here. You may be on the wrong board...

We're talking about how gamers act when their game session crashes on them. Is that not somewhat related to Psychology?

Which would lead to the question, how do you know how they act? Which you'll say, they file a ticket, which I could very well counter with, they don't. You say, but it takes no time at all, to which I say, so does sending a report when a program crashes, who the hell does that? That's the end of the argument because you can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong, thus without logic, we're both right.

Debates use logic, regardless of if it's on here or in an academic setting

Through social skills.

It is clear that I have better social skills than lundy, so my assumptions should hold true. We will use my assumption as fact for the debate and void any assumption lundy makes.

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

So if your wife is flirting boldly with your neighbor and you're talking ("Debating") with your friend whether your wife is cheating on you or not, a proper conclusion to that debate would say that your wife is NOT cheating on you because you can't produce concrete evidence.

Going by those standards, would that give you ease of mind just because the conclusion was the opposite of what you know your wife is doing behind your back even without damning evidence?

If you're debating whether your wife is cheating, you wouldn't know until proven correct. You can speculate, but that's it. You would not say that they are "not cheating," as that would also be an argument from ignorance.

Correction: lundy wouldn't know because he wasn't blessed with picking up social queues like most other people are.

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lostrib said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

You need to stop playing games and learn that assumptions, not logic, rules the world.

Nobody is playing games. This is a debate. Debates have pretty obvious rules... Using evidence, for one.

Also, learn to post your response outside of the quote chain, idiot.

This isn't an academic debate. Hardcore evidence has no place here. The topological structure of earth is science. We're talking about Psychology/Sociology - 2 fields that have anything to do with logic and mathematics.

We are allowed to make as many assumptions as we want as long as the assumptions are obvious.

...We're talking about video games here. You may be on the wrong board...

We're talking about how gamers act when their game session crashes on them. Is that not somewhat related to Psychology?

Actually, we were talking about your idiocy and the stupid shit you say...but I guess you're right. Your mental disability would be related to psychology

I smell asshurt after I insulted whatever the hell it is you do.

Avatar image for BattlefieldFan1
BattlefieldFan1

841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 BattlefieldFan1
Member since 2012 • 841 Posts

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@BattlefieldFan1 said:

You need to stop playing games and learn that assumptions, not logic, rules the world.

Nobody is playing games. This is a debate. Debates have pretty obvious rules... Using evidence, for one.

Also, learn to post your response outside of the quote chain, idiot.

This isn't an academic debate. Hardcore evidence has no place here. The topological structure of earth is science. We're talking about Psychology/Sociology - 2 fields that have anything to do with logic and mathematics.

We are allowed to make as many assumptions as we want as long as the assumptions are obvious.

It's a debate. Evidence is provided in any form of debate, academic or not. You cannot just assume something is true... Fairly common-sense.

Seriously, beyond mocking other's academics, they really have no place here. A debate is a debate, and you used a logical fallacy, fuckwit.

So if your wife is flirting boldly with your neighbor and you're talking ("Debating") with your friend whether your wife is cheating on you or not, a proper conclusion to that debate would say that your wife is NOT cheating on you because you can't produce concrete evidence.

Going by those standards, would that give you ease of mind just because the conclusion was the opposite of what you know your wife is doing behind your back even without damning evidence?