Why?

Originally posted by zokh:

I'll probably win

Nah, you wouldn't

i think we need oxygen to live, you defend asphyxia

Originally posted by Nightmare:

Why?

Because I am a highly educated, high IQ individual, I have a PhD in physics and astronomy

Originally posted by Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...:

i think we need oxygen to live, you defend asphyxia

We are carbon based creatures, oxygen is meaningless to us, we don't need oxygen at all. Hold your breath for me, nothing will happen.

Originally posted by Lime:

Originally posted by zokh:

I'll probably win

Nah, you wouldn't

Yes I would because I am a highly educated, high IQ individual, I have a PhD in physics and astronomy.

cheeky australian boy

Originally posted by zokh:

I'll probably win

Even if you were playing devil's advocate against a point you agreed with?
Tthe application of rhetorical devices can be learned by rote, and is a poor indicator of general intelligence.
And you can win an argument, and still be wrong.

Originally posted by zokh:

Originally posted by Lime:

Nah, you wouldn't

Yes I would because I am a highly educated, high IQ individual, I have a PhD in physics and astronomy.

There is a tendency for people in specialised fields to assume they are as competent outside of their speciality.
I suppose very rarely, they might be.

What would you like to argue about?

Originally posted by Hedge Wizard:

Originally posted by zokh:

I'll probably win

Even if you were playing devil's advocate against a point you agreed with?
Tthe application of rhetorical devices can be learned by rote, and is a poor indicator of general intelligence.
And you can win an argument, and still be wrong.

Originally posted by zokh:

Yes I would because I am a highly educated, high IQ individual, I have a PhD in physics and astronomy.

There is a tendency for people in specialised fields to assume they are as competent outside of their speciality.
I suppose very rarely, they might be.

What would you like to argue about?

It's morally okay to spend your grandmothers inheritance on porn, debate me on this.

Originally posted by zokh:

Originally posted by Hedge Wizard:

Even if you were playing devil's advocate against a point you agreed with?
Tthe application of rhetorical devices can be learned by rote, and is a poor indicator of general intelligence.
And you can win an argument, and still be wrong.



There is a tendency for people in specialised fields to assume they are as competent outside of their speciality.
I suppose very rarely, they might be.

What would you like to argue about?

It's morally okay to spend your grandmothers inheritance on porn, debate me on this.

Well, what supposed moral foundation are you basing this on for starters?
Are you a virtue ethics guy, or a god-wad?
Do you prefer a utilitarian approach to ethics, or something with a more principles based approach?

But first, I'd argue you would be daft to pay for porn, when it is free.

Originally posted by zokh:

Originally posted by Lime:

Nah, you wouldn't

Yes I would because I am a highly educated, high IQ individual, I have a PhD in physics and astronomy.

But you're losing, so how can that be?

You won't

sup yeah I'm too smart to remember that I made this thread so I automatically win any debate you nerds sent because I don't feel like reading em

I am a low IQ individual who sits outside a saloon all day talking to strangers about my prospecting days, with 10^800 tonnes of dynamite stashed and piled that requires an explosives skill speech check to access.

Most likely i will lose. Debate me on anything

Arguing for the sake of it is pointless.
Winning an argument can mean losing something more important - a trust, respect or a chance to grow. If you enter a discussion thinking, "I must win," you have already lost. You close your mind to new facts and perspectives. Your goal becomes defending your position rather than finding a better solution or understanding another point of view. In the end, you are left being right - but utterly alone.