 |             FistOfStone: to me only a refutation to the central point is a proper counterargument 5 years ago • Report 3 (Post deleted by Upaya ) zolo2500: The proper method, I created it myself; 1) State the right answer. 2) You got it right the first time so grab a beer and laugh at their attempts  Jaguar Essence: Upaya, do you mind to elaborate what's what we're seeing? And what's your perspective and understanding, please and thank you.  Upaya: This is Grahamās hierarchy of disagreements. When arguing with an interlocutor, one always wants to offer direct refutations to the others central point, UNLESS in a narrow band of circumstances, there are times that offering either a counter argument, or a refutation NOT to the others central point when you feel that that point doesnāt touch on the real topic at hand, but ONLY when you feel that the simple offering of a counter argument will be enough to get your opposition to agree that theyāre on the wrong point... but any form of argument lower than those is always poor form... simple straight contradictions donāt move the conversation forward, responses to tone arenāt even about the topic at hand, āto the manā as hominem insults leads to bickering, and name calling isnāt even an argument... note: extra verbiage and jargon doesnāt excuse these lower arguments... whether you call someone an asshat or āan uneducated ignorant troglodyteā itās STILL namecalling lol (Post deleted by Upaya ) Upaya: The saddest part though is that we see VERY few who stick to direct refutations, and a wild abundance of lowly namecalling š
(Post deleted by Upaya ) (Post deleted by Upaya ) (Post deleted by Upaya ) Upaya in reply to Super Esquire: Can you readš
ā... I specifically said name calling was NOT an argument... itās Grahamās Hierarchy of āDisagreementsā ... Try looking it up, I didnāt make it up lol |
