Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:49 am
*Blows Whistle* Reversing the Burden of Proof, Negative Proof Fallacy, penalty shot for batman.OmniBack wrote:No it doesn't.
Starfleet Jedi Forum
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/
*Blows Whistle* Reversing the Burden of Proof, Negative Proof Fallacy, penalty shot for batman.OmniBack wrote:No it doesn't.
WolfRitter, if you don't have any positive contribution to make to the discussion (and pretending to be a referee at some kind of game is not a positive contribution), it is better to simply listen. This forum is intended for discussion - not showmanship.WolfRitter wrote:*Blows Whistle* Reversing the Burden of Proof, Negative Proof Fallacy, penalty shot for batman.OmniBack wrote:No it doesn't.
Put up or shut up.WolfRitter wrote:So, I suppose calling someone on dishonest debating is wrong? I'll be sure to employ strawmans, appeals to authority, emotion, ignorance, pity, tradition, popularity, fear, popularity, and force, negative proof fallacies, red herrings, and numerous other fallacies from now on. If you want discussion, then I would suggest you remain vigilant for innapropriate debate form.
If you can't understand the difference between critiquing an argument and engaging in pointless showmanship, I'll be happy to split off these last few posts between us into a new thread and explain it to you at length.WolfRitter wrote:So, I suppose calling someone on dishonest debating is wrong?
You do realize this is a Style Over Substance Fallacy, do you not?Jedi Master Spock wrote: If you can't understand the difference between critiquing an argument and engaging in pointless showmanship, I'll be happy to split off these last few posts between us into a new thread and explain it to you at length.
Incorrect. Nor is good manners a fallacy - it is, quite simply, the rule of discourse here, as in most places. I'm not saying that approaching argument as a showman makes you wrong - I'm saying that approaching argument as a showman is the wrong thing to do.WolfRitter wrote:You do realize this is a Style Over Substance Fallacy, do you not?Jedi Master Spock wrote: If you can't understand the difference between critiquing an argument and engaging in pointless showmanship, I'll be happy to split off these last few posts between us into a new thread and explain it to you at length.
First, the manner in which it is posted is pure showmanship. We can see this from the faux-referee call. It is not even a showy judgement, as you are not in a position to be passing judgement or handing out penalties here.Wolfritter wrote:*Blows Whistle* Reversing the Burden of Proof, Negative Proof Fallacy, penalty shot for batman.
Batman wrote:And while there's nothing wrong with using somebody else's calculations ... you're supposed to show that they actually WORK and that they DO support your position.
Omniback wrote:What's the point of using someone else's calc, if I'm 'supposed' to do my own calc?
And how exactly am I supposed to 'back up' someone else's calc?
Batman wrote:It would show that you actually UNDERSTOOD those calcs.
The same way they are supposed to, by showing they actually match what's shown onscreen?
Omniback wrote:Whether I understand the calc or not doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is if its correct.
Than the calc is wrong, it's not my job to prove a calc, its the other persons job to disprove it.
Batman wrote:When you use a calc in support of your point yes it IS your job to prove it's right.
Omniback wrote:No if I make statement A than I have to provide support for statement A *IE* a calc, it doesn't mean I have to prove the calc.
The calc is what it is whether its right or wrong, its up to the other side to counter it and show fault in the calc and/or disprove it.
Batman wrote:Yes it does.
...
No it isn't.
Here we have a discussion between Batman and Omniback in which much is covered.Omniback wrote:No it doesn't.
...
Yes it is.