Dear entrenched Lusternians:
I am rather ashamed that those with truth on their side would end up on the losing side of this debate so quickly. You should likewise be ashamed at how Daganev of all people put you there. While someone with a greater appreciation for science, subtlety, and controlling the tenor of a debate could redeem this thread, I will not be doing so for reasons stated on page one (namely, the debate doesn't matter, as evidenced by the fact that the evolutionists have gotten their arses handily kicked and none have decided to give ID real consideration).
Because this is going to come up again, both on the forums and in real life, I'm just going to talk about how you lost control of this and lost even while you're right. One, do not define terms for your opponent until they agree with you, but make them define as much as necessary as often as necessary. If you are uncertain as to what someone means when they use a word with multiple meanings, ask. Politely. Flames are entirely warranted outside of a debate, but never warranted inside one. However, a skilled debater will shave away the rough edges of the opposing view, push the squishy things back into the box, until finally, you reach the point where they're defining their stance as something acceptably close to your own. It doesn't have to be exact--get over it, they don't share your grey matter. When they start saying what they should be saying because they desire to be right, rather than because they've finally been browbeaten into no longer defending their cherished ideas, you can spring a surprise on them. "Hey, look, what you're calling creationism is in line with what I call evolution! Welcome back to the club of people who accept modern biology! Now go talk to a cosmologist about what the divine may or may not have done before life existed." This paragraph is the big one because this is the big contributor to you losing control of the debate! "V is wrong! Y is wrong! Z is wrong!" "But, guys, I'm not talking about excluding X. I said that three times already." "X isn't your side. X is our side." See that? Fail. That should be a fast track to winning the argument, and you just conceded it.
Two, accept the subtleties of arguments while being on guard for multiple meaning words used as though they only have one meaning. This goes in line with number one, and is a favorite trick of rhetoricians. Three, know the basis and variations of your own argument. This is going to blindside a few of you: evolution is a multiple meaning word. It refers to no less than three theories when used in that context. When used to describe the change in species over time, under the umbrella of the dominant theory of evolution (but not the other two!), it likewise refers to three distinct things, two of which are called macro-evolution when people start making distinctions. If you don't have a grasp on that, you can get logically thwapped simply because you are wrong. Four, the status quo in all arguments holds the higher ground. If the tenor of the debate has become how creationism deserves more credibility in the public sphere, force them to make their case affirmitively, rather than as a set of objections to evolution. Don't worry, it can't be done well, because that would require them being right. If the tenor of the debate has become why creationists should all forsake their beliefs, you've got a hugely uphill battle. Five, when you lose, try not to make it so annoyingly obvious. "I'm not responding to you anymore!" "I have better things to do with my time, someone else can do it." Guess what? You've already responded and you've already demonstrated that you don't have better things to do with your time. That's an unsportsmanlike concession.
In summary:
I am rather ashamed that those with truth on their side would end up on the losing side of this debate so quickly. You should likewise be ashamed at how Daganev of all people put you there. While someone with a greater appreciation for science, subtlety, and controlling the tenor of a debate could redeem this thread, I will not be doing so for reasons stated on page one (namely, the debate doesn't matter, as evidenced by the fact that the evolutionists have gotten their arses handily kicked and none have decided to give ID real consideration).
Because this is going to come up again, both on the forums and in real life, I'm just going to talk about how you lost control of this and lost even while you're right. One, do not define terms for your opponent until they agree with you, but make them define as much as necessary as often as necessary. If you are uncertain as to what someone means when they use a word with multiple meanings, ask. Politely. Flames are entirely warranted outside of a debate, but never warranted inside one. However, a skilled debater will shave away the rough edges of the opposing view, push the squishy things back into the box, until finally, you reach the point where they're defining their stance as something acceptably close to your own. It doesn't have to be exact--get over it, they don't share your grey matter. When they start saying what they should be saying because they desire to be right, rather than because they've finally been browbeaten into no longer defending their cherished ideas, you can spring a surprise on them. "Hey, look, what you're calling creationism is in line with what I call evolution! Welcome back to the club of people who accept modern biology! Now go talk to a cosmologist about what the divine may or may not have done before life existed." This paragraph is the big one because this is the big contributor to you losing control of the debate! "V is wrong! Y is wrong! Z is wrong!" "But, guys, I'm not talking about excluding X. I said that three times already." "X isn't your side. X is our side." See that? Fail. That should be a fast track to winning the argument, and you just conceded it.
Two, accept the subtleties of arguments while being on guard for multiple meaning words used as though they only have one meaning. This goes in line with number one, and is a favorite trick of rhetoricians. Three, know the basis and variations of your own argument. This is going to blindside a few of you: evolution is a multiple meaning word. It refers to no less than three theories when used in that context. When used to describe the change in species over time, under the umbrella of the dominant theory of evolution (but not the other two!), it likewise refers to three distinct things, two of which are called macro-evolution when people start making distinctions. If you don't have a grasp on that, you can get logically thwapped simply because you are wrong. Four, the status quo in all arguments holds the higher ground. If the tenor of the debate has become how creationism deserves more credibility in the public sphere, force them to make their case affirmitively, rather than as a set of objections to evolution. Don't worry, it can't be done well, because that would require them being right. If the tenor of the debate has become why creationists should all forsake their beliefs, you've got a hugely uphill battle. Five, when you lose, try not to make it so annoyingly obvious. "I'm not responding to you anymore!" "I have better things to do with my time, someone else can do it." Guess what? You've already responded and you've already demonstrated that you don't have better things to do with your time. That's an unsportsmanlike concession.
In summary:
Dear Xavius,
If I wanted to put together a conclusive, well thought out debate outlining my belief systems, then I am more than capable of doing so. This, however, is a messageboard for a game where we spend an excessive amount of time pretending to be knights/druids/mages/bards in a text-based adventure, and is not exactly a forum I am inclined to put that much effort into, mostly because of the information laid out in Figure 1.
Regards,
Caedryn.
Figure 1 Reasoning for diversion of effort from forum based discussions.
Postscript: Rarely have I come across someone so sanctimonious as you came across in your last post. I salute thee.
If I wanted to put together a conclusive, well thought out debate outlining my belief systems, then I am more than capable of doing so. This, however, is a messageboard for a game where we spend an excessive amount of time pretending to be knights/druids/mages/bards in a text-based adventure, and is not exactly a forum I am inclined to put that much effort into, mostly because of the information laid out in Figure 1.
Regards,
Caedryn.
Figure 1 Reasoning for diversion of effort from forum based discussions.
Postscript: Rarely have I come across someone so sanctimonious as you came across in your last post. I salute thee.
QUOTE(Xavius @ Jan 15 2008, 03:25 PM) 477369
The first half of that post was a bit silly but that dvd rewinder is hilarious!
QUOTE(daganev @ Jan 15 2008, 04:25 PM) 477331
Figures. I waste my lunch hour for nothing.
You insult and insult and insult, and then produce nothing.
You insult and insult and insult, and then produce nothing.
No, I argue and insult and argue, and you spew forth your typical bull
. When I stopped bothering, exasperated, you finally posted something that was almost worthwhile. You just chose an awful time to start using that brain of yours, I guess - though I'd think browsing the Lusternia forums on your lunch hour would always be a waste....Damn it, here we go again. Why can't I stop responding?
QUOTE(Xavius @ Jan 15 2008, 06:25 PM) 477369
Blah blah..
"Daganev espouses bizarre fringe views in uncomprehensible language adorned by Kabbalistic nonsense. And when you think you're getting somewhere, he'll acuse of you flaming, probably raise your warn level, and withdraw from the discussion to sulk. Just ignore him."
The quote isn't mine, but I only realized it after I got into the argument(s) with Daganev. That is why I stopped, not because he was "winning".
Oh, and I actually do have better things to do, I just mismanage my time way too much.
