Loremaster wrote:
I think lecturing people on how to debate is a tad arrogant, Malik.
Yes, I agree. I wasn't going for meek. (Were you going for meek when you lectured me on how to debate?)
While I wasn't trying to be humble, I wasn't singling anyone out, either. I didn't say any one particular person is debating incorrectly (as you have done). I was speaking in general, pretty much the same point Brinn was making by creating his Devil's Advocate thread. Yes, I would benefit from this experiment, too. I should take my own advice. I admit that I think other people don't consider the opposite position as much as I do. But in this particular debate, I'm arguing the skeptical position, rather than the consensus position. The consensus position is our starting point in this debate. I'm not the one proposing a theory that needs to be proven. I'm poking holes in what most people take for granted.
Just being critical of your own views reveals that one has thought deeply about it. That's all one needs.
I agree. I've made the same point, myself.
Lastly, I strongly suspect that your point really says that you just want people to agree with you. If you want to further this style of debating you could lead by example by doing the opposite. For instance, showing how pro-global warming scientists are not part of a conspiracy, etc.
I don't care if people agree with me as much as I care that they admit that there is actually rational, empirical evidence to doubt the "consensus."
I don't think all pro-global warming scientists are part of a conspiracy, or even most. But I do think that there is an influential minority who have behaved unscientifically.
. . . . a lot of what you write comes across as defaulting to conspiracies that you cannot validate.
I disagree. Please validate that accusation.
For instance, the article I quoted above details the findings of
pro-global warming scientists, not "deniers." They expected to confirm the "consensus," but instead found evidence that the models were wrong. How is this conspiracist? Am I trying to say that GW advocates are conspiring to undermine their own theory??
My post is not meant to offend, but I am becoming tired of you constantly telling people how to argue when you do not seem to adopt your own criticisms. Just focus on your own argument and leave people's debating style to themselves. If you take issue with what they do, Malik23, contact a moderator!
I haven't taken issue with what any single person has done, no more than Brinn did in starting the thread that is now stickied. Did you also tire of his suggestion? I didn't see where you complained. I don't believe this one suggestion justifies the charge of "constantly telling people how to argue." Given the fact that you're lecturing me on how to conduct myself on this board, perhaps you would benefit from your own advice, and take it up with the moderators if your think I've done something against the rules. Otherwise, we're both doing the same thing in offering advice to other members . . . except you're offering the advice that I shouldn't offer advice, which seems kind of contradictory.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.