Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

Someone explaining the reasons why they think Pineapple makes for bad pizza in a convincing argument doesn't immediately open it up for debate, it can merely be an elaborated expression of opinion.

That's where we get the problem. That IS a debate, because you're leaving subjective preference as soon as you think there's anything OTHER than subjective preference at work - which is the case by definition if you provide reasoning, something that subjective preference is not subject to. You don't need reasoned justifications for "I don't like X". And I really mean reasoned justification, not just more layers of preference, i.e. "I don't like chocolate, because I hate the taste" is not reasoned justification, it's just more subjective preference. As would be the case for something like "I don't like chocolate because it tastes like ash and dust" since that's purely subjective, too.

If all you're doing is elaborate on a subjective preference, that's fine. Debate begins as soon as you bring in reasoned justification and (implicitly or explicitly) try to convince other people of the validity of your position.

Does it make any difference between someone simply saying it's bad, and someone saying it's bad because X and Y? It's still going to be opinion, and merely saying 'because X and Y' doesn't then make it debateable. It's still an opinion.

That's my point - it's NOT just an opinion anymore as soon as you use it to try and convince someone. If you're saying it's bad because aliens told you so and you read about it in the Bible code... that's cool as long as you purely use that in the sense of subjective preference. As soon as you expect other people TO BELIEVE THAT REASONING, we've left opinion and entered argument. Whether you like it or not.

The whole problem I'm pointing out is that people very much want to blur these lines, because it allows to PRETEND to have an argument using their OPINONS, which gives them the same persuasive power an argument has, but allows them to dodge epistemological responsibility by claiming the immunity to reasoned justification that governs opinions. You can't do that.

[Syegfryed]

I been dwelling over which was worse and I think its safe to say given some time has passed I have come to the conclusion that Rings of Power is better than Wheel of Time, i'll give Rings of Power credit there wasnt enough source material to really run a strong story with the Rings of Power, a lot of stuff in the The Silmarillion is more notes than story, so they had to fill in gaps and make their own story even if the source material that they do use counters a lot of the notes of The Silmarillion. Its not like Hoibbit or Lord of the Rings where theres a full story there..

I don't think that is rly a credit.

See, they had a blank canvas, to paint a picture, using the paints provided by tolkien, they throw all in the toilet and shat all over the canvas. Because their "original story" is fucking garbage

Even if you ignore how they ruined tolkien canon, it is not a good fantasy show. they had opportunity to make something original, but they didn't.

Honestly, i cannot say is the worst among the two, because im not familiar with wheel of time, but 2022 had so much garbage, like willow and the witcher that is hard to put one on top.

[Triceron]

That's where we get the problem. That IS a debate, because you're leaving subjective preference as soon as you think there's anything OTHER than subjective preference at work - which is the case by definition if you provide reasoning, something that subjective preference is not subject to.

The problem with that is nothing at work, in context, is other than subjective preference. The context IS subjective, completely and utterly. Presenting any reason for thinking something is bad is contextually opinion. All reasoning is opinion. It would only be outside of subjectivity if something is intentionally stated as fact. And as to my previous example, "Salty and Sweet shouldn't be mixed" is a statement that sounds like it's presenting fact, when contextually it is purely opinion. It's intention is not to be taken as a factual statement, though you will see people take it out of context, mostly because it's so damned easy to cherry pick text out of context.

The whole problem I'm pointing out is that people very much want to blur these lines, because it allows to PRETEND to have an argument using their OPINONS, which gives them the same persuasive power an argument has, but allows them to dodge epistemological responsibility by claiming the immunity to reasoned justification that governs opinions. You can't do that.

Persuasive arguments of opinion aren't immediately set in the realm of debate. A debate ONLY works if both parties are interested in having one. It's a formal way of argumentation. Most of the time, people are merely expressing opinions and arguments in a conversational context. There is a difference between debate and dialogue/discussion. Persuasive arguments can be employed for the sake of broadening perspective and understanding without 'wanting to win'.

And often times the messaging gets mixed up. In Rhorle's case, intentionally for the sake of shitposting.

[Syegfryed]

But that's my point really. Someone can say "Pineapple on pizza is bad pizza" without it being up for debate. It is an expression of opinion, even if the statement may seem objectively debateable. It really isn't, because the intent is still rooted in opinion.

What constitutes 'bad pizza' is not really up for debate. It's gonna be on the level of 'I think it's bad' 'I don't think it's bad' except it happens to get drawn out for pages on end because no one is agreeing on this being a matter of opinion and merely leaving it at 'Cool.'

Having a reason to back an opinion is not always intended as a means to convince other people to have to agree upon the same standards. Sometimes it's just simply elaborating a position and why we feel the way we do. I think that's the crux of most 'debates' on here. They're misconstruances of opinion as debateable points (when they aren't intended to be), and it's mostly pointless if neither side is interested in hearing each other out.

I said before, but some people here think a side forum in mmochampion should be like a senate debate, with people trying to bait others into certain arguments so they can win, and not an informal way of conversation about pointless stuff, when you are bored or have free time.

If you say "pineapple pizza is bad pizza" you get flocked by people demanding "proof of that statement" and blablabla

[Triceron]

I said before, but some people here think a side forum in mmochampion should be like a senate debate, with people trying to bait others into certain arguments so they can win, and not an informal way of conversation about pointless stuff, when you are bored or have free time.

If you say "pineapple pizza is bad pizza" you get flocked by people demanding "proof of that statement" and blablabla

That is the nature of this place.

We're all aware of it.

Honest discussions don't last long. It's the shit that floats to the top. (And I openly to admit to shitting a lot here :P)

[Triceron]

it’s just a made up absurd storyline.

Adequately describes the show :P

[Biomega]

Persuasive arguments of opinion aren't immediately set in the realm of debate. A debate ONLY works if both parties are interested in having one.

Don't use debate as a synonym for conversation - two or more parties talking isn't automatically a debate. Debate involves persuasion - if you're trying to convince another party of a position, you're having a debate. The other party may walk away, sure, and then the debate ends; but at no point are we exchanging words and trying to convince the other side of our positions and it's NOT a debate. Which means that if you're only proffering opinions, you're not having a debate, only a conversation; and that ALSO means you don't get to convince anyone. You can't have it both ways.

It's a formal way of argumentation. Most of the time, people are merely expressing opinions and arguments in a conversational context.

The formality of the situation is irrelevant. I mean debate in a rhetorical sense, not in an organizational sense (like e.g. a scheduled public debate). The context doesn't matter. You can have a debate on the bus. You can have a debate while getting your hair cut. You can have a debate while hanging upside down from the top of a mountain. Doesn't matter. You offer a position and wish to convince someone else of its validity - you're in a debate. And that means you need to bring arguments, not opinions.

Persuasive arguments of opinion

That's an oxymoron. You can't have "arguments of opinion" (at least not in the sense I have used those terms). Opinions are subjective preferences without justification. Arguments are persuasive positions with reasoned justifications. They're mutually exclusive. Opinions have no persuasive power, arguments do. You cannot use opinions to convince someone of your positions, and you cannot use arguments to justify subjective preference - by definition.

If you want to use "argument" as a synonym for debate or conversation or whatever, fine, but that's not what I'm talking about when I use the word here, so please don't use it that way with me so we don't get confused.

[Triceron]

Don't use debate as a synonym for conversation - two or more parties talking isn't automatically a debate. Debate involves persuasion - if you're trying to convince another party of a position, you're having a debate. The other party may walk away, sure, and then the debate ends; but at no point are we exchanging words and trying to convince the other side of our positions and it's NOT a debate. Which means that if you're only proffering opinions, you're not having a debate, only a conversation; and that ALSO means you don't get to convince anyone. You can't have it both ways.

Then you should also acknowledge that a discussion can involve persuasive arguments with the intention of convincing the other party. Debates aren't the only realm where persuasive arguments between two parties exists. Debates are intentional and purposed towards convincing and winning a particular discussion topic. That doesn't mean all persuasive arguments are subject to being debates, they can still be in the realm of discussion.

The difference between discussion and debate is the intent. And miscommunicating intent is where most long-winded back and forths tend to spring from here. It's not a debate if the intent of a persuasive argument is being presented for the sake of mutual understanding.

You can have a debate on the bus. You can have a debate while getting your hair cut. You can have a debate while hanging upside down from the top of a mountain. Doesn't matter. You offer a position and wish to convince someone else of its validity - you're in a debate. And that means you need to bring arguments, not opinions.

And the difference is the intent. All those would be debates if there is an intention to convince the other side of a particular discussion. They wouldn't be debates if it were merely for the sake of conversation. Persuasive arguments can be employed in both debate and conversation, it's not mutually exclusive to debate.

That's an oxymoron. You can't have "arguments of opinion" (at least not in the sense I have used those terms). Opinions are subjective preferences without justification. Arguments are persuasive positions with reasoned justifications. They're mutually exclusive. Opinions have no persuasive power, arguments do. You cannot use opinions to convince someone of your positions, and you cannot use arguments to justify subjective preference - by definition.

If you want to use "argument" as a synonym for debate or conversation or whatever, fine, but that's not what I'm talking about when I use the word here, so please don't use it that way with me so we don't get confused.

Opinions aren't all absent of justification. Not all justification for opinion is considered an argument. An argument can be a reason or justification for opinion, but one that intends to persuade others of being right or wrong. Not all reasons or justifications are arguments.

Like the example I give above, 'Sweet and salty shouldn't be mixed' can be a persuasive justification for an opinion without being an argument. It can exist merely as a means of self expression. Even if the context is persuasive, it may not be intending to prove something to be right, and that context is defined by the intent of the person expressing the statement. It does not immediately equate to convincing others that 'Sweet and salty shouldn't be mixed' to be true to everyone. It can be read as 'This person thinks sweet and salty shouldn't be mixed'. It can be an argument, or it can merely be rhetoric.

It would be an argument if it was being presented with the intent on proving something. If that intent is not there, it is merely an extension of an opinion.

[Biomega]

Then you should also acknowledge that a discussion can involve persuasive arguments with the intention of convincing the other party.

That's a debate, then. You're just trying to substitute words - I'm trying to be clear in my terminology. Unless you have some kind of definition for "discussion" that meaningfully distinguishes it from what I call "conversation" or "debate".

They wouldn't be debates if it were merely for the sake of conversation.

No, and that's why I distinguished between debate and conversation. Intent to convince need not be explicit. The key here is that you cannot mix and match - as soon as you try and convince, you're having a debate, and that means you need arguments and not opinions. Which in turn means that if you still bring opinions, this isn't a debate, and ergo IT CAN'T BE CONVINCING ANYONE. That last part is the key problem, because what a lot of people do is use their opinions WITH THE INTENT TO CONVINCE PEOPLE - but that's structurally invalid, because convincing would mean it's a debate, and it being a debate would require arguments and would disqualify opinions.

Opinions aren't all absent of justification.

They are the way I use that word, i.e. subjective preference. That's true by definition - if you have reasoned justification, there's something non-subjective; and, conversely, if all you have is something subjective, then it can't be a reasoned justification. If you use "justification" trivially then sure, you can "justify" any opinion with "i like it"; but that's not the kind of justification in a strict epistemological sense that I'm talking about (which I usually refer to as reasoned justification).

Like the example I give above, 'Sweet and salty shouldn't be mixed' is a reason, but not a persuasive argument if its intent is not to convince or persuade others.

That statement has no reasoned justification in it. It's purely a subjective preference. It CAN'T be convincing, because there's nothing there to convince anyone with. If you add a context, that may change - for example, you could say "sweet and salty shouldn't be mixed in Italian cuisine", which has the implicit reasoned justification of the agreed-upon standard "Italian cuisine" that precludes the mixing of sweet and salty [this is just an illustrative example of course, I'm not saying this is in fact the case]. Absent any reasoned justification, the statement has zero persuasive power one way or another. Note that such context CAN be implicit - e.g. "you shouldn't wantonly kill people" has no implicit reasoned justification, but has the implicit reasoned justification of an agreed-upon moral system that explains WHY you shouldn't wantonly kill people. Sometimes it's easy to omit implicit justifications; sometimes it creates misunderstandings and ambiguity.

"I think this movie has bad acting" does not immediately become an argument just because it is a reason for an opinion.

It becomes an argument because it refers to an implicit standard of what "good" or "bad" acting is, something we can reasonably assume to be a reasonably accurate shared standard. I.e. it makes the implicit assumption that we can, to at least some degree, come to a shared understanding of whether some acting is "good" or "bad", even if it won't always match 100%. This works the same way as semiotic referents do: e.g. when I say "dog" we have a shared standard of "dog" that we can refer to, and which gives both of us an image of what a "dog" is even though our respective images won't match 100%.

'This movie has bad acting'. It can be read as 'This person thinks the movie has bad acting'.

Yes, but my point is IT CAN ALSO BE READ OTHERWISE. That's how language functions, and that's precisely what this problematic muddling of opinion and argument exploits: it implies one thing while sneaking in another.

That's WHY it's so important to distinguish between opinion and argument, and make it clear what you're talking about.

[Triceron]

That's a debate, then. You're just trying to substitute words - I'm trying to be clear in my terminology. Unless you have some kind of definition for "discussion" that meaningfully distinguishes it from what I call "conversation" or "debate".

Just a quick google search for this, so take the source with a grain of salt. It does sum up what I believe the differences to be, however.

https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/debate-and-discussion/

When it comes to debate and discussion, the difference breaks down into openness of the participants.

Debaters aren’t there to be open, they are there to win.

By contrast, people participating in a discussion are usually open to one another’s opinions, and there is a chance the opinions can be changed in a discussion. This is not the case for debates.

Or here
https://pediaa.com/difference-betwee...nd-discussion/

debates are often defined as discussions in which different opinions are expressed. However, debate and discussion are not the same; there are many differences between debates and discussions. The main difference between debate and discussion is the competitiveness of debates. A discussion is an exchange of opinions and ideas whereas debate is a form of formal contest of argumentation between two people or groups.

At no point does one differ from the other simply on the basis of persuasion. Persuasion is a part of discussion, and the difference to debate is the intent. Either way, whether you discuss or debate whether X movie is good or bad or like or dislike, there would be persuasion involved. In the context of discussion, it would be for the sake of broadening perspectives, rather than winning an argument.

No, and that's why I distinguished between debate and conversation. Intent to convince need not be explicit. The key here is that you cannot mix and match - as soon as you try and convince, you're having a debate, and that means you need arguments and not opinions. Which in turn means that if you still bring opinions, this isn't a debate, and ergo IT CAN'T BE CONVINCING ANYONE. That last part is the key problem, because what a lot of people do is use their opinions WITH THE INTENT TO CONVINCE PEOPLE - but that's structurally invalid, because convincing would mean it's a debate, and it being a debate would require arguments and would disqualify opinions.

I honestly disagree here, since convincing is a part of discussion too. Discussion is a general exchange of ideas, and I don't happen to agree with the definition of any persuasion or convincing immediately turning it into a debate. To me, debates are intent on winning a conversational topic. Not all discussions that involve persuasive rhetoric or arguments immediately becomes a debate.

They are the way I use that word, i.e. subjective preference. That's true by definition

I don't doubt your use of the definition, I just think you may be ignoring the existence of a persuasive, non-debate form of conversation; that being a discussion.

There are times when I would present reasons and justifications for my opinions for the sake of broadening perspectives. And there are times where I will also present reasons and justifications for the sake of winning a topic. I don't regard this to be the same thing.

That statement has no reasoned justification in it. It's purely a subjective preference. It CAN'T be convincing, because there's nothing there to convince anyone with. If you add a context, that may change - for example, you could say "sweet and salty shouldn't be mixed in Italian cuisine", which has the implicit reasoned justification of the agreed-upon standard "Italian cuisine" that precludes the mixing of sweet and salty [this is just an illustrative example of course, I'm not saying this is in fact the case]. Absent any reasoned justification, the statement has zero persuasive power one way or another.

Whether it has persuasive power and whether it is intended to be an argument tends to err on the side of the reader. Which is exactly the fallacy which I'm presenting here. Sometimes an empty expression of opinion is taken as an argument, and that's how we get pages of something stupid like 'RoP's success', which has no real defineable parameter or standard which everyone necessarily agrees upon. Whether someone thinks the show to be successful or not has no persuasive power on its own, but people will still argue the fuck out of it because it gets misconstrued into being an argument.

Most 'debates' on here usually lean towards the exact fallacy of arguing over nothing, because like you say, there IS nothing to convince anyone with. These things weren't meant to be arguments in the first place. And yet they will be topics of argument, because someone decidedly misinterprets it into being an argument, and then 'debating' it (debate in quotations because it really isn't a debate, more an empty argument over nothing).

In my own opinion, honest debates rarely actually happen here. It's usually all misconstrued bullshit being argued for the sake of arguing.

It becomes an argument because it refers to an implicit standard of what "good" or "bad" acting is, something we can reasonably assume to be a reasonably accurate shared standard.

But that would merely be an assumption. It doesn't have to refer to any implicit standard of what good or bad acting is at all. That is up to the reader to interpret it as.

Just like a matter of 'Taste', you can say there is a standard for that too. Yet an expression of taste does not immediately refer to an implicit standard. It can be personal expression.

Yes, but my point is IT CAN ALSO BE READ OTHERWISE. That's how language functions, and that's precisely what this problematic muddling of opinion and argument exploits: it implies one thing while sneaking in another.

That's WHY it's so important to distinguish between opinion and argument, and make it clear what you're talking about.

And which is my point - sometimes it doesn't matter how clear you wish to be, there are also going to be people who intend to make arguments where there are none for the sake of arguing. And in my experience, this forum (and in particular, this thread) is an echo-chamber for that type of reaction.

My own explanation here is that I'd say a majority of what's been said, on any side of the topic, is merely expressed opinion and discussion material; a general exchange of ideas. The shit that floats to the top is a result of what Kumorii explained, as well as what you've stated here; discussion being read as argument, resulting in 'debate'. There's so much being lost in translation simply due to the nature of forum posting and response. I don't think most of these 'debates' would ever exist if communicated in real time between two people. Then again, that's also assuming 'most' people here aren't on the spectrum, so I also have my doubts there :P

[Biomega]

Just a quick google search for this, so take the source with a grain of salt.

I'm a little confused that your response to my definition of terms is "here's how other people define them". There's any number of ways you could define them. The REASON I'm explaining MY USE of them is so you know what I'm talking about. Telling me there's other people who have other ways of using them is... interesting I guess, but not useful here because that's not what I'm talking about.

Discussion is a general exchange of ideas, and I don't happen to agree with the definition of any persuasion or convincing immediately turning it into a debate. To me, debates are intent on winning a conversational topic.

That doesn't engage with my distinction between "conversation" and "debate". I asked you how your definition of "discussion" slots into MY definition - giving me someone else's definition doesn't really do that. I'm fine with other people having different terminologies. They focus on different things, in different ways. I even made sure to mention that I'm NOT talking about the organizational form of debate (as in an organized debate), but that I'm using it as a form of rhetorical terminology.

It honestly doesn't even matter what you call it. I'm not hung up on the word "debate". I'm hung up on the definition. Call it X, if you like, as long as it's understood what *I* mean by X. You then Googling "X" and telling me "hum these people say X is a mathematical placeholder" would be equally useless.

I don't doubt your use of the definition, I just think you may be ignoring the existence of a persuasive, non-debate form of conversation; that being a discussion.

As I've explained, I distinguish between conversation and debate, the former not involving any intent to convince any party of one's positions, while the latter does. And I asked you: how does your "discussion" fit into that distinction in a meaningful way? What is it meant to distinguish that's not covered? Could you explain how something is "persuasive" but does not carry any intent to convince others of your positions?

There are times when I would present reasons and justifications for my opinions for the sake of broadening perspectives. And there are times where I will also present reasons and justifications for the sake of winning a topic. I don't regard this to be the same thing.

I don't see any meaning in the term "winning". I don't use it, I find it artificial and inappropriately judgmental. Epistemologically speaking, it makes very little sense, which is why I almost exclusively use "convince". You are convinced if the reasoned justifications put forward for a proposition cause you to accept that proposition as true or likely true. Otherwise you are not convinced (and do not make the mistake of thinking that means thinking the proposition is false; VERY different things). There is no "winning" or "losing" because there is no contest - nothing is in direct competition, every argument stands on its own and for its own. That's all I'm interested in. I keep no score cards.

and that's how we get pages of something stupid like 'RoP's success', which has no real defineable parameter or standard which everyone necessarily agrees upon.

That's a different problem, and requires a different line of argument. If a term is epistemologically useless, use a different term. "RoP's financial success", for example; or "critical success" or whatever else you want to propose, with whatever justification you want to give to convince others to accept that proposition. That's how it works. If you don't identify what the problem you're circling is, you'll never get anywhere because you're not talking about the same thing.

And I can see why that would give you trouble. I've given you what I thought were rather robust definitions of my terms. You ignored them and just Googled someone else's, then pointed to how strange it is they don't match what I'm saying. You can't even focus correctly on what the other person is saying, it seems. That's why you constantly misunderstand and misrepresent. This isn't the first time the two of us have had this problem, either. Not even the first time we've had it IN THIS THREAD.

That's part of my point of why it's so important to train people in the proper structure of thinking. You get messes like this.

[Triceron]

That doesn't engage with my distinction between "conversation" and "debate".

Well if you're gonna say 'that's a debate, that is the definition' and I argue that it's not and present my evidence for it, then I'm challenging the standard which you're presenting your argument. If you're just going to say 'this is the standard that I use the term', then by what means are we really considering something to be or not to be a debate?

My entire argument is that what you're presenting isn't necessarily a debate. I'm openly challenging it.

Telling me there's other people who have other ways of using them is... interesting I guess, but not useful here because that's not what I'm talking about.

You literally ASKED me to provide it when you said 'Unless you have some kind of definition for "discussion" that meaningfully distinguishes it from what I call "conversation" or "debate".'

I'm not sure what you're intending here by dismissing the very thing you asked for. There is a very distinguished definition, and it is meaningful here because you are using the terms as a standard that I've been openly challenging and saying is not agreeable between us. Merely clarifying your choice to use it improperly does not excuse its continued use in that fashion. "I said the sky is red but you have to understand that I'm not talking about your definition of Red" is not an acceptable justification for using terminology in any way you choose to.

But for the sake of it, I am trying my best to honor your explanations and definitions. I just don't think we're on the same page entirely because of our differences in definition, and it's retroactively complicating my intended message that not all convincing statements of opinion are rendered as 'debateable arguments'.

the former not involving any intent to convince any party of one's positions, while the latter does.

Again I disagree, since conversation can be had with convincing positions. I don't recognize the definition of any and all conversation or discussion that involves convincing positions to be debates. There are plenty of reasons to have a convincing argument in a discussion or conversation, and have it remain as a neutral discussion. The term 'debate' is not mutually exclusive to convincing positions. This is where I openly disagree with how you regard the terminology.

don't see any meaning in the term "winning". I don't use it, I find it artificial and inappropriately judgmental.

Sure, you're free to not use it and find it inappropriate. But that's still ultimately what the difference is between a debate and a discussion. It's about the intent. It's a contest between two opposing viewpoints.

That is why I've been saying not every persuasive argument is a debate. Not every persuasive argument is intended to be a contest. Merely trying to convince someone of something isn't automatically considered a debate. Arguments and persuasion can merely exist in the context of mutual understanding and exchange of ideas without being rendered as being debates. It's not mutually exclusive. Debate is fairly specific to challenging and contesting viewpoints.

I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that a debate is merely a discussion that involves persuasion and convincing. That's only part of what the term means.

If you don't identify what the problem you're circling is, you'll never get anywhere because you're not talking about the same thing.

That's all assuming that people arguing against the use of any language here is doing so in good faith. That might not always be the case.

And I can see why that would give you trouble. I've given you what I thought were rather robust definitions of my terms. You ignored them and just Googled someone else's, then pointed to how strange it is they don't match what I'm saying. You can't even focus correctly on what the other person is saying, it seems. That's why you constantly misunderstand and misrepresent. This isn't the first time the two of us have had this problem, either. Not even the first time we've had it IN THIS THREAD.

You can give your explanations, but as long as you're using terms that exist in the real world with real definitions, then like you said earlier, you need to be clear on those definitions.

And in context of my responses, I'm being clear that I am also talking about persuasive discussion merely being extensions of opinion that are still being challenged as being arguments, when they have no intent on outwardly convincing others of a particular stance. And my example of the 'Sweet and salty shouldn't mix' is exactly that. It doesn't really matter if the messaging is considered clear enough or not, when the context is all about self-expression, not a matter of presenting a debateable argument.

If what you're saying is that there is an expectation that if someone voices an opinion and gives any justification for it, then it's immediately open for debate, then I completely disagree. Intent of debate is to contest opinions - to prove a right and wrong. If you're not using the term in this way, and say you personally don't keep score cards, then sure, so be it, but that's also not really a debate either. IMO that's merely conversation/discussion. I don't see how else you have a discussion without presenting justifications for opinion. Do you view conversation as being mutually exclusive to unjustified opinions? Because I do not.

That's part of my point of why it's so important to train people in the proper structure of thinking. You get messes like this.

Eh. I think you give this entire forum too much credit if you think this 'trains' anyone. In my experience here, there are more people-who-want-to-see-the-world-burn than there are wanna-be scholars here. Good on you for fighting the good fight, I just don't think this is the place for that. 'Discussion forums' is a very loose term so long as bad faith and passive-aggressive trolling easily slips under the radar.

[Biomega]

Well if you're gonna say 'that's a debate, that is the definition'

But I'm not.

I said it was *MY* definition. I used capitals and asterisks in several places to make this very clear.

You still refuse to engage with what I'm actually saying, just like you did the last two times we had a debate. This is very disappointing. I'm just putting you on ignore now, and we'll never speak again - clearly you're not interested in actually talking WITH me, only talking AT me. That doesn't interest me. If you can't even engage with the simplest things correctly and honestly, I'd rather we not talk at all. I've given you many, many more chances than I should have. No more.

[Fabinas]

But I'm not.

I said it was *MY* definition. I used capitals and asterisks in several places to make this very clear.

You still refuse to engage with what I'm actually saying, just like you did the last two times we had a debate. This is very disappointing. I'm just putting you on ignore now, and we'll never speak again - clearly you're not interested in actually talking WITH me, only talking AT me. That doesn't interest me. If you can't even engage with the simplest things correctly and honestly, I'd rather we not talk at all. I've given you many, many more chances than I should have. No more.

TL: DR : "I lost a debate and now i'm ignoring you, so i don't get pwnd again on the subject of what conversation and debate is"

[Biomega]

TL: DR : "I lost a debate and now i'm ignoring you, so i don't get pwnd again on the subject of what conversation and debate is"

Yeah, that's why we have like 150 posts or so between us in this thread alone (and more in others), that ALL follow the same trend of me saying something and them not properly reading it. At some point, the message is clear: they're not interested in actually engaging, only in hearing themselves talk.

[Triceron]

TL: DR : "I lost a debate and now i'm ignoring you, so i don't get pwnd again on the subject of what conversation and debate is"

Pretty much.

"That's a debate"
"That's not actually what it means"
"But it's my definition of a debate, you're not talking about what I am so I'm ignoring you now"

[jackofwind]

This is less a LotR thread now and more a semantic pissing match thread between two people.

If this was a romantic comedy you two would bump into each other in a coffee shop, spill your coffees in a meet cute moment, then go on a few dates before inadvertently reading an open browser on the other's laptop and realizing you're each the poster you've been arguing with.

You'll have a fight, walk away and become lonely and both lose interest in continuing this thread, then one of you will make a post here saying apologizing and saying that it was stupid to get so invested in a silly semantic argument. It will go unread for months in a classic case of misunderstanding - one of you lost your password. You'll both move on, but the one who made the last post will periodically check in on the thread to see if there has been a response.

Eventually the password will be recovered and the first website checked will be this thread. A response will be written, a sheepish but joyous reunion will occur. An engagement will be broken off, a sexy-but-utterly-terrible new partner will get their comeuppance, and a mutual agreement to stop having dumb arguments on the internet will be made.

We'll call it You've Got Mail 2.

Now kiss.

[Triceron]

This is less a LotR thread now and more a semantic pissing match thread between two people.

If this was a romantic comedy you two would bump into each other in a coffee shop, spill your coffees in a meet cute moment, then go on a few dates before inadvertently reading an open browser on the other's laptop and realizing you're each the poster you've been arguing with.

You'll have a fight, walk away and become lonely and both lose interest in continuing this thread, then one of you will make a post here saying apologizing and saying that it was stupid to get so invested in a silly semantic argument. It will go unread for months in a classic case of misunderstanding - one of you lost your password. You'll both move on, but the one who made the last post will periodically check in on the thread to see if there has been a response.

Eventually the password will be recovered and the first website checked will be this thread. A response will be written, a sheepish but joyous reunion will occur. An engagement will be broken off, a sexy-but-utterly-terrible new partner will get their comeuppance, and a mutual agreement to stop having dumb arguments on the internet will be made.

We'll call it You've Got Mail 2.

Now kiss.

Still better than the plot in Rings of Power :P

[Fabinas]

Yeah, that's why we have like 150 posts or so between us in this thread alone (and more in others), that ALL follow the same trend of me saying something and them not properly reading it. At some point, the message is clear: they're not interested in actually engaging, only in hearing themselves talk.

God, really, all anyone has to do is read the previous three pages to make an informed opinion how you actually full of shizz.

Almost all of your posts clearly mention what "IS" a debate and when you ask for a different definition and being given one, you spin it : but.. but.. was talking about "MY" definition (the caps are yours, not mine).

Plus, your whole "people should be taught the difference between discussion and debate" reeks of scholar and educational authority. You teaching us means you "win", despite your literal claims about the contrary.

Sometimes people can be smarter than us. For me this is the final plaque on your playing the authority and scholar in this forum. Not only the DEBATE between you and Triceron was won by him, you don't even have the grace to back down gracefully and accept your losses. Not even a kind "agree to disagree".

A true scholar, bent on teaching others "stuff" (whatever that is, doesn't matter anymore) is always prepared to learn. You cannot do that. Shoo now with your "epistemology"

- - - Updated - - -

This is less a LotR thread now and more a semantic pissing match thread between two people.

If this was a romantic comedy you two would bump into each other in a coffee shop, spill your coffees in a meet cute moment, then go on a few dates before inadvertently reading an open browser on the other's laptop and realizing you're each the poster you've been arguing with.

You'll have a fight, walk away and become lonely and both lose interest in continuing this thread, then one of you will make a post here saying apologizing and saying that it was stupid to get so invested in a silly semantic argument. It will go unread for months in a classic case of misunderstanding - one of you lost your password. You'll both move on, but the one who made the last post will periodically check in on the thread to see if there has been a response.

Eventually the password will be recovered and the first website checked will be this thread. A response will be written, a sheepish but joyous reunion will occur. An engagement will be broken off, a sexy-but-utterly-terrible new partner will get their comeuppance, and a mutual agreement to stop having dumb arguments on the internet will be made.

We'll call it You've Got Mail 2.

Now kiss.

This discourse, debate, discussion was so fucking important, it should be a self thread pinned on top of this forum.

It's about teaching people what happens in this subforum the moment someone posts a negative opinion about something and the "argumentative" trolls here take a whiff of it. Presenting their opinion as objective, while the other as subjective and, therefore, unimportant, waste of space and immaterial, by making a debate out of nothing.

[Triceron]

I forget sometimes that people see education as a bad thing.

Seeking education in a gaming forum is like finding faith in a bar. Whole different kind of learning.

All I ever learn here is how to be a better troll :/