huh.png
[Hide] (56.1KB, 164x376) >>786
That chart (after the first two boxes, which are the entirety of what it needed to be anyway) is the soyest reddit bullshit I've ever fucking seen. It's also directly contradicts these salient points and encourages (prescribes, infact) sermons with no relation to actual arguments.
>The position that is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence should be accepted as true
"More evidence" is incoherent; either an argument is sound or it is not. You can say that something is "more likely", but in that case you obviously don't have a high modality.
Anyway, this is either a meaningless statement or wrong. Since neither party in a discussion is perfectly articulate and is very likely very much so not articulate, the majority of evidence available to a speaker is not going to be stated in the thread and even less is going to be parsed successfully by a reader. A position that is more strongly supported is by definition going to be adopted, but it's a bad idea to assume that just because you interpret 'more' evidence for a position that your fellow readers have 'more' evidence for that position inside their skulls, uninhibited by their ability or willingness to articulate that evidence.
>The person asserting a position bears the onus of demonstrating its truth.
Sure. But many times a speaker will state their own position so that you can attack it, not to convince you that it is true. I would rarely have an interest in changing your mind, it simply is the case that doing so comes up in the course of trying to elaborate on my position so that you can change my mind. This is not a fruitless endeavor (for me) and if the positions are mutual (we both lay out internal reserves of evidence to try and bait out contrary points) this is reversible and so not a fruitless endeavor at all.
Also, the idea of things being true is fucking retarded. An undisproven hypothesis might be a useful working tool but it isn't some kind of higher truth that can be relied upon.
>provided the following rules are obeyed
Go fuck yourself, but also, why would you ever limit your sources of information? Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your (incredibly gay) format of argumentation doesn't mean that they don't have something useful to say.
>3. 4.
My first comment on the onus of truth applies here.
The really retarded shit:
>Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved
What? Whether or not an argument is valid has literally nothing to do with whether or not an independent argument for the same position is valid. Even if you can't dismantle one argument, you might be able to dismantle others or demonstrate an issue with their basis. That's useful to the person putting forward the arguments. It's also useful to you if you're trying to convince me of your position (for the same reason), especially because something you might bring up in the context of one argument may apply to the (truer) internal unarticulated form of another argument.
There's literally no reason to claim that people should do this and it can only impede discourse.
>Do not move on to another argument if it is shown that a fact you have relied upon is inaccurate
This might be the dumbest fucking thing ever written. If an argument is shown to be incoherent, and all arguments supporting the same position are not exhausted, obviously you would move on to the next. The other arguments don't magically become invalid just because you killed one strawman. What else are you going to do, end the discussion and have neither party learn anything because a random irrelevant tangent of the discussion was resolved?
>You cheated. The discussion is terminated.
Both of the above apply here.
>You are deemed to have conceded all opposing arguments up to this point
You've got to be trolling. Because some faggot trips over himself you're just going to refuse to communicate with them and assume that they're wrong about anything? You're not going to convince anyone or learn jack shit if you cut off conversation with someone entirely because one point they made was irrelevant or flawed, and you're going to become convinced of insanely retarded shit with essentially no backing if you assume that just because an argument was presented against someone who was subject to you throwing such a tantrum that it's correct.
>You forfeit any right to complain about the discussion
I'll post what I want when I want where I want. Persecute me at your own peril.
Also, there's no reason to limit psyches to three times a year or not to use either other nootropics or peds. Regardless, posting that chart is about as gay as fellating a thousand faggot dicks at a furry convention. Commit get hit by a bus and have all your teeth fall out.