naznatips said: Final-Fan said: The object is to make him abandon all pretense at rational argument and retreat into purely opinion-based statements and predictions. Or have a screaming fit.
Also, even when the argument itself goes nowhere, you can still learn valuable information yourself, even if your opponent learns nothing. A lot of these SMW/64/S/G details are new to me. That's half the reason I debate Eomund on the FairTax. (That is, to learn -- I don't mean to imply that Eomund is like CrazzyMan. He's not; he's much more rational and open to persuasion, at least on specific points, even if his faith in the FairTax overall is unshakeable.) |
That only works if the person you are debating against is willing to adjust their argument based on new facts brought into the discussion. CrazzyMan has repeated the same tired information for 8 pages with no regard for what anyone else says. You might as well debate with a wall, because although you are aware of his false information, he is completely unaware of the existence of any data other than what he's already convinced himself is relevant. |
I had a witty addition to this that involved urine, but I decided it was inappropriate.