Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Observations
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WhiteyMacD" data-source="post: 1314095" data-attributes="member: 7633"><p>Why is it when someone presents a plausible counter-argument to an argument, the original presenter wants to conisder their argument the only plausible argument. Thus negating the reason to call it an argument or even a discussion. Wouldnt one <strong>not</strong> be arguing, but instead presenting an opinion and treating it as fact? If opinion is treated as fact and we dont share the same opinion, then are facts ambiguously subjective. Would the mere practice of discussion and/or argument become an exercise in futility?</p><p></p><p>Does the pope really poop in the woods or does a bear really wear a funny hat?</p><p></p><p>I say ask not what rhetoric can do for you, but what rhetoric can do for the masses.</p><p></p><p>Define the word, "The".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is your head in the oven yet? <img src="/images/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WhiteyMacD, post: 1314095, member: 7633"] Why is it when someone presents a plausible counter-argument to an argument, the original presenter wants to conisder their argument the only plausible argument. Thus negating the reason to call it an argument or even a discussion. Wouldnt one [b]not[/b] be arguing, but instead presenting an opinion and treating it as fact? If opinion is treated as fact and we dont share the same opinion, then are facts ambiguously subjective. Would the mere practice of discussion and/or argument become an exercise in futility? Does the pope really poop in the woods or does a bear really wear a funny hat? I say ask not what rhetoric can do for you, but what rhetoric can do for the masses. Define the word, "The". Is your head in the oven yet? ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Observations
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom