Things that make you :mad:

Being left out of group activities
Candy with bubblegum in the middle
Doctor Sword
Having to pee
Hotdog stands
Irock
Justin Bieber
People that are judgmental
People that don't say thank you when you hold the door open for them
People that pronounce Mario as "mayreeo"
People that put bridges over lava in their games
People that won't let you get off the phone even though you've made it obvious you need to go
Re: [2k3] Touhou Fantasy by Xenomic (Substantial Projects)
Socks with holes in them
Texting (yes I'm aware of the irony of saying this in text format )
Twilight
When your back itches and you can't reach it

I can't think of anything else right now and that makes me

If anyone uses these against me, I'm suing. D:<

Bad Ethics - examples will be seen too much below D:<
Hearing the same song over and over
People who cheat in relationships
Liars
Certain types of comedy - I have either a very childish or dry sense of humor. I love humor and happiness, so I only tend to get in extreme cases where something like this is shoved in my face. D:
Justin Beiber duurr huurr
Hearing my older sister tell me the plot of every Twilight movie in extensive detail. No offense, nothing against the fans... just not interested.
People who treat others beneath them
People who treat others like crap for no good reason.
Politics - not stating a view. They all make me
People who use others
Dirty seats
Food that bleeds when I try to eat it
Being bored
People who make huge dramatic displays in front of everyone
Having stuff thrown at me
Really tiny, high-pitched dogs D:
That awkward silence of waiting for another girl to move away from the mirror so I can fix my hair in the school bathrooms
Having dirty hands
Being mad
Forgetting what I was going to say...
Being confused
Being bored
Being told "get to the point" D:
Being yelled at for no reason
Being ignored (sorry DrMc)
Being mocked (depends on if I'm already, it makes me more mad)

I'm just trying to drag on this list because I can... I don't actually get all that often.

Texting 
Being Ignored
Being Bored
Bullies
Car rides
Dirty Music
Skanks
Animal Violence
Talking on the phone
Light (when I'm trying to sleep)
Food with bones in it
Justin Beiber
Twilight
Broken pencils
When anything lags
Lies
Small font
Odd Numbers (other then 5)
People who think Zelda is Link
Chocolate that is hollow
Loud Noises
When I try to download something, then it downloads the download
When games have animal characters named what type of animal they are
Font that blends with the background
Ironic Titles like "DarkLight"
Chipmunk voices
Large Numbers "#2104596837264551326805462816593..."
Movies/Games/Shows with sad endings
Complete silence
Games with nothing explained (N3, love your music and combo's but you piss me off with your story)
PAPYRUS
Characters that have the same Hair, Eye, and Suit color

Nuff said

CRT televisions. They make high pitched noises and it annoys me.
Loud computers.
Having to shower.
Things that don't work properly.
Loud eating noises.
Cold.
People who smoke in front of others.
Closed minded people.
Idiots.

Skanks

Traffic jams!!
Snow!!
Smelly dogs!!!
Bad food!!
Americans!!

School shootings (also very )
When people lie to me
Fake people
My mother's husband
When webpages take more than a few seconds to load
Any webpages with bright flashy images and auto playing music that I can't mute.. really?
Feeling insecure
My family (at times)
My puppies mama (freaking huzzy hag bag )
Waking my children up in the morning (AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHH!!!)

When my kids get sassy with me or their mom
When my fast food order is wrong
Getting up at 4 am for work
Coming home to a disaster area
Driving on I 80/94
Any noise over 9 Kz, ow!
People who take pop culture seriously
People who think they're better than other people
People who think life owes them something
People who abuse other people


Addicts who think nothing is wrong with them 


When the law lets the guilty go free on a technicality
People who argue just to argue
Emabarassing myself
When I'm trying to recover from embarassing myself and some jerk makes a scene of it ¹⁰
Humankind's inability to agree that we all have the same basic needs but we are still all individuals

Skanks

Not you <3

Insomnia 
Hereditary diseases
My brother 
Air bags 
IVs 
Food that doesn't come out quite right when you try to make it 
Union station 
Scholarship programs that force you to do community service 
Waking up at 2pm 
Having to talk to strangers 
Webcomics that take forever to update

Skanks

Not you <3

COLOR PALS 4EVER!!!

People who scream during a fire alarm 
People who call other people chief 
Waking up before 12 pm 
People who hate others because there not athletic 
Places were it's always sunny 
People who hate others because of race, sexuality, and religion 
People my age who act like there four 
When people don't get the rights they deserve 
People who lack common sense 

I could go on for ever but I'll stop here

they're

Also where

Idiots who don't understand what I mean on the internet 

Ponyfags
People who wear the following:
Ed Hardy
Aeropostle
Abercrombie and Fitch
American Eagle
Hollister
Anything from Buckle
Tapout
Affliction
Novelty Tees
Uggs
Northface with leggings
The top two combined you look like a Bulma cosplayer
sandals with socks
socks that go up to your knees with shorts
wearing cargo shorts with a jacket
people who spike up only the back of their hair
men who wear more than one earring
people who have religious tattoos (unless it's something other than a cliche passage or a fucking cross/fish)
any cliche tattoo really
people who wear gauges
sperrys (not boat shoes, but those dorky ass shower shoe looking sperrys that everyone wears, especially with socks, like what the fuck, who the fuck wears socks on a boat)
tracksuits
white people who wear high top athletic shoes
baggy jeans
jeans with premade tears
prefaded jeans
bootcut jeans without boots
square toe shoes
___________________________________________

women driving
Halo
when people call me/text me and they have nothing to say
hitting the rim on drums
when your finger isn't pressed down hard enough on a string and it sounds like ass
singing and playing an instrument at the same time
changing lanes because people never ever ever ever leave my blind spot ever
fucking cheap ass construction companies who used gravel to make cement 40 fucking years ago so I have to spend 3 god damn hours digging out a fence post that rotted into a million pieces because that cheap ass gravel cement let tons of water in and I cant rip the entire god damn thing out with a post puller
esports
ponyfags
a large portion of people from Massachusetts
Blood on the Dance Floor and all related bands
People who ride their bicycle in the fucking streets, this isn't downtown where that's a viable means of transportation, you're just being an asshole who doesn't want to use the fucking sidewalk that has LITERALLY 0 PEDESTRIANS BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS FUCKING DRIVING YOU STUPID FUCKS
People who assume I'm racist
Mexicans, blacks, asians, and mexicans
Portuguese
People from Finland
People who think video games, guns, and rated r movies should be banned
FAT PEOPLE
Idiots who buy entirely new razors instead of replacement blades "because it's cheaper"
Traffic in Austin
Aggies
Anyone from the state of Oklahoma
People who's lives revolve around drugs
People who think top 40 hits means that those are the best 40 songs ever and all other music is shit
People who listen to Miles Davis and think that makes their musical taste better than everyone elses
People who listen to top 40 hits from the 60s/70s and think that their musical taste is better than everyone else
People who are obviously in much worse shape than I am and criticize my diet
People who wear letterman jackets everywhere
Parents who name their children shit like Treasure and Victory
People who think everyone from the South is racist and uneducated
French-Canadians
Mosquitoes
Congress
People who likes Tombstone more than Wyatt Earp solely because Wyatt Earp didn't have as much action (although admittedly I do like Tombstone more than Wyatt Earp)
When you have to pee during sexual intercourse
People who make fun of you for buying expensive sunglasses and then bitch every time they break a shitty plastic pair and have to go buy a new one
When my expensive sunglasses break and I look like a retard
Capcom for being such gigantic assholes but making such fantastic games AND THEN DENYING THEM TO EVERYONE
Bioware
Activision
EA
Fucking Activision
BEATS by Dre
Allergies
Bees that sting you for no god damn reason
People who litter
Asshole ducks who attack you for no god damn reason
Asshole llamas who walk up to you as a peace treaty and then spit on you like a fucking deceitful bastard :bad:
Asshole birds who fly in your face and squawk whenever you're trying to do something outside
Burrs, stickers, small cacti, and anything else that hides in tall grass and rapes the bottom of your foot
Geckos who drop their god damn tail on the middle of your living room floor whenever you try to get them out of the house
Dogs who bark 24/7
Cats who meow 24/7
GOATS WHO DO NOT SHUT THE FUCK UP JESUS CHRIST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STUPID GOAT IT IS 5 IN THE GOD DAMN MORNING AND I HAVE A TEST LATER
People who drive dualies and don't have anything in the bed of their truck
People who read this entire list
People drive shitty 20k stock mustangs and think that makes them badasses
The mexican thing up there was a joke but seriously, what ever any mexican ever drives
Managers who think it was a good idea to have the person with the WORST ENGLISH POSSIBLE man the drive thru/cash register
Twilight

I think that's enough for now.

I have a nice couch and a lot of time if you'd like to come over and get some of this off your chest one day. I can't prescribe drugs but I'm sure between my loopy mother and my insane mother-in-law's stockpile I can have you adequately chilled by the time you leave.

I could go on for ever but I'll stop here

pretty cool list there, chief.

Double Posting
When shit I just bought breaks
When shit breaks in a stupid way
When my mom keeps not bringing the fucking snow blower that's supposed to be here back from my step dad's house
When you're at a professional dress thing for a business or school thing and some assbutt is wearing a shitty coat over their dress shirt and tie
When people decide to wear a flat brimmed hat, but don't take the sticker off the brim
"gamers" who don't appreciate anything other than the newest game in a series.
people who the news interview, calling them gamers, when all they play is farmville and angrybirds
farmville
angry birds
:IROCK:

Navi

If you want Sword to like you, wear nothing at all

People who try to act 'cool' by google translating languages that don't know 
Wannabes 
XBAWX 
Facebook Timeline 
Slow Internet Connection 

If you want Sword to like you, wear nothing at all

Headphones/Headsets that have no volume control
Underage kids who play on Xbox Live and are somehow just competent enough to use a microphone
Being sick
Facebook Timeline
People who share absolutely everything they're doing on Facebook
Ads with rich assholes telling me to donate to charity (You're the rich cunt, YOU donate)
When a game or video lags
When I get holes in my shoes
Jeans (Fuck I hate jeans)
Tonic Water
Rap Music
Government interference in stuff it shouldn't get involved with

When I'm on the train and people ask me to move (I'm happy to move for the elderly or disabled or even people with troubles standing up, but unless you're in one of those categories. Go fuck yourself)

People I don't know who honestly think I give a flying fuck about their opinion
Remembering back in High School when I had my music exam and I missed a chord
When people call any Chris, Chrissy. Unless they're a girl or enjoy it, don't say it.
The fact that I can't draw for shit
People who wonder why a new game doesn't work when they're using a windows 98 computer
Xbox and PS3 fanboys/fangirls who are way too extreme about it
Namco Bandai keeping many 'Tales' games from being localised
People who automatically assume that I wear kilts whenever I mention that I'm 1/4 Scottish.
'Through the Fire and Flames' on Expert Difficulty
When out of fucking nowhere, me and my friends do something fucking funny and it wasn't recorded

Updating the RMRK wiki

Headphones/Headsets that have no volume control
Underage kids who play on Xbox Live and are somehow just competent enough to use a microphone
Being sick
Facebook Timeline
People who share absolutely everything they're doing on Facebook
Ads with rich assholes telling me to donate to charity (You're the rich cunt, YOU donate)
When a game or video lags
When I get holes in my shoes
Jeans (Fuck I hate jeans)
Tonic Water
Rap Music
Government interference in stuff it shouldn't get involved with

When I'm on the train and people ask me to move (I'm happy to move for the elderly or disabled or even people with troubles standing up, but unless you're in one of those categories. Go fuck yourself)

People I don't know who honestly think I give a flying fuck about their opinion
Remembering back in High School when I had my music exam and I missed a chord
When people call any Chris, Chrissy. Unless they're a girl or enjoy it, don't say it.
The fact that I can't draw for shit
People who wonder why a new game doesn't work when they're using a windows 98 computer
Xbox and PS3 fanboys/fangirls who are way too extreme about it
Namco Bandai keeping many 'Tales' games from being localised
People who automatically assume that I wear kilts whenever I mention that I'm 1/4 Scottish.
'Through the Fire and Flames' on Expert Difficulty
When out of fucking nowhere, me and my friends do something fucking funny and it wasn't recorded

What's wrong with jeans? Are you too busy wearing kilts?

If it's not Scottish, it's CRAP

Jeans don't look good when I'm playing the bagpipes

Anime avatars

Anime avatars that aren't fucking Death Note

Also jean haters

Hipsters trying to be hipster
Sony
Extreme weaboos
Dr Dre Beats 
Compile Heart 
My accent 
JRPGs of the last decade 

Anime avatars

Also jean haters

Also tonic water haters

People who leave a spoon or butterknife in the peanut butter/mayo/nutella or whatever 

oh my god YES!

My oldest daughter does it all the time AND IT MAKES ME

When all the stuff falls out of tacos
When my Ipod runs out just before I leave the house 
Not being able to drive 
Hearing my parents complain about kids these days 
Being treating like I'm still a child at the age of 20 
Writer's block! 
People that refuse to see that the world does not in fact revolve around them 
Wanting to say something so badly but everyone ignores you!!!! 

Kids these days 

Spoiler for:

Kids these days 

Spoiler for:

The genuinely most provoking thing that I ever encounter is people arguing for some ideology and as the debate plays out, it becomes more and more obvious how the motivation behind their debating is to protect his/her own view, not to find the truth. Whenever a Christian who originally argued through evidence and logic, changes his/her argumentation to revolve around how religion is good for society (which is completely irrelevant) after facing enough opposition, then this has happened.

The conclusions are suddenly: "I have wasted my time discussing.", "No matter what I say they will not change their mind." and "I can not tell this to the person's face, well I could but it would be of no use."

Atheists are worse, in my opinion.

Atheists are worse, in my opinion.

That is probably true. I haven't had the pleasure of arguing with one however, for obvious reasons.

You are probably right though, but it mainly comes down to the person and not the ideology. My example was just that, an example and my post was about that stubborn attitude in general.

• Atheists who are all uppity about it.
• Christians who are all uppity about it.
• Tibetan Monks who are all uppity about it.

Arrogance knows no specific belief.

• Atheists who are all uppity about it.
• Christians who are all uppity about it.
• Tibetan Monks who are all uppity about it.

Arrogance knows no specific belief.

It's not the arrogance, but the lies and cheats. To pretend to have a debate, but actually waste the other's time as one has no intentions of finding a new point of view, that is my opinion.

Entering a debate does not necessarily mean one is open to the other point of view. In fact most arguments are in defense of a person's own beliefs. There would be no debates if people were so easily susceptible to change.

Also the whole trademark thing you've got going on along with your general vernacular makes you come off as a gigantic douche.

Entering a debate does not necessarily mean one is open to the other point of view. In fact most arguments are in defense of a person's own beliefs. There would be no debates if people were so easily susceptible to change.

Also the whole trademark thing you've got going on along with your general vernacular makes you come off as a gigantic douche.

Sorry bro, I catch your drift about the trademarks.

About your statement though: One should always be open to the other point of view, as not being so implies that one thinks of oneself as omniscient in some sense. Either that or one is simply trying to get through something for some kind of benefit, which I wouldn't really call a debate in the first place. I said nothing about being easily susceptible to change, I said being able to change at all, and yes I think people need to be able to change. Otherwise we get nowhere

I am skeptical that you could legitimately determine whether someone has an open mind based on the result of a debate. If at the end of the debate your opponent has not changed his or her mind or has moved on to some other topic, the most you could conclude is that your arguments have failed to persuade him or her and/or that he or she got tired of the debate; you could not logically conclude that no arguments could ever persuade him or her.¹

More importantly, I don't think it's illegitimate to enter a debate with the purpose of convincing another person of the correctness of your position even if you can imagine no way of conceding to his or hers. As an example, I believe that sexually abusing a child is morally reprehensible and I do not believe that anything could convince me otherwise. If some woman were arguing the opposite, I believe that I would have a moral obligation to enter a debate with her and try to convince her that she is wrong. If she were to present an argument that is facially compelling and to which I have no immediate answer, I would not concede to her conclusion that sexually abusing a child is OK; I would simply assume that with a little more thought I could come up with a counter-argument. I do not think that debating is limited to those who are uncertain of their position; on the contrary, I believe that some² of the most edifying debates to watch are between two people who are both utterly convinced of their own position and completely familiar with all of the arguments for and against it.

Further, I do not necessarily see the objective of a debate as to persuade the other party to your point of view. A debate could, for instance, benefit an audience. Even without an audience, however, I would consider a debate to be with merit if you are presented with arguments against your perspective that you did not consider. Those arguments need not alter your end-position, but if it helps you understand your position in a different way, re-evaluate a weak inference, or reach your conclusion through a different chain of logic, then it has added nuance and strength to your opinion. That is true even if your opponent is completely implacable, and in my opinion, that result alone marks a successful debate.

Also, you think you are omniscent if you think you know everything; you do not think of yourself as omniscent in any but a misleading sense simply because you believe that you know something.



1 Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that your arguments are so convincing that no person with an open mind could ever reject them, in which case I would question whether you had an open mind.
2 Evidently, not all. See, for example, the debate between Irockman1 and NAMKCOR on water tiles in the GIAW thread. On the other hand, it is at least slightly amusing that their contrariness is mirrored by the spelling of their usernames.




To not stray too far from the topic:

Emotionally charged debates about water tiles 

That is so well said Modern, I wish I had said it myself.  I concur.

little sleep and too much time with doctors

I am skeptical that you could legitimately determine whether someone has an open mind based on the result of a debate. If at the end of the debate your opponent has not changed his or her mind or has moved on to some other topic, the most you could conclude is that your arguments have failed to persuade him or her and/or that he or she got tired of the debate; you could not logically conclude that no arguments could ever persuade him or her.¹

More importantly, I don't think it's illegitimate to enter a debate with the purpose of convincing another person of the correctness of your position even if you can imagine no way of conceding to his or hers. As an example, I believe that sexually abusing a child is morally reprehensible and I do not believe that anything could convince me otherwise. If some woman were arguing the opposite, I believe that I would have a moral obligation to enter a debate with her and try to convince her that she is wrong. If she were to present an argument that is facially compelling and to which I have no immediate answer, I would not concede to her conclusion that sexually abusing a child is OK; I would simply assume that with a little more thought I could come up with a counter-argument. I do not think that debating is limited to those who are uncertain of their position; on the contrary, I believe that some² of the most edifying debates to watch are between two people who are both utterly convinced of their own position and completely familiar with all of the arguments for and against it.

Further, I do not necessarily see the objective of a debate as to persuade the other party to your point of view. A debate could, for instance, benefit an audience. Even without an audience, however, I would consider a debate to be with merit if you are presented with arguments against your perspective that you did not consider. Those arguments need not alter your end-position, but if it helps you understand your position in a different way, re-evaluate a weak inference, or reach your conclusion through a different chain of logic, then it has added nuance and strength to your opinion. That is true even if your opponent is completely implacable, and in my opinion, that result alone marks a successful debate.

Also, you think you are omniscent if you think you know everything; you do not think of yourself as omniscent in any but a misleading sense simply because you believe that you know something.



1 Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that your arguments are so convincing that no person with an open mind could ever reject them, in which case I would question whether you had an open mind.
2 Evidently, not all. See, for example, the debate between Irockman1 and NAMKCOR on water tiles in the GIAW thread. On the other hand, it is at least slightly amusing that their contrariness is mirrored by the spelling of their usernames.




To not stray too far from the topic:

Emotionally charged debates about water tiles 

I agree with most of what you said, and for misusing the word omniscient I apologize.

I did not mean to imply that anyone who will not change their minds after a debate are doing this. I was merely talking about those occasions when this actually becomes evident like you said.

I should have been more precise, but yeah. And using Christianity in my post was just an example drawn from recent experience. My post was not about any ideology in particular.

For a moment there I thought this was ED

People who are abusive to their partners.
When I can't find a hairband
When places sell Pepsi instead of Coke.
People who can't cook that think they can cook better than me.
When I realise this is all I can think of.

I guess I'm pretty chilled.

I am skeptical that you could legitimately determine whether someone has an open mind based on the result of a debate. If at the end of the debate your opponent has not changed his or her mind or has moved on to some other topic, the most you could conclude is that your arguments have failed to persuade him or her and/or that he or she got tired of the debate; you could not logically conclude that no arguments could ever persuade him or her.¹

More importantly, I don't think it's illegitimate to enter a debate with the purpose of convincing another person of the correctness of your position even if you can imagine no way of conceding to his or hers. As an example, I believe that sexually abusing a child is morally reprehensible and I do not believe that anything could convince me otherwise. If some woman were arguing the opposite, I believe that I would have a moral obligation to enter a debate with her and try to convince her that she is wrong. If she were to present an argument that is facially compelling and to which I have no immediate answer, I would not concede to her conclusion that sexually abusing a child is OK; I would simply assume that with a little more thought I could come up with a counter-argument. I do not think that debating is limited to those who are uncertain of their position; on the contrary, I believe that some² of the most edifying debates to watch are between two people who are both utterly convinced of their own position and completely familiar with all of the arguments for and against it.

Further, I do not necessarily see the objective of a debate as to persuade the other party to your point of view. A debate could, for instance, benefit an audience. Even without an audience, however, I would consider a debate to be with merit if you are presented with arguments against your perspective that you did not consider. Those arguments need not alter your end-position, but if it helps you understand your position in a different way, re-evaluate a weak inference, or reach your conclusion through a different chain of logic, then it has added nuance and strength to your opinion. That is true even if your opponent is completely implacable, and in my opinion, that result alone marks a successful debate.

Also, you think you are omniscent if you think you know everything; you do not think of yourself as omniscent in any but a misleading sense simply because you believe that you know something.



1 Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that your arguments are so convincing that no person with an open mind could ever reject them, in which case I would question whether you had an open mind.
2 Evidently, not all. See, for example, the debate between Irockman1 and NAMKCOR on water tiles in the GIAW thread. On the other hand, it is at least slightly amusing that their contrariness is mirrored by the spelling of their usernames.




To not stray too far from the topic:

Emotionally charged debates about water tiles 

I agree with most of what you said, and for misusing the word omniscient I apologize.

I did not mean to imply that anyone who will not change their minds after a debate are doing this. I was merely talking about those occasions when this actually becomes evident like you said.

I should have been more precise, but yeah. And using Christianity in my post was just an example drawn from recent experience. My post was not about any ideology in particular.

Oh, and sorry for keeping this off-topic stuff on, but I realized to demonstrate what I was talking about, I could now instead of saying that you were right and redefine my allegation, I could have said "but when they don't change their mind the discussion has to go on and we waste more time." Thus changing my argumentation completely while ignoring the fact that you just logically proved me wrong and I am now discussing something else.

Sometimes it's better to just not say anything.


Anyway

When places sell Pepsi instead of Coke.

THIS Especially when they've only got Pepsi and every other selectable alternative at that time is just as crap

But coke and pepsi both suck.

Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.

When places sell Pepsi instead of Coke.

THIS Especially when they've only got Pepsi and every other selectable alternative at that time is just as crap

I actually make a point of not going to places that don't, or I bring coke and just sit there drinking it really obviously like a complete asshole, because if they're gotta serve shitty drinks, im gonna have a shitty attitude.

...People who argue and get mad over silly things... it annoys me.

Having to splice tilesets together in XP makes me fume.

RMRK's smilies, I don't like them.

When somebody talks to me in a manner that insinuates I don't know what I'm doing, when they're clueless and I know what the (BLEEP) I'm doing... thaaat makes me fairly unhappy~

Yeah... I could post in this thread for hours. >w>;

RMRK's smilies, I don't like them.

 

Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.

I have a giant 50 pound water filter attached to my tap that makes my water fucking delicious, KFC is terrible and is blown out of the water by Popeyes and Chicken Express, Dr Pepper is superior to every drink and Sunkist is alright too.

when places don't serve peach pop
at 99% of the country because of this

Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.

I have a giant 50 pound water filter attached to my tap that makes my water fucking delicious, KFC is terrible and is blown out of the water by Popeyes and Chicken Express, Dr Pepper is superior to every drink and Sunkist is alright too.

I'm okay with all of these things.

Ambiguous Trolls 

The genuinely most provoking thing that I ever encounter is people arguing for some ideology and as the debate plays out, it becomes more and more obvious how the motivation behind their debating is to protect his/her own view, not to find the truth. Whenever a Christian who originally argued through evidence and logic, changes his/her argumentation to revolve around how religion is good for society (which is completely irrelevant) after facing enough opposition, then this has happened.

The conclusions are suddenly: "I have wasted my time discussing.", "No matter what I say they will not change their mind." and "I can not tell this to the person's face, well I could but it would be of no use."

I totally agree!
I wanted to only quote a bit of what you said but I don't think that would do it justice, so I quoted it all.

Kids these days 

Spoiler for:

I see what you did there lol

I did not mean to imply that anyone who will not change their minds after a debate are doing this. I was merely talking about those occasions when this actually becomes evident like you said.

I should have been more precise, but yeah. And using Christianity in my post was just an example drawn from recent experience. My post was not about any ideology in particular.

Oh, and sorry for keeping this off-topic stuff on, but I realized to demonstrate what I was talking about, I could now instead of saying that you were right and redefine my allegation, I could have said "but when they don't change their mind the discussion has to go on and we waste more time." Thus changing my argumentation completely while ignoring the fact that you just logically proved me wrong and I am now discussing something else.

Well, I still don't know that it's ever evident, and I certainly wouldn't have thought your latter example outside of the scope of the original debate. In any event, while subjects for debate perhaps require some limitations, I think you should be careful that you are not, in defining the parameters of your debate, structurally privileging arguments that are supportive of your position.

For instance, assuming that in your original example the subject of the debate was the existence of God, I do not see that raising the issue of whether religion performs good in the world is necessarily irrelevant to the original question.

In that I mean it is a perfectly logical argument to say that, if God does not exist, there is no value to human life; absent some divinity, each individual person is worthless - you are simply one speck of dust among seven billion on a tiny planet in a vast and incalculable universe. Your life will be cosmically brief and will likely leave an impact so minimal that not even your great grandson will remember your name. Even if you are one of the rare individuals whose life is remembered by history, such a memorial affects only people whose lives have no more intrinsic meaning than your own, and it certainly doesn't affect you, because you're dead. Arguably, that basic thread of logic is a premise of the Abrahamic religions, with some of the first words in the bible describing life after Eden as "you are dust, and unto dust you shall return." (that line of thought is more fleshed out in Ecclesiastes).

To my mind, that argument is not unrelated to the question of God's existence, since it goes toward the very reason for the hypothesis of God - that is to say, His existence validates the sense of self-worth and altruism that is arguably innate to all human beings. Is it not an unfair constraint to debate a hypothesis without permitting your opponent to advance any observations which form the basis for the hypothesis? To debate gravity and refuse to permit the observation that objects fall down and not up?

Given that rationale, the question of whether religion does good in the world is potentially relevant to the question of whether God or some divinity exists, since it could circumstantially validate the hypothesis outlined above.

I truncated that argument since it was only an example, but my point is only this: if you construct the subject of debate too narrowly, you risk introducing a bias toward your own position, especially where the onus of proof is on your opponent, as it would be on the person arguing the existence of God. It seems to me a narrow debate indeed if you forbid your opponent to raise reasons for his or her belief. If your objective is truth, I would advise against building artificial walls that disadvantage those who do not share your opinion.

I did not mean to imply that anyone who will not change their minds after a debate are doing this. I was merely talking about those occasions when this actually becomes evident like you said.

I should have been more precise, but yeah. And using Christianity in my post was just an example drawn from recent experience. My post was not about any ideology in particular.

Oh, and sorry for keeping this off-topic stuff on, but I realized to demonstrate what I was talking about, I could now instead of saying that you were right and redefine my allegation, I could have said "but when they don't change their mind the discussion has to go on and we waste more time." Thus changing my argumentation completely while ignoring the fact that you just logically proved me wrong and I am now discussing something else.

Well, I still don't know that it's ever evident, and I certainly wouldn't have thought your latter example outside of the scope of the original debate. In any event, while subjects for debate perhaps require some limitations, I think you should be careful that you are not, in defining the parameters of your debate, structurally privileging arguments that are supportive of your position.

For instance, assuming that in your original example the subject of the debate was something tedious like the existence of God, I do not see that raising the issue of whether religion performs good in the world is necessarily irrelevant to the original question.

In that I mean it is a perfectly logical argument to say that, if God does not exist, there is no value to human life; absent some divinity, each individual person is worthless - you are simply one speck of dust among seven billion on a tiny planet in a vast and incalculable universe. Your life will be cosmically brief and will likely leave an impact so minimal that not even your great grandson will remember your name. Even if you are one of the rare individuals whose life is remembered by history, such a memorial affects only people whose lives have no more intrinsic meaning than your own, and it certainly doesn't affect you, because you're dead.

To my mind, that argument is not unrelated to the question of God's existence, since it goes toward the very reason for the hypothesis of God - that is to say, His existence validates the sense of self-worth and altruism that is arguably innate to all human beings. Indeed, I would argue that that premise is the foundation of the Abrahamic religions, with some of the first words describing life after Eden as "you are dust, and unto dust you shall return." Is it not an unfair constraint to debate a hypothesis without permitting your opponent to advance any observations which form the basis for the hypothesis? To debate gravity and refuse to permit the observation that objects fall down and not up?

Given that rationale, the question of whether religion does good in the world is potentially relevant to the question of whether God or some divinity exists, since it could circumstantially validate the hypothesis outlined above.

I truncated that argument since it was only an example, but my point is only this: if you construct the subject of debate too narrowly, you risk introducing a bias toward your own position, especially where the onus of proof is on your opponent, as it would be on the person arguing the existence of God. It seems to me a narrow debate indeed if you forbid your opponent to raise reasons for his or her belief. If your objective is truth, I would advise against building artificial walls that disadvantage those who do not share your opinion.

Just to conclude clearly, I change my position while humbly admitting that I was wrong.

What enrages me, I think is the type of person who is sincerely bad at debating seriously (which I think we all can agree about) and generalizing such persons into any kind of method of argumentation et cetra was an error. Thank you for this correction. 

With that I can agree.

In any event, I was really just trying to annoy everyone else in this thread

well you failed.  I quite enjoyed that

Does that make you ? 
TOO BAD

I renounce my atheism, modern algebra is clearly God.

Also Holk and Arlen.

I get  when I have had ZERO sleep and my job gives me forced overtime.

Not that I'm complaining. No-ho. Nope.