Things that make you :mad:

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.