Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 9/24/07 07:42 PM, Imperator wrote:

It's obvious you're just angry because you'd rather refuse to acknowledge contextual information so that you can save face and feel like you're right about something even after your argument gets shredded apart by facts.

Actually Demosthenez is saying what pretty much everyone I've heard say about you and your "debate" skills.

And oddly enough, every person who has said such a thing has done so to help cope with having lost an argument against me in the past. Therefore their whole way of playing it off is to focus their complete attention to the person who did it.

In fact, against me in this thread alone you began almost every single paragraph in one such response with ad homines statements.....

First of all, YOU are resulting to Ad Hominem right now. You're reacting to factual statements and arguments provided by your opponent by basing your points on irrelevant personality traits of that person. You haven't even replied to my last post to you and have tried to ignore what was previously said by appealing to popularity or the opinions of people who aren't even involved in the argument.

Secondly, the things you said WERE incredibly misguided. If what you said wasn't so ridiculous, I wouldn't have felt the need to point it out. However, what I did wasn't ad hominem because although I did criticize your lack of knowledge and throw in a bit of name calling, I didn't base my argument around it, I actually provided a factual argument relevant to the topic on my side.

I didn't do what you and Demosthenez have both done, in that you ignore the entire argument and try to wind it down by focusing all of your attention on me and my way of debating, HOW I said something, as an excuse for you not addressing WHAT I've said.

I don't know what your actual goal is when you deb...I mean, argue, but I can certainly tell what you're not doing, and that's winning any converts. If you're actually trying to impart some of that knowledge you keep bragging about onto others, starting off with "you are such an idiot because" isn't exactly the most prosperous way....and it don't exactly make you sound like a Doctor of Philosophy either.....

The fact that you ceased arguing about the actual topic and now have turned me into the sole subject of debate shows that you know I am right, but you're too partisan to your ego in the subject to admit it and carry on in an argument that you've lost. So now you have to take the easy route and disregard the topic by resorting to ad hominem yourself.

Speakin of knowledge, you repeatedly referred to my (and Demo's) lack of education on the issue. I have problems with that statement (especially after your own little Dr. Phil comment) but whatever. Fine, you sold me; I'll bite. So where do I get such an education? What's my first step?

Read! Read things.

You don't have to take Military Science to understand it. Just do some research from something other than news articles and actually attempt to understand the topic that you're trying to debate about. Seriously, what you did would be like someone arguing with you about Roman History and being surprised that you'd call them an idiot after, not knowing anything about the subject, fabricating ideas and bits of history form the top of their head.

Let's put it in perspective:

Someone: "Hey Imperator... Nero was the best Emperor of Rome... EVER. He was loved by everyone and he never, ever, ever acted like a Tyrant. He also didn't die from unnatural causes... he lived his entire live ruling over Rome and oversaw the most prosperous period that Rome had ever seen. This is CERTAIN because I believe brutal, selfish, gluttonous, lustful people make the best leaders."

You: "Actually that's wrong, completely wrong and your justification for that is based on your lack of knowledge in the subject."

Someone: "FUCK that, that means nothing because it is a historical certainty that powerful, tyrannic leaders are better for a country and always have been throughout history, as exemplified by the life and rule of Nero."

You: "You're an idiot, because what YOU consider to be historical precedent doesn't hold sway in light of the FACTS about what actually happened with Rome during Nero's rule. "

Someone: "HOW DARE YOU DEBATE THAT WAY! I'm now going to ignore everything you said and focus on the fact that you don't walk on eggshells around people, and thus try and discredit and entirely disregard the topic by focusing on you as an individual, and what I and others consider to be your character flaws... via text... on the internet!"

---

At 9/24/07 10:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: And oddly enough, every person who has said such a thing has done so to help cope with having lost an argument against me in the past. Therefore their whole way of playing it off is to focus their complete attention to the person who did it.

Alright, I just wanted to point out that all those people think you're a total jackass and that's the reason they often leave debating you....I just wanted you to know that, cause I don't know if you did, that's all.

First of all, YOU are resulting to Ad Hominem right now. You're reacting to factual statements and arguments provided by your opponent by basing your points on irrelevant personality traits of that person. You haven't even replied to my last post to you and have tried to ignore what was previously said by appealing to popularity or the opinions of people who aren't even involved in the argument.

Meh, I haven't had the desire to go though your response yet, I'll get around to it tomorrow after class. And I'm not making an argument, so I cannot be making an ad hominem logical fallacy. I have to argue in order to argue "about the man".

I'm not going to use me saying "you're a jackass as perceived by NG" in any sort of argumentative fashion....

Secondly, the things you said WERE incredibly misguided. If what you said wasn't so ridiculous, I wouldn't have felt the need to point it out. However, what I did wasn't ad hominem because although I did criticize your lack of knowledge and throw in a bit of name calling, I didn't base my argument around it, I actually provided a factual argument relevant to the topic on my side.

Are you kidding me?
Direct quotes from you in this thread:
"YOU are such an idiot"
"only another example of your idiocy"
"you delusional imbecile. "
"jackass."
"you're so incredibly stupid"

And you have the balls to tell me you didn't make any ad hominem remarks? My idiocy has no bearing in the argument at all, it shouldn't have even be mentioned.

The fact that you ceased arguing about the actual topic and now have turned me into the sole subject of debate shows that you know I am right, but you're too partisan to your ego in the subject to admit it and carry on in an argument that you've lost. So now you have to take the easy route and disregard the topic by resorting to ad hominem yourself.

Right. MY ego....yeah.....
I tend to admit when I make mistakes, I don't run from them.

Read! Read things.

what things!

Seriously, what you did would be like someone arguing with you about Roman History and being surprised that you'd call them an idiot after, not knowing anything about the subject, fabricating ideas and bits of history form the top of their head.

Difference is I wouldn't call them an idiot.......
And therein lies the problem.

You: "Actually that's wrong, completely wrong and your justification for that is based on your lack of knowledge in the subject."

I'd ask a question first. "Where did you receive your information from that you came to this conclusion?"

His history was skewed, so I'd ask that, and the rest of it was opinion, ergo there is no right or wrong.

You: "You're an idiot, because what YOU consider to be historical precedent doesn't hold sway in light of the FACTS about what actually happened with Rome during Nero's rule. "

No, never, nada. I'd say "Well I don't think history shows that tyranical rulers are always necessarily better, but there are certainly cases where they have done a better job. This is pretty much all subjective though, since there are a great many ways we can judge who was "better" and quite a few rulers that although they fall under the category of tyrant, were actually quite benevolent and impressive leaders".

I would never start a sentence with "you're an idiot because". I don't go out of my way to state something as fact, and then try to give evidence supporting the notion that someone's an "idiot" simply because their opinion on "who's the best" differs from mine.

You won't catch me making an ad hominem argument by saying "you're an idiot because".....not in a million years.

Here's the difference between you and I.
I love to teach shit, and if my goal is to teach this person about Nero's reign, I'm going to approach it in a non-hostile manner, if not inviting and warm. If he doesn't wanna learn, then that's his perogative, but I'm not going to go out of my way to try to prove his idiocy on the topic.

If I want to try to change his opinion, I'll introduce information that perhaps he didn't know before. I'll say "Well Rome also had a number of rulers who were not as tyrannical as Nero and did quite a pleasant job of ruling. The Brothers Gracchi, and Cincinnatus for starters"

I won't say "you're an idiot because the Gracchi were CLEARLY better leaders, you just don't know what you're talking about, cause I'm a Classics major", because that's the absolute WORST way to change someone's opinion. You can't force it down their throats and expect them to swallow on demand, you have to present them with an alternative viewpoint and let THEM expand their information base.

"you're an idiot because...."...
Please, the only person I've seen make these arguments is you. YOU'RE the one who constantly tries to 'prove' the idiocy of the other person using "facts", basing entire arguments around the fact that they're "Uneducated" therefore their opinion is invalid.

I'll call you an idiot, but I won't ever try to prove that claim by following it up with something like "you're an idiot because". I'll call you an idiot cause that's my opinion of you.

I'm calling you an asshole now because that's my opinion of you. It has no bearing on anything relevant, it is simply my understanding of who you are as a person....an arrogant, conceited, condescending crazy bastard who I really wish wasn't American.

Someone: "HOW DARE YOU DEBATE THAT WAY! I'm now going to ignore everything you said and focus on the fact that you don't walk on eggshells around people, and thus try and discredit and entirely disregard the topic by focusing on you as an individual, and what I and others consider to be your character flaws... via text... on the internet!"

There's a difference between not walking on eggshells, and going out of the way to prove one's inadequacies in the given subject area as a means of discrediting their opinion.

My "expertise" on the Greco-Roman world does NOT give me any sort of edge when making an argument on subjective matters. It gives me the historical information to make arguments, but for something like "I think Bush is mismanaging the war" or "I think tyrants like Nero make great leaders", no matter whom I debate, they're argument is on an equal playing field.

I kid you not, I can literally take every single post you made on this thread, and re-write them in a way that will not only make you seem smarter, but will get FAVORABLE responses and thought provocation from people.

We're not the close-minded idiots you think we are, you just do a god awful terrible job of making us see the light, and it's mainly do to your ASSHOLE comments.

TheMason has very similar views to you, and it's because of the WAY he says things (informative, inviting, NON-HOSTILE) that people respect him and listen to him. If he posted on this thread and said the exact same things you did, I'd probably buy every word if it, even though I don't buy one damn word of what you have said. Presentation is everything, that's why he gets the admiration, and you get banned.

People don't respect you cause you're a pompous ass.

End of story.

---

One thing that actually irritates me a little is the talk about "running" from a thread.

First off, if people wanted to maintain their reputations or recover prestige or whatever it is you think happens when one "loses" to you, it makes more sense to stick around, and make sure you don't get the last incriminating word.

Second, no one "runs". You make it sound like we just got kicked in the face and are high tailing it out of here. It's a damn internet politics forum, not an interview with CNN. I personally stop posting in a thread when I find the subject going in circles, or simply too full of retarded crap (all the "you're an idiot because" stuff) for me to waste time on. If I'm having a riot, I'll continue to post in a dying thread, but shit, I don't feel any sort of obligation to NG threads....

There's only a handful of people to whom I believe I "owe" responses, and those aren't the ones who use "moron" as if it's an article or adjective instead of a noun......

And if you really wanna talk about "running" from an argument we know we "lost", please. PLEASE. Like you haven't done the exact same thing Celly, like you haven't simply stopped posting in threads where you clearly were not correct....

---

At 9/24/07 11:43 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 9/24/07 10:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: And oddly enough, every person who has said such a thing has done so to help cope with having lost an argument against me in the past. Therefore their whole way of playing it off is to focus their complete attention to the person who did it.

Alright, I just wanted to point out that all those people think you're a total jackass and that's the reason they often leave debating you....I just wanted you to know that, cause I don't know if you did, that's all.

Oh.. hit me where it hurts... what the opinion is of me by people who get angered by the fact they get disproved in arguments by the person they have to pretend is a "jackass" to feel better about it.

Meh, I haven't had the desire to go though your response yet, I'll get around to it tomorrow after class. And I'm not making an argument, so I cannot be making an ad hominem logical fallacy.

I have to argue in order to argue "about the man".

Haha what have you been doing? Your way of finding solace after losing arguments is by appealing to popularity and confiding in other people. You do that all the time you'll entirely divert attention from an argument and focus your attention on me. Hell, you've been pathetic enough to create an excuse for not continuing the debate, only to start talking trash about me in an entirely different thread...

I'm not going to use me saying "you're a jackass as perceived by NG" in any sort of argumentative fashion....

Even though you did... as the extension of an argument about IRan/Iraq... you entirely ceased responding to the topic and made your participation in the thread about my character...

And you have the balls to tell me you didn't make any ad hominem remarks? My idiocy has no bearing in the argument at all, it shouldn't have even be mentioned.

When an idiotic idea is used as the basis of an analogy or conclusion, it is very much relevant. Your incredibly flawed logic was what prevented you from making a valid point. You said what amounted to "this means this, because this did this" when the whole foundation of your argument was incredibly narrow and misguided from the beginning.

But I didn't base my entire opposing argument on personal attacks, I provided my argument at the same time.

You however... your way of entirely disregarding a topic is by focusing on the other person. YOU ceased the chain of replies that stemmed from the topic, and you initiated this ridiculous little personal quarrel happening right now.

It's just hilarious that you'd accuse me of ad hominem when your entire tactic has become ad hominem.

Read! Read things.

what things!

Books, articles from military-related websites etc..... they are magical things.

If you don't want to be called an idiot, don't dive headfirst into an argument when you haven't even gained any background understanding of the very topic you're trying to endorse a stance on.

Difference is I wouldn't call them an idiot.......
And therein lies the problem.

Well we have no point of reference to validate that because you've never been in a position where you've corrected someone on such a fundamentally relevant issue within a topic. However, based on your previous tactics... you'd probably just go talk shit about them in a different thread.

You won't catch me making an ad hominem argument by saying "you're an idiot because".....not in a million years.

Haha, instead you use the ad hominem tactic of entirely derailing the topic and focusing as your sole source of subsequent argument, on the popularity of the opponent, or what you consider to be their negative personality traits.

"you're an idiot because...."...
Please, the only person I've seen make these arguments is you. YOU'RE the one who constantly tries to 'prove' the idiocy of the other person using "facts", basing entire arguments around the fact that they're "Uneducated" therefore their opinion is invalid.

I don't base my entire argument around it and you know it. I won't refuse to provide any facts or thought-out logic, by focusing on the other person as the sole source of argument. But that's what you do... If the argument doesn't go the way you like it, you're going to find some way of drawing attention away from the actual substance of it. And then, after you've retreated from the argument you're going to further try and cope with your residual negative feelings by bringing it up in an entirely unrelated topic.

You've done this several times. I've seen you bring me up in other topics SEVERAL times, thus showing you need to find some other outlet to cope with a political argument.

I'm calling you an asshole now because that's my opinion of you. It has no bearing on anything relevant, it is simply my understanding of who you are as a person....an arrogant, conceited, condescending crazy bastard who I really wish wasn't American.

You're an uneducated, cowardly, dishonest, imbecile who acts as a testiment to the that Americans are getting perpetually dumber, irregardless of whatever education they have (claim to have). I may come across as arrogant, but that's within the context of a political argument. Unlike you, I don't have to try and make myself feel better about a political topic by bringing it up to other people for moral support.

You're like the little drama queen in highschool.

There's a difference between not walking on eggshells, and going out of the way to prove one's inadequacies in the given subject area as a means of discrediting their opinion.

I didn't go out of my way, I identified a gigantic thinking error within your logic that caused the very pretext of your analogies and subsequent conclusions to be moot.

People don't respect you cause you're a pompous ass.

Respect from people who are equally dumb as you doesn't affect me.

It makes me laugh that in an argument about Iran and Iraq... you have to use the fact that people (who have been disproved in arguments by me as well) and their opinions means something. Lol.

---

If you don't want to be called an idiot, don't dive headfirst into an argument when you haven't even gained any background understanding of the very topic you're trying to endorse a stance on.

Believe it or not, despite the fact I don't have any degree, I'm still allowed to endorse a stance on a topic, and debate it, headfirst or not. I like learning new things every day, and I actually do sometimes come off of here and gain something.

I've seen you bring me up in other topics SEVERAL times

And I have a laugh riot doing it too. I've brought you up in several PMs as well, and the response is always the same, "Cellardoor? Yeah, he's an arrogant jackass".

You're an uneducated, cowardly, dishonest, imbecile

Alright, you just lost the privilege of a response. I'm not gonna tolerate that any longer. It was cute at first, and listening to the things you type became comical after a while (I still laugh at the reference you made of yourself as a "sponge of knowledge", and the statement that "I'm not arrogant, I KNOW I'm smart, I'm just confident"). But you sound like a broken record, and everyone you come up against is a "disingenuous, uneducated, lying, pathetic human being".

Everyone is "pathetic", everyone is "uneducated", everyone is "disingenuous". But I'll keep in mind I'm wrong when I call you a jackass, and so is everyone else, because after all, they're all "uneducated, disingenuous, lying, pathetic human beings".

And for the rest of your drivel:

Whatever you say cellypoo.

I'm with Demosthenez, I'm done with you.

---

At 9/25/07 01:12 AM, Imperator wrote:

If you don't want to be called an idiot, don't dive headfirst into an argument when you haven't even gained any background understanding of the very topic you're trying to endorse a stance on.

Believe it or not, despite the fact I don't have any degree, I'm still allowed to endorse a stance on a topic, and debate it, headfirst or not.

Then people are allowed to comment on how idiotic something you say is.

I've seen you bring me up in other topics SEVERAL times

And I have a laugh riot doing it too. I've brought you up in several PMs as well, and the response is always the same, "Cellardoor? Yeah, he's an arrogant jackass".

I rest my case, you have to appeal to popularity in a discussion about a political issue.

Is your real life so awful that you have to take solace in how people think about you on newgrounds?

Alright, you just lost the privilege of a response. I'm not gonna tolerate that any longer. It was cute at first, and listening to the things you type became comical after a while (I still laugh at the reference you made of yourself as a "sponge of knowledge", and the statement that "I'm not arrogant, I KNOW I'm smart, I'm just confident"). But you sound like a broken record, and everyone you come up against is a "disingenuous, uneducated, lying, pathetic human being".

Those traits are pretty typical for people on NG, especially the ones who to focus their attention on me now as their way of coping with, or avoiding arguments they'll lose.

And for the rest of your drivel:

Whatever you say cellypoo.

I'm with Demosthenez, I'm done with you.

Haha because you lost an argument about Iraq and Iran...

Meh, I'm going to laugh next time you ignore a topic and start posting about me... I don't think you'll be able to stop, because you're quite obsessed with me based on your behavior... you not only bring me up in irrelevant topics, but you also have to talk about me in PMs, as you've admitted.

You're a sad little puppy.