you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

Why does the very first statement in your title contain an ad hominem, if you are trying to enforce the rules on to others? You know ad hominem is low on the pyramid of debate...

Walk the walk first, brother.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

The summarizing ad hominem title is further explained within the post. I'd agree that ad hominems without explanation are problematic, and as The Pyramid Of Debate says it's an attack of another's characteristics or authority but not the substance of the argument. Despite my mini-essay proposal not even being a debate, I presented sufficient explanations and citations including actual debate that explicitly refutes the central points of their bullshit.

Show me where I'm not walking the walk.

[–]magnora7 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The part where you said an ad hominem in your first line which you know is against the pyramid of debate. Stop doing that stuff if you want to be listened to when it comes to enforcing the rules on others.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I cannot agree more, M7. I think Carswell has a point in this post and ShalomEveryone's communications are pure poison, however that does not excuse such ad hominems. We have to be better than that. I personally have had some difficulties conforming to the Pyramid of Debate early on, but I think I am getting better at it, and want to thank you for this invaluable tool for higher quality discussion.