Meta Does the schlog have any pseudo-intelectuals?

pseudo-intellectual*
smugjak
>Writing 'pseudo intellectual' wrong
1000004890.png
 
What’s your basis for this claim?
He's obsessed with "debating" but he only engages with debating to "win", not to advance discourse or convince his opponent. Half the time he doesn't even try to engage with the debate topic and instead tries to rhetorically bully his opponent, ex: "What's going to be the basis for your doubt?" No one has ever had their mind changed after someone asked them to provide basis for their doubt. In warrior-z's mind, "winning" in a debate is when a judge from reddit says you won, not when your opponent has their mind changed or when discourse has been advanced
 
He's obsessed with "debating" but he only engages with debating to "win", not to advance discourse or convince his opponent. Half the time he doesn't even try to engage with the debate topic and instead tries to rhetorically bully his opponent, ex: "What's going to be the basis for your doubt?" No one has ever had their mind changed after someone asked them to provide basis for their doubt. In warrior-z's mind, "winning" in a debate is when a judge from reddit says you won, not when your opponent has their mind changed or when discourse has been advanced
Mad cuz you keep taking LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
 
He's obsessed with "debating" but he only engages with debating to "win",
That’s only when the debate starts falling into bad faith OR generally is bad faith.
not to advance discourse or convince his opponent
Been in several debate where I did in fact convince my opponents, and I’m not talking about larps, I’m talking about actual skinheads.
. Half the time he doesn't even try to engage with the debate topic
and instead tries to rhetorically bully his opponent, ex: "What's going to be the basis for your doubt?
Those are actual questions? That’s not rhetorical, what would be rhetorical if I actively point out small blunders to make myself look like I’m winning or constantly insulting you even at the most minute mistake.
" No one has ever had their mind changed after someone asked them to provide basis for their doubt.
Actually, that has happened since you’re getting to the meat of the bone and WHY they think that.
In warrior-z's mind, "winning" in a debate is when a judge from reddit says you won, not when your opponent has their mind changed or when discourse has been advanced
Both of these are wins depending on the context.
 
Anyone that thinks that factchecking someone on insignificant shit makes them super hecking smart and cool
 
That’s only when the debate starts falling into bad faith OR generally is bad faith.
There's no such thing as a good faith debate with you
Been in several debate where I did in fact convince my opponents, and I’m not talking about larps, I’m talking about actual skinheads.
yeah im sure your "KEEP TAKING LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" gambit is real convincing
if I actively point out small blunders to make myself look like I’m winning or constantly insulting you even at the most minute mistake.
You already do this
Actually, that has happened since you’re getting to the meat of the bone and WHY they think that.
Keep telling yourself that
Both of these are wins depending on the context.
:kek:
 
There's no such thing as a good faith debate with you
Take a look at the debates on my channel and you’d be disproven.
yeah im sure your "KEEP TAKING LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" gambit is real convincing
That’s a copy pasta.
You already do this
Only when it’s bad faith.
Keep telling yourself that
I mean are you saying it’s wrong?
:kek:
 
Back
Top