Re: Unacceptable -- Utah's Religion Debate

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:43:02 04/19/06 Wed
Author: Mormon 210
Subject: Re: Unacceptable
In reply to: Lord Veritas 's message, "Unacceptable" on 12:42:20 04/19/06 Wed

Your arguments are hyperbolic and full of logical fallacies.

Appeal to the People: You think that your some great debater although I see this as a guise to your real intent which is to prove that the LDS faith is wrong (which in and of itself injects bias into your analysis). Your purpose is not to find an answer to the question. In fact you explicitly state, that you want us to prove you wrong, sort of challenging our skills of debate and research.

Argue in circles: You base your arguments on issues not yet determined acceptable this way you can argue in circles to make us appear to be weak defenders of our position.

You appeal to logic fallacies of relevence so that your position may seem strengthened (I am such good debater you are stupid therefore you are wrong).

You inject red herrings so that participants can be diverted from the actual argument you presented (plausible is not relational to actual proof - so He was not married).

You constantly use the fallacy Argumentum Ad Ignorantium basically stating that since we are not able to provide you evidence we are not able to argue the case.

I submit to you, this question again - Prove to me He was or wasn't married based on acceptable forms of reference and I will bow down to your majesty the Lord Veritas.

The tool here is that we are debating, not building soap boxes from which to stand. The bottom line is that you are full of hot air. You are a simpleton in my opinion, your arguments are ill formed, you create greater problems and you don't realize transition. But, I am not going to cut you from the debate. I feel the question at hand is much more important than my ego.

Mormon 210

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]