Who here is prepared to admit when they have made a pig's ear of an argument or have just been out debated on something. I know I have had to admit this at least once. Anyone else?
I'm curious because if one hasn't admitted that someone has actually got a stronger point than yours then how can we say we are being fair and objective?
Originally posted by knightmeisterDoctorScribbles, vistesd, no1marauder, and most frequently bbarr have
Who here is prepared to admit when they have made a pig's ear of an argument or have just been out debated on something. I know I have had to admit this at least once. Anyone else?
I'm curious because if one hasn't admitted that someone has actually got a stronger point than yours then how can we say we are being fair and objective?
routinely demonstrated holes in my arguments -- sometimes illustrating
minor inconsistencies, other times obligating me to abandon my tenets
wholesale.
Twitehead, LemonJello, Starrman and a few others have posted things
which have caused me to re-evaluate things that I haven't posted on;
that is, I wasn't participating in any discussion, debate, or argument, but
had I been, I would have been in error.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a few people.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterOh ya! Me too. I even thought of starting a thread once enumerating how much I have learned about how I think and how to better frame my arguments. I think I have come a long way since I first started posting in here a year ago.
Who here is prepared to admit when they have made a pig's ear of an argument or have just been out debated on something. I know I have had to admit this at least once. Anyone else?
I'm curious because if one hasn't admitted that someone has actually got a stronger point than yours then how can we say we are being fair and objective?
I think that on a debate level I've been beat most of the time. 😳
I too have had to concede I have been wrong on a couple of occasions, I remember Twitehead caught me out once when I was preparing my deathblow to some theist argument long since forgotton. I delivered a point, he jumped in and challenged it, I tried to defend it, he challenged it some more, and I had to realise my position was untenable so I conceded the point. This illustrates the fact that atheists aren't on a mission to attack theists, more we seek to reveal flawed arguments for what they are...flawed (regardless of who makes them). It just so happens that many theist arguments fall into this category.
Originally posted by knightmeisterwho here is not human?
Who here is prepared to admit when they have made a pig's ear of an argument or have just been out debated on something. I know I have had to admit this at least once. Anyone else?
I'm curious because if one hasn't admitted that someone has actually got a stronger point than yours then how can we say we are being fair and objective?
we have all made mistakes....
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy posts often require numerous edits.
Who here is prepared to admit when they have made a pig's ear of an argument or have just been out debated on something. I know I have had to admit this at least once. Anyone else?
I'm curious because if one hasn't admitted that someone has actually got a stronger point than yours then how can we say we are being fair and objective?
Originally posted by knightmeisterYeah, I hate doing it, but it's not an infrequent occurrence. Sometimes I just keep quiet thereafter, wallowing in my untenability.
Who here is prepared to admit when they have made a pig's ear of an argument or have just been out debated on something. I know I have had to admit this at least once. Anyone else?
I'm curious because if one hasn't admitted that someone has actually got a stronger point than yours then how can we say we are being fair and objective?
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy commonest error is to misunderstand what someone is saying. I try to admit it when I know that has happened. I also try to ensure that I have got it right by rephrasing their statements - but sadly that often comes across as 'mind reading'.
Who here is prepared to admit when they have made a pig's ear of an argument or have just been out debated on something. I know I have had to admit this at least once. Anyone else?
I'm curious because if one hasn't admitted that someone has actually got a stronger point than yours then how can we say we are being fair and objective?
I do find that my views change during the course of a discussion, as I get to think about it deeper, and there have definitely been times when I have been wrong, and I do try to admit it when I am.
What annoys me the most is people who have been essentially proved wrong on given points, who not only refuse to admit it, but keep repeating their clearly flawed argument over and over in every thread. Sometimes it is not so much an argument that is the issue but rather terminology that someone is intentionally using wrongly. For example, using the word evolution to mean either The Theory of Evolution or Abiogenesis. Anyone who denies that evolution takes place is outright wrong and plainly so and they almost certainly know it, but posters who are clearly educated enough to know it, still make statements to that effect.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIntellectual dishonesty is lying to yourself.
Who here is prepared to admit when they have made a pig's ear of an argument or have just been out debated on something. I know I have had to admit this at least once. Anyone else?
I'm curious because if one hasn't admitted that someone has actually got a stronger point than yours then how can we say we are being fair and objective?