• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Quag and the Angel: a dialogue

Angel said:
No bait and switch, no styrawman -- I simply accept your argument on the on hand and rely on the same argument on the other.

Your argument: "mine is a generally accepted meaning of the word found in a dictionary and I rely on that meaning because that is what I mean to say in my statement" is exactly, word for word, my argument.

Your own argument, adopted by your opponent, results in the impossibility of any further discussion about arguments.
Click to expand...

You are accepting my statement then trying to insert your definition of belief into it in order to avoid any actual discussion
Ie you are making a strawman.
Teh failure to have any meaningful discussion lays at your feet.
 
Quag said:
You are accepting my statement then trying to insert your definition of belief into it in order to avoid any actual discussion
Ie you are making a strawman.
Teh failure to have any meaningful discussion lays at your feet.
Click to expand...

Please pay attention:
1. I am accepting your statement
2. I am accepting your argument in support of that statement.
3. I am borrowing your argument to support my own statement.

Must I spell it out for you? Jesus Christ!

Quag's Claim and Reasons
1. Quag claims that Angel's premises are nothing more than Angel's beliefs and therefore just Angel's opinions.
2. Quag defines belief according to a dictionary definition that defines belief as opinion.
3. Quag defends his choice of definition for the reason that the definition accords with the meaning Quag intends to convey in his claim.

Angel's Claim and Reasons
1. Angel claims that all premises are beliefs.
2. Angel defines belief according to a dictionary definition that defines belief as the mental acceptance of a statement.
3. Angel defends his choice of definition for the reason that the definition accords with the meaning Angel intends to convey in his claim.

Attention Quag
The reasoning offered is the same in both cases, the reasons used to support the claims of both Quag and Angel are identical -- they are Quag's reasons, Quag's reasoning.

Point
Your reasoning puts an end to discussion. If all beliefs are only opinions and all premises are beliefs, then all counter-argumentation is pointless and all discussion at an end.
 
Angel said:
Please pay attention:
1. I am accepting your statement
2. I am accepting your argument in support of that statement.
3. I am borrowing your argument to support my own statement.

Must I spell it out for you? Jesus Christ!

Quag's Claim and Reasons
1. Quag claims that Angel's premises are nothing more than Angel's beliefs and therefore just Angel's opinions.
2. Quag defines belief according to a dictionary definition that defines belief as opinion.
3. Quag defends his choice of definition for the reason that the definition accords with the meaning Quag intends to convey in his claim.

Angel's Claim and Reasons
1. Angel claims that all premises are beliefs.
2. Angel defines belief according to a dictionary definition that defines belief as the mental acceptance of a statement.
3. Angel defends his choice of definition for the reason that the definition accords with the meaning Angel intends to convey in his claim.

Attention Quag
The reasoning offered is the same in both cases, the reasons used to support the claims of both Quag and Angel are identical -- they are Quag's reasons, Quag's reasoning.

Point
Your reasoning puts an end to discussion. If all beliefs are only opinions and all premises are beliefs, then all counter-argumentation is pointless and all discussion at an end.
Click to expand...

Thanx for making your strawman very clear to anyone reading this thread
A2 and B2 are different definitions of belief
Your point is based trying to make A2 into B2. The discussion is at an end because you refuse to engage preferring to make strawmen
 
Quag said:
Thanx for making your strawman very clear to anyone reading this thread
A2 and B2 are different definitions of belief
Your point is based trying to make A2 into B2. The discussion is at an end because you refuse to engage preferring to make strawmen
Click to expand...
Yes, different dictionary definitions justified a la Quag. And the discussion ends, stalled by Quag's unchallengeable reasoning.
 
Angel said:
Yes, different dictionary definitions justified a la Quag. And the discussion ends, stalled by Quag's unchallengeable reasoning.
Click to expand...

No it ends because of your continued attempts to make a strawman
 
Quag said:
No it ends because of your continued attempts to make a strawman
Click to expand...
What don't you understand about this?

Quag
1. Angel's premises are merely personal beliefs.
2. Beliefs are only opinions.
3. The dictionary says so.
4. I choose the dictionary definition that accords with what I mean to say.

Angel
1. All premises are beliefs.
2. Belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.
3. The dictionary says so,
4. I choose the dictionary definition that accords with what I mean to say.
 
Angel said:
What don't you understand about this?

Quag
1. Angel's premises are merely personal beliefs.
2. Beliefs are only opinions.
3. The dictionary says so.
4. I choose the dictionary definition that accords with what I mean to say.

Angel
1. All premises are beliefs.
2. Belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.
3. The dictionary says so,
4. I choose the dictionary definition that accords with what I mean to say.
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly, you are trying to insert your definition into my statement then claim that is what I am saying
Ie you are trying to make a strawman
 
Angel said:
What don't you understand about this?

Quag
1. Angel's premises are merely personal beliefs.
2. Beliefs are only opinions.
3. The dictionary says so.
4. I choose the dictionary definition that accords with what I mean to say.

Angel
1. All premises are beliefs.
2. Belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.
3. The dictionary says so,
4. I choose the dictionary definition that accords with what I mean to say.
Click to expand...

Quag said:
I understand it perfectly, you are trying to insert your definition into my statement then claim that is what I am saying
Ie you are trying to make a strawman
Click to expand...
You apparently understand nothing. I am not inserting anything into anything. Your claim and argument are accepted as is, and my claim relies on the exact same argument as your claim, and neither claim contradicts the other, and as a result your argument has made argument futile. Your way of thinking has put an end to thought.
 
Angel said:
You apparently understand nothing. I am not inserting anything into anything. Your claim and argument are accepted as is, and my claim relies on the exact same argument as your claim, and neither claim contradicts the other, and as a result your argument has made argument futile. Your way of thinking has put an end to thought.
Click to expand...

Yes you are you are claiming my statement makes discussion impossible but that is based on inserting your definition into my statement
That's IS making a strawman
 
Quag said:
Yes you are you are claiming my statement makes discussion impossible but that is based on inserting your definition into my statement
That's IS making a strawman
Click to expand...
Read my lips: I accept your statement and argument as is -- your definition in your statement, accepted. Got it?
 
Angel said:
Read my lips: I accept your statement and argument as is -- your definition in your statement, accepted. Got it?
Click to expand...

Yet you persist in claiming my statement ends the discussion based on your definition. That is the strawman
 
Quag said:
Yet you persist in claiming my statement ends the discussion based on your definition. That is the strawman
Click to expand...
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I accept your claim about belief and your reasons in support of the claim.
I make my own claim about belief and rely on your reasons in support of my claim.
Our two claims are not contradictory; indeed they compliment each other.
Our reasons in support of our claims is the same, i.e., your reasons.
But any discussion about any argument is, as a result of the reasoning used to support our claims (i.e., your reasoning in both cases), made pointless.

If belief is mere opinion and all premises are beliefs, arguments cannot be contested.
 
Angel said:
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I accept your claim about belief and your reasons in support of the claim.
I make my own claim about belief and rely on your reasons in support of my claim.
Our two claims are not contradictory; indeed they compliment each other.
Our reasons in support of our claims is the same, i.e., your reasons.
But any discussion about any argument is, as a result of the reasoning used to support our claims (i.e., your reasoning in both cases), made pointless.

If belief is mere opinion and all premises are beliefs, arguments cannot be contested.
Click to expand...

You are inserting your definition into my statement then claiming that my statement makes discussion impossible
That is a strawman.
As long as you make this strawman I will point it out and that the ONLY reason we cannot have a discussion is be cause you refuse to engage honestly
 
Quag said:
You are inserting your definition into my statement then claiming that my statement makes discussion impossible
That is a strawman.
As long as you make this strawman I will point it out and that the ONLY reason we cannot have a discussion is be cause you refuse to engage honestly
Click to expand...
Read again. I'm accepting your statement. How many times must I post this before it registers with you?
Read again. I'm not claiming your statement makes discussion futile -- I'm saying you reasoning makes discussion futile. How many times must I post this before it registers with you?
The "strawman" you keep posting about doesn't exist -- it's your excuse for not taking responsibility for your reasoning.
 
Angel said:
Read again. I'm accepting your statement. How many times must I post this before it registers with you?
Read again. I'm not claiming your statement makes discussion futile -- I'm saying you reasoning makes discussion futile. How many times must I post this before it registers with you?
The "strawman" you keep posting about doesn't exist -- it's your excuse for not taking responsibility for your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Yes it does because you are inserting your definition into my statement. See your post 327

This is my statement
An argument whose premise is a belief results in a conclusion that is nothing more than a belief?<

This is your claims
Angel's Claim and Reasons
1. Angel claims that all premises are beliefs.
2. Angel defines belief according to a dictionary definition that defines belief as the mental acceptance of a statement.
3. Angel defends his choice of definition for the reason that the definition accords with the meaning Angel intends to convey in his claim.


You are then inserting the above definition of belief into my statement making the following strawman

An argument whose "premise" aka "belief as defined by Angel" is a "belief" as per Quag, results in a conclusion that is nothing more than a "belief" as per Quag
 
Quag said:
Yes it does because you are inserting your definition into my statement. See your post 327

This is my statement
An argument whose premise is a belief results in a conclusion that is nothing more than a belief?<

This is your claims
Angel's Claim and Reasons
1. Angel claims that all premises are beliefs.
2. Angel defines belief according to a dictionary definition that defines belief as the mental acceptance of a statement.
3. Angel defends his choice of definition for the reason that the definition accords with the meaning Angel intends to convey in his claim.


You are then inserting the above definition of belief into my statement making the following strawman

An argument whose "premise" aka "belief as defined by Angel" is a "belief" as per Quag, results in a conclusion that is nothing more than a "belief" as per Quag
Click to expand...
Re-read your own post -- you make my point.
Angel's definition is used to support Angel's claim that all premises are beliefs.
 
Angel said:
Re-read your own post -- you make my point.
Angel's definition is used to support Angel's claim that all premises are beliefs.
Click to expand...
Nonsense your point is to try and make a strawman. You have been trying that since this thread started
 
R7rhg5X.jpg
 
Curious title wording "Quag and (the?) Angel: a dialogue"

If ALL premises are nothing more than a belief, I wholly agree.
Therefore the definition of God is but an unproven/unprovable premise which results in Gods "real" existence unproven/unprovable.

A quote attributed to Poe comes to mind "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see."
The curious mind prevents illusions from becoming delusions.
 
Individual said:
Curious title wording "Quag and (the?) Angel: a dialogue"

If ALL premises are nothing more than a belief, I wholly agree.
Therefore the definition of God is but an unproven/unprovable premise which results in Gods "real" existence unproven/unprovable.

A quote attributed to Poe comes to mind "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see."
The curious mind prevents illusions from becoming delusions.
Click to expand...
You're confusing proof and certainty.
What's more, you're conflating two different theses from this thread:
Quag's "belief is nothing more than opinion" and Angel's "all premises are beliefs."
Do you see what you've done?
That was a question, by the way.
 
Angel said:
You're confusing proof and certainty.
What's more, you're conflating two different theses from this thread:
Quag's "belief is nothing more than opinion" and Angel's "all premises are beliefs."
Do you see what you've done?
That was a question, by the way.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I've stated that what you find adequate as proof is acceptable to me for YOUR belief, but without certainty it fails for MY belief.

I don't recall using the word opinion in my post.

What I've done is post a response to the thread you created, based on your words alone "Angel's definition is used to support Angel's claim that all premises are beliefs." NOT anything at all Quag might have said.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what you've done before pressing "Submit Reply" each time you attempt a response.

That was a suggestion, by the way.
 
Individual said:
Not at all, I've stated that what you find adequate as proof is acceptable to me for YOUR belief, but without certainty it fails for MY belief.

I don't recall using the word opinion in my post.

What I've done is post a response to the thread you created, based on your words alone "Angel's definition is used to support Angel's claim that all premises are beliefs." NOT anything at all Quag might have said.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what you've done before pressing "Submit Reply" each time you attempt a response.

That was a suggestion, by the way.
Click to expand...
You have never stated what you claim you've stated. I just gave you the word and concept "certainty" in my previous post.

If you're not merging Quag's nonsense into the mix, tell me where you get the "nothing more than" terminology in your post #345?
The previous sentence is a question by the way.
 
Angel said:
You have never stated what you claim you've stated. I just gave you the word and concept "certainty" in my previous post.

If you're not merging Quag's nonsense into the mix, tell me where you get the "nothing more than" terminology in your post #345?
The previous sentence is a question by the way.
Click to expand...

MY words "Not at all, I've stated that what you find adequate as proof is acceptable to me for YOUR belief,
but without certainty it fails for MY belief." <-- quote
You are free to exercise belief for reasons you feel to suffice, while I and others are, or at least should be, free to exercise non-belief for reasons we feel to suffice.

From YOUR post #341,
Angel said:
Angel's definition is used to support Angel's claim that all premises are beliefs.
Click to expand...

For me that can ONLY mean that any drawn conclusion can be no more than a strong belief, NOT a proven/provable fact.
 
Angel said:
You lose. Goodbye.
Click to expand...

No you lost Angel your strawman was rejected and that's all you have ever tried to do in this thread You may run away now like you always do knowing that you failed like you always do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom