Usually true. I see it on here all the time. Usually from fundies and conservatives, who resort to name-calling and insults when evidence proves them wrong. (Usually on issues of human sexuality and politics.)True or False: In Arguing Religious beliefs, the weaker argument is probably the one with insults?
False. Using insults is no indication of the strength of a person's arguments. In some cases, ridicule is an effective tool to get some points across, especially if the ridicule is based in reality. For example, in the case of creationism, the creationist has committed themselves to ignorantly rejecting hard evidence and to believing everything that other creationists assert. About the only way to deal with this is to point out that they are willfully ignorant and no different than flat earthers.
If the question is whose argument is weaker then it would be the person hurling insults. Insults don't explain anything. The argument itself has nothing to do with who is right. In the technical sense, argumentation is the science of debate with logic and bringing your opponent over to your point of view. It's not the science of ';who ever is funniest wins.';
That depends. If all that is left is to insult the speaker, well that`s a fallacy (ad hominem)
However, if someone puts forth an argument that is preposterous and unacceptable at every premise and you choose to insult that, well, that`s just being witty.
Basically, one should attack the argument, not the person.
first question's answer is true
second question (while perhaps rhetorical) is false. truth is not dependent on feelings.
people who sling insults generally feel very strongly about their beliefs. however, if their beliefs were realistic, then according to reason, they could present the counter-argument instead of the insult and not look like a bafoon.
Very true.
no need for praise or insult,just present the facts and form own opinion based on the facts presented.It is up to the others to judge whether the idea is reasonable.
Reasonable does not always mean acceptable,but, to force unreasonable idea onto others is worst.
Of course, any thing I say might insult you, if we were to argue...this being said, I do not agree with your premise. To argue is to insult, this why it is better to discuss. The strength of disagreement is not based upon insult...but truth.
If this insults you, I am sorry...but I feel it is true....
God reveals.
Christ declares the truth.
No room for any argument.
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
You mean like when you said that all poor people should abort their kids so we'd have fewer criminals and dirty people in the world? I'll take a few foul words over Nazism any day. You don't win just because someone calls it like it is.
Definitely true. The person backing up the weaker argument is probably frustrated with the replies and has nothing left to say, so they might insult out of spite.
If they were well informed about their beliefs and had a strong conviction, yes then there would be know reason to insult. But sometimes little people make themselves feel special when they put other people down
I've seen some witty insults that make me laugh, but I do have to agree that sometimes it makes that side look very weak and immature
Usually true. But that weaker insult laden argument tends to be the most popular.
Insults are for children. If anyone would wish to have a discussion then that would be fine. If they insult me I know I have won.
Unless they are funny, smart, well founded insults.
That's true with any type of argument.
true.
insults= defensive/insecure
What is your argument? Let's see if there are any insults. Then I will answer true or false.
Not always.
Tell that to the atheists.
Atheists and Christians need to learn a lot from this.
True.
True.
well said insults are for the week
No comments:
Post a Comment