Implying if I call you an idiot while you're arguing like an idiot, I lose the debate

>implying if I call you an idiot while you're arguing like an idiot, I lose the debate

let's stop this nonsense once and for all.

>Losers resort to slander
>Therefor resorting to slander means you're a loser
>Potatoes are vegetables
>Therefore all vegetables are potatoes

You, sir, are an idiot.

If someone is arguing like an idiot then it should be easy to destroy them with a simple counter-argument. Just do that instead of making yourself look like a fool by stooping to ad hom garbage.

>argue that the sky appears blue to human beings
>other person disagrees
>"well here's all my data on the subject, you're an idiot if you don-"
>*ALARM RINGS*
>"oooooooo I'm sorry, looks like the sky doesn't appear blue after all" :^)

its only slander if its untrue

and if they don't acknowledge their defeat or don't want to because of pride? you call them a fucking idiot back for ignoring facts and not even listening to you and now they've suddenly won.

A fucking leaf thinking he can make an argument against Socrates in two sentences. Shut up you fucking faggot.

There's no need for it, it just makes you look emotionally disturbed, and it derails the conversation

agreed, its fine to call someone an idiot, just make sure to prove that they are an idiot too.

There's always a need to call idiots idiots.

Proof should be the most shit idiots regularly spew from their filthy mouths. Requires little effort on my part.

There really isn't. Even an idiot can be spoken to with civility, even if he isn't being civil himself.

You'll always get more out of it this way and you won't degrade yourself.

Plato always hated Socrates and his methods of arguing. Socratic method is just a pretense to making people speak in circles until they give up.

>There really isn't.
No, there really is. Leaf.

>Plato always hated Socrates and his methods of arguing
Plato idolized Socrates and used him as the protagonist of most of his dialogues

>t. brainlet

What purpose do you think it serves? It creates hostility, lowers the level of discourse, and gives you bad habits.

fuck off leaf shill

Potatoes are tubers.

Some humans can't see the colour blue buddy, so obviously you were wrong all along and Socrates was correct in suggesting that losers only use insults to obfuscate weak or incorrect arguments.

what did you just say about potatoes, nigger?

>It creates hostility
Oh no!

>lowers the level of discourse
The discourse is already lowered due to there being an idiot on one side.

>and gives you bad habits
What habits are these?

Go tuck your feelings away in a box.

>Some humans can't see the colour blue buddy
Broken humans.

An honest idiot can have a much more fruitful discussion than a deceitful but intelligent person. It is rarely intellectual capacity that prevents somebody from seeing the truth.

The bad habits are the desire to put people down, which is almost always due to one's own insecurity, or with some people a native sadism. Both of these should be avoided obviously. It also speaks to a sort of intellectual incontinence, the person seems not in control of their speech, blurting out in random directions rather than following a measured course.

You still haven't explained what purpose you think it serves. The only conceivable purpose I can see is to bring someone down whose arguments are bad, but this can easily be done without insults by adressing what he is actually saying.

Insults aren't themselves bad while debating but using a an insult to avoid making an argument is bad, example
>b says "polish people aren't white, they are unevolved toasters "
>p anwsers " what do you know about whites? You are a nigger go eat a banana, POLSKA SILNA "

>The bad habits are the desire to put people down, which is almost always due to one's own insecurity, or with some people a native sadism.
This is a "he's making fun of you for being gay because he's secretly gay" tier argument which is based on absolutely nothing.

Hurt feelings don't change inherent truth.

and the rest of my post?

The purpose it serves is to let the idiot and others around him know he is an idiot. It's that simple.

And you don't think that can be done better by argument?

I'm also not sure why you think you need to bring idiots down in this manner. Let's be real here anyway, you don't mean 'idiot'. You mean someone who is less intelligent than you, and is making a bad argument but who still probably has a 100+ IQ. Are these people just not supposed to speak?

If your motivation isn't insecurity nor sadism, it is ostensibly some sort of public good, in which case you should agree that you could accomplish more by addressing his arguments- if you do this in a polite way he might even concede the point, and then those around will be aware that you are the more intelligent person in the discussion, which was your original desire, and they will also be more likely to follow your line of reasoning, seeing your opponent having acquiesced.

>And you don't think that can be done better by argument?
I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm saying insulting someone doesn't make your argument void.

Nah m8 it's the difference between.
"x is false because of y and z, mongrel"
and
"x is false because you're a mongoloid, faggot"

That's the country where potatoes come from you idiot

Both of those arguments appear wrong to those with easily hurt feelings.

People on the internet have a hard time understanding what a logical fallacy is and overuse it in the stead of good counter arguments. A fallacy is merely a gap in the logic chain that one needs to fill in order to make their argument valid, not some sort of pitfall in which someone says something that can be construed as a fallacy in a limited scope and thus loses the argument entirely.

For instance of someone points to a correlation between two things AND also provides and explanation with some evidence to what causes the correlation, the opponent can't just ignore the second half and accuse that person of the "correlation =/= causation" fallacy for the first half of the argument.

Or if someone writes a dissertation tier rebuttal, but then ends it by claiming the person as wrong in their assessment because they are a jew, a response of "ad hom" doesn't disprove the body of argumentation and evidence provided.

Or even if someone makes a naked fallacy and is called out, it doesn't mean the argument is over, merely that the person needs to provide addition evidence to support their claim and fill in that gap in the logic chain.

I see this type of thing abused here and on youtube comment sections, especially in the /ibs/ youtube video comment sections. It is high school level argumentation indicative of a certain rational individualist collective that is engaging in many of the debates. It is so bad there is a fallacy for it called the "fallacy fallacy".

But they aren't.
Well just the second one

Well obviously not, but it's like you're purposely trying not to see what Socrates is saying.

Although desu I don't really agree, when people start losing arguments usually what they do is start arguing against something the other person isn't even saying.

Calling someone a racist works way better at winning an argument than calling them an idiot. You can't even troll right.

Any kind of "ist" will do, really

Slander: a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or the making of such a statement
It's not slander if it's true.
/thread

Hm, so when we call leafs faggots it's not slander.

well, fuck their feelings

What you're advocating works on anonymous Filipino hog-flogging chatrooms where ad hom can serve to fluster a shill or newfag, but that tact and presumption will fail you anywhere else that actually matters.