What actually IS an argument?

what actually IS an argument?

Other urls found in this thread:

reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL
reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b7nho/reuters_reports_the_clinton_foundation_confirms/
peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/11/04/election-fraud-broward-county-officials-caught-ballot-stuffing-destroying-ballots/
youtube.com/watch?v=CBY0bZWKehQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

...

...

Some say that Stefan is still searching for the One Argument to this day.

What he doesn't know is somewhere out there, is a New Zealander who has the One Argument hidden away in a cupboard, unaware of it's true, insidious nature. It won't be able to rest there, though. The One Argument yearns for Stefan, it's rightful master. Should Stefan get his hands on it, there will be dark days ahead for all mankind.

One or more premises and one or more conclusions that follow logically from the premise(s).

Convoluted metaphors and similes.

so like, because you are into gay shit that means you're a fag?

it's not

Calling people cucks.

Calling someone a nigger

and if that doesn't work, a cuck

Damn his impression of Mussolini is pretty close.

...

It's when you refute a point with a statement that makes use of facts/logic/data that are actually related to the point.

e.g.
Trump sais immigration is bad because of crime, welfare, job theft.

>Immigration is good because Trump is a racist
not an argument

>Immigration is good because women will be affraid of all the rape and stay home and get back in the kitchen.
an arugment

...

this sure as hell isnt

>>Immigration is good because women will be affraid of all the rape and stay home and get back in the kitchen.
but this one actually makes use of logic. it's an argument, just not a conclusion you agree with.

An argument is a logical conclusion you draw from a premise and has a logical connection to the issue you're trying to argue about. A fallacy either builds upon a faulty premise, like drawing a conclusion from something that has no logical connection to the point of argument.

So in context of the "not an argument" argument it's possible for it to be really a fallacy if the argument id adresses actually was an argument, rather than not.

[speaks in fascism]

An argument is something that is based on facts (or first principles), aims to prove (or disprove) a point.
A good argument is furthermore solidly built on logic, and thus cannot be fallacious.

Kek'd heartily

Not. Just not.

YOU STUPID FUCKING SHIT FOR BRAINS. STOP LETTING THIS SLIDE.

ACTUAL CONFESSION OF GUILT FROM THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN TO LYING AND BRIBERY IN OFFICE:
reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL
→ → → → → →
Go to- reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b7nho/reuters_reports_the_clinton_foundation_confirms/
-and upvote it and do your part to destroy the Clinton Regime!

ELECTION FRAUD IN BROWARD COUNTY FL BY DEMOCRATS:
→ → → → →
peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/11/04/election-fraud-broward-county-officials-caught-ballot-stuffing-destroying-ballots/

SPREAD THIS!!!!!

so if i say not an argument to your argument my argument is actually not an argument

A white male invention to denigrate the feelings of women and minorities.

They say once you use the One Argument, it takes control over you.. you get addicted to it. YOu win every discussion, it is like a dark curse. it is too evil.. the only way to destroy it, is to travel to the depths of Vancouver and toss it into the fiery pits of Discourse Mountain

True.

Elaboration of the derivation of conclusions from first principles.

don't i?

An argument is an attempt to reach a conclusion based on reason, for example:

>OP is a fag
is not an argument, as it does not invoke any logical cause for OPs faggotry.

>OP suck cocks and therefore is a fag
is an argument. It cites widely known evidence of OP being a faggot, which can logically inform that conclusion.

Tiring of the misuse of this meme, not everything is supposed to be an argument.

Well if the first argument wasn't an argument then do you have a point.
Your argument in that case would be that whatever the other guy fallaciously said isn't actually true, or sound.

I.e. you're pointing out a fact.

this is literally an argument

I think that's exactly what people try to point out when they say, not an argument.

you can't argue with a non-argument. All you can do is assert that it is not an argument

Why the fuck is he talking about Sup Forums and anonymous in public?!
Reeeeeee!

Contradiction.

It helps though to point out why something isn't an argument, unless you assume the other person is aware about it being a non-argument and really is just a sophist.

If you believe your non-argument was an argument rather than a fallacy, because you fail to see the illogic, "not an argument" will seem like a non-argument to you even though it's true.

At minimum, it's two statements, one of which is a premise supporting the other.

Further I would proclaim that "not an argument" isn't really an argument because just by saying it's not really clear why it's a fallacy and therefor doesn't contribute to the progress of the discussion, as an exchange of arguments in attempt in moving towards the truth of a matter, but rather functions as a rhetorical instrument that's main purpose is to shut down the other side, despite it maybe being true.

/thread

fake, unfortunately.

>implying he never ever explains what an argument is
>implying he never usually explains WHY that's not an argument

He said at least once that he sometimes go to the comment section and points out non-arguments just to essentially "educate" people. I talk a lot with my friends and sometimes I make rhetorical mistakes. If they point out that that's not an argument, I thank them because it's obviously not something that I wish to be doing. Thus, pointing out a non-argument is actually very helpful in a discussion, because you're helping the other person to identify the mistakes in his/her logic.

This is correct

His not an argument is in response to comments like "Trump is Hitler".

1) He literally isn't
2) If you are trying to make correlations then make them

Other examples would include "I don't want a Cheeto for a president." That is not something you can say in response during a discussion about the current political climate and expect to get anywhere.

How this baldy fuck got popular I have no idea, his voice and mannerisms drive me insane. He just seems like a massive tool.

Not an argument

Exactly what I was thinking.

Spanking your child is proper raising. Christianity is the truth of this world. Otherwise, I like Stef.

If you hit your kid under the age of ~4-5 you're despicable. They literally lack the brain capacity to understand anything that they are doing.

Now I do believe that after a certain age, when the kid is capable to understand that bad actions have consequences (and WHAT those bad actions actually ARE), and can reasonably distinguish between these actions, that you should punish them.

>If you hit your kid under the age of ~4-5 you're despicable

I think that goes without question my friend.

Sup Forums sticky will help you figuring it out

>claim
>grounds
>warrant

Well according to one study (though many others have brought up similar numbers), ~74% of mothers think spanking 1-3 year olds is acceptable.

So no, it apparently doesn't go without question. I can't even fathom. Spanking a 1 year old? What the fuck can even that kid do at that point? I don't even think it's capable of switching from his back to his belly, much less doing any mischief requiring punishment.
What do you even spank that kid for? For shitting their pants?

>So Sup Forums told me everything's on the Jews
>Wait a minute, media, banks..
>Looks like Adolf was right

Define "hit". Small children are incapable of understanding reason, or consequences unless they're immediate. A quick swat on the hand or back of the thigh to let them know they're about to get even more hurt is usually enough to teach.

...

Something that is alleged as true but leaves room to be proven false whether by lack of presented fact or ignorance, or just based on pure subjectivity.


Arguments can be extremely helpful of all sides of the argument are comitted to discovering the truth and then abiding by it.

All my kids were not only walking, but running and climbing before they were 1. They can get in a lot of mischief.

women should never be the ones to issue punishment, they let emotion get too involved and are incapable of being impartial or even accepting blame most of the time.

What did Molyjew mean by this?

violence is the best argument, when you kill your opponent his arguments die with him

So? Just because they can crawl around doesn't mean they know wtf they're doing.

>falling for the epistemological jew

Socrates is a man, and men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

something based on empirical evidence and logic.

Inductive or deductive?

Rules change for each type and their sub-argument variants.

Wrong. Can you empirically verify that statement, faggot?

Kek

Yes, he can. Logic is well-defined in mathematics, and the case for requiring empirical evidence for theories can also easily be made.

best lesson I ever had was a punch in my cocky, no it all face when I was 13.

see

p implies q
p
therefore q

definitions and proof.

I bet this is from the flat earth vid

>Logic is well-defined in mathematics
Mathematics is not material
Material is used to represent maths but maths is not used to represent material.
>requiring empirical evidence for theories can also easily be made
except for that it cant because it is self refuting, not to mention any sort explanation could pass because it doesn't need to fit a rational criteria but need only be interpreted to fit the evidence.

You'd do much better if you took into account data and actually learned epistemology and formal logic.

prove it

That hispanic's not a race and that he blames mestizo crimes on the spanish man

>itt autism

Let's say we know that
a = b
We also know that
a = 5

therefore
b = 5

Are you saying that you're not accepting this?

>Let's say we know that
lets say we don't.
Or how about we prove that first?

>We also know that
So we are presupposing instead of proving?

>therefore
>b = 5
>therefore
>THEREFORE
What's the necessary connection and why is it necessary?


>Are you saying that you're not accepting this?
Cut out the "that" it's not necessary.
I am saying I want you to prove your claims.

gotta get to 10000000 somehow

kek fucking retard

Stefan "the Libertarian Love Doctor" Molyneux

>You're a racist
Not an argument
>You're a racist because you want to lynch niggers.
Argument

fucking idiot

youtube.com/watch?v=CBY0bZWKehQ

You are an actual retarded person.

Arguing - men do this, truth is a thing
Discussion - what women do, everyone wins, no-one gets upset, nothing changes, relativism

What faggots think argument is - emotional verbal fighting
What it actually is - two logical people putting forth reasons and attempting to refute each other in a fair, respectful way

Because faggots preponderate, we are pushed to discuss and not argue. In their wisdom, women want to avoid all arguments, solve nothing and let things fester. Anything is better than confrontation. It's analogous to not kicking the shit out of your son so he will grow up to be a good man because it hurts. They might pretend they have a good heart but really it's idiocy and not being able to see beyond the moment. Wouldn't someone with a good care about the child in the long-run?

Since women matter now, this sort of bullshit is commonly accepted.

Kinda went on a tangent there but fuck it.

What is your proffesion desu?

When the race war begins, Stefan will implement his Final Argument

Logician.
>I haven't studied logic so I refuse to admit when my perceptions of it are wrong
Stay mad plebcucks.