Argumentation on Reddit
[018] Childish Spasms and Mysterious Wizardry
Username: Mental-Werewolf-8440
​
Redditors: Redditor30, Redditor31, Redditor32
​
Subreddit: DebateAnAtheist
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Preface:
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
​
​
Discussion
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor30:
Based on the previous post of one saved, always saved. Does that mean when my parents baptize me at the age of two, without consent, that I can go to heaven, and never have to worry about going to hell?
​
Sweet! I guess I don’t have to accept jesus into my heart as my parents did it for me! Like a circumcision.
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor31:
Always loved the Calvinists 'cause I never understood why they bother? Why proselytize? It's all preordained anyway, so why not just do literally anything else? Or is it because being an ******* predestined for them, too?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Mental-Werewolf-8440:
Always loved the Calvinists 'cause I never understood why they bother? Why proselytize? It's all preordained anyway, so why not just do literally anything else? Or is it because being an ******* predestined for them, too?
​
The logic is simple, but you are telling us you do not grasp it.
​
You establish the premise that everything is preordained, then you question the reason for their actions, which means you already abandoned the premise you established. That is, if everything is preordained as you established, then they do what they do because it was preordained for them to do it. If you were reasoning, you would have had reason to not ask the question.
​
You can not even hold a premise for longer than a sentence when left to yourself. This is why people struggle with intellectual discussion, especially ones on this subreddit. They let go of premises before they can reason.
​
Everything was predestined, therefore predestination is always a reason for everything. Furthermore, people are commanded to spread the Gospel.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor31:
I guess the issues I have are:
​
There isn't a god actively telling people to do that, so it's just people doing what they would do anyway and then claiming they were destined to do so.
What point is there in spreading a gospel if God is going to save you or not based on his own criteria and there's nothing you can do to influence that in any way?
Also, wow, with that tone. Did I offend you, Mr. 16th Century Man?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Mental-Werewolf-8440:
I guess the issues I have are:
​
1. There isn't a god actively telling people to do that, so it's just people doing what they would do anyway and then claiming they were destined to do so.
2. What point is there in spreading a gospel if God is going to save you or not based on his own criteria and there's nothing you can do to influence that in any way?
​
Do you have these issues, or not? I do not have time to spend on them here if they do not relate to you in a meaningful way.
​
​
Also, wow, with that tone. Did I offend you, Mr. 16th Century Man?
​
No. I am polemic because it is effective in this aggressive subreddit. Are you here to be talked sweet to? I hope you are used to strong tones if you stay here long :)
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor32:
No. I am polemic because it is effective in this aggressive subreddit.
​
With all due respect...it doesn't seem very effective.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Mental-Werewolf-8440:
With all due respect...it doesn't seem very effective.
​
OK. How are you measuring the effect of my polemics?
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor32:
I'm basing it off my impression. My impression is you didn't take much time to understand the post you're responding to, and you're coming across as a bit unhinged and dispensing anger, rather than calm, collected, and dispensing of rationality.
​
For example, the guy you're responding to was saying, "If Calvinists believe it's already decided who will and will not go to heaven, why would they try to change someone's mind, as if either person has any agency there?"
​
I don't think he forgot his premise in asking the question. He also, if you couldn't tell, was being a little facetious, so to respond as if he wasn't seems like a misunderstanding. But Poe's Law and everything so...
​
Because his point is: it's already decided if someone is going to heaven or not, so the Calvinist preaching to them literally doesn't matter at all. They could do something more productive with their time and money. At no point did he forget his own premise. He was expressing his confusion on the matter, not making a logical argument that he was fully convinced of.
​
He specifically said "I don't understand". So for you to come in hot and nuke his *** with your 'polemics' just seems like a really bad reading of the entire situation. You could have come in politely and inoffensively and probably gotten a lot more accomplished than your childish spasm. Did my last minute polemics convince you here? I doubt it.
​
Here's something I learned in highschool from a very wise teacher:
​
Speak without offending. Listen without defending.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Mental-Werewolf-8440:
I'm basing it off my impression.
​
OK, this is insightful, but my question was intended to reveal what you think polemics need to achieve in order to be considered effective.
​
Why do my polemics not seem very effective? What do you think my polemics need to achieve in order to be effective? Do they need to generate a positive response? or what? Based on the comments I have received, the popular opinion here seems to be my polemics are only effective if they persuade someone in a particular way.
​
If you are not persuading people, then are you not an effective person?
​
I have a much broader understanding of the word effect. My polemics are effective if they effect something. My polemics are effective in generating controversy. Furthermore, my polemics are effective in highlighting both the superiorities of my position and the inferiorities of my opponent's position.
​
The public has so many hidden assumptions, it is difficult to have simple discussions.
​
​
My impression is you didn't take much time to understand the post you're responding to,
​
I did not need much time to understand meanings of the words.
​
​
and [my impression is] you're coming across as a bit unhinged and dispensing anger, rather than calm, collected, and dispensing of rationality.
​
What does a message need to have in order to appear calm, collected and dispensing of rationality to you? Do I need to add words like hey, haha, dude, and groovy?
​
Are there phrases or approaches I need to avoid in order to not appear unhinged and dispensing of anger to you? Perhaps I would need to avoid phrases like, 'people struggle', 'you already abandoned', 'if you were reasoning', and 'you cannot even hold'? Perhaps I would need to praise people? If I strictly address my points in a rational manner without adding charisma, will you view me as unhinged and angry?
​
Perhaps I have been happy, calm, collected, and dispensing rationality this entire time. What does it mean to be rational to you? Are you witnessing me consistently exercise an ability to reason? What is reasoning to you?
​
​
For example, the guy you're responding to was saying, "If Calvinists believe it's already decided who will and will not go to heaven, why would they try to change someone's mind, as if either person has any agency there?"
​
Not exactly. You are changing it too much to give it justice. Are you twisting his message into something you can defend?
​
Your version of his comment says:
​
If Calvinists believe it's already decided...
​
He actually said:
​
It's all preordained anyway, so...
​
In your version of his comment, he distances himself from predestination by presenting it merely as what Calvinists believe. In his actual comment, he establishes predestination himself. This is a crucial difference, because my original comment is based on the detail that he established predestination.
​
I might not have said, "you establish the premise that everything is preordained" if he did not say "it's all preordained anyway", and I might not have even made a comment to begin with. Let us stick with what he said.
​
Also note, even if he did say what you said he said, I answered the question in my first response.
​
​
I don't think he forgot his premise in asking the question.
​
Apparently because you do not think he had the premise to begin with.
​
Note I said he abandoned his premise.
​
He also, if you couldn't tell, was being a little facetious, so to respond as if he wasn't seems like a misunderstanding.
​
Did I respond precisely because he was being a little facetious?
​
Or...Is it poor to make serious intellectual comments towards the ones who are being facetious here?
​
​
But Poe's Law and everything so...
​
Right, how could we know whether he was being a little facetious? and if he confirmed one way or the other, how could we know whether he was being facetious in the confirmation?
​
So, when you say, "he also, if you couldn't tell, was being a little facetious...", how do you know he was being facetious? Perhaps I know he was not being facetious, and you misunderstand him as being facetious.
​
​
Because his point is: it's already decided if someone is going to heaven or not, so the Calvinist preaching to them literally doesn't matter at all. They could do something more productive with their time and money.
​
This is a bold statement. That is not the point he expressed. How are you obtaining this amazing knowledge? Are you guessing his point? Are you twisting his message into something you can defend?
​
Since you apparently know his position, it seems fitting for me to ask you more about it. How does he determine what makes something matter? How does he determine what makes something productive?
​
​
At no point did he forget his own premise.
​
This is another bold statement. How do you know what he did not forget?
​
Before this, you said "I don't think he forgot his premise in asking the question". Then you claimed "at no point did he forget his own premise".
​
You express more confidence in the idea the more you work through this. This makes me wonder what else you are going to change as we discuss further.
​
Note again I said he abandoned his premise. Even if he did not forget his premise as you claim, he could still abandon it. So, you are not arguing against the notion that he abandoned his premise here.
​
​
He was expressing his confusion on the matter, not making a logical argument that he was fully convinced of.
​
OK. Perhaps his confusion had correlation with abandoning his own premise.
​
​
He specifically said "I don't understand". So for you to come in hot and nuke his *** with your 'polemics' just seems like a really bad reading of the entire situation.
​
So, he was not understanding while being facetious at a debate forum. Perhaps I did the proper thing by nuking him with my polemics to address his expressed confusion.
​
But, how does an action of 'nuking someone with polemics' seem like a 'bad reading'? Nuking seems like reading?
​
Do you mean my response makes it seem like I read the situation poorly? Perhaps my response exists because I read the situation excellently.
​
Facetiousness and polemics. Which would you rather have at a debate forum? I am curious, because you are discouraging polemics.
​
​
You could have come in politely...
​
You could be thanking me for nuking him with my polemics.
​
Polite is subjective. I was polite.
​
​
...and inoffensively...
​
Offense is encouraged here. Part of debating is destroying at least some part of your opponent's position. You cannot destroy without offense.
​
Or, you can convince me otherwise. That would be great.
​
​
...and probably gotten a lot more accomplished...
​
Like what?
​
How are you finding the probability of this?
​
My response has generated several comments. This means I came in and accomplished bringing new discussion to the forum. If I came in as whatever you think polite is, and remained totally passive, as you suggest, I may not have accomplished as much in terms of bringing new discussion to the forum.
​
​
...than your childish spasm.
​
What exactly is a childish spasm?
​
I used intelligence to reason. How are you determining I had a childish spasm?
​
Your use of terms is mysterious wizardry.
​
​
Did my last minute polemics convince you here? I doubt it.
​
I side with your doubt, you did not convince me. So, is this supposed to mean your polemics are just ineffective across the board? or, did they have an effect on something?
​
​
Here's something I learned in highschool from a very wise teacher: Speak without offending. Listen without defending.
​
How do you make sense of this? Did you ever question it? I am happy to give you my take on it.
​
I see the wise point in 'Listen without defending'. It can be beneficial to just listen without interrupting. As opposed to consistently interrupting with defense when under attack.
​
As for speaking without offending, I do not have the power to speak without offending, because your feelings determine what is offensive, and I do not have power over your feelings.
​
What do you mean by offense? There is offense to feelings and offense to arguments and positions.
​
Offense to arguments and positions are embraced in a debate setting. A debate is a battle, and you do not have a battle without offense. If you discourage all offense, you discourage debate.
​
Offense to feelings is out of my control.
​
Unfortunately, people worship feelings and often make it the subject matter. If anyone here puts feelings above arguments, they belong more in a subreddit about putting feelings above arguments than a subreddit about debating.
​
I do not intentionally offend feelings.
​
All things considered, I appreciate your response.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor32:
OK, this is insightful, but my question was intended to reveal what you think polemics need to achieve in order to be considered effective.
​
Well maybe if you had specifically asked that you would have gotten your answer. Being clear and precise, rather than emotional and incredulous, will get you what you want a lot more.
​
​
If you are not persuading people, then are you not effective?
​
No it's about getting your point across. If your point was "I'm a grumpy boy who can't discuss this topic without stereotyping and prejudging large groups of people." Then you will have been effective.
​
​
My polemics are effective in generating controversy.
​
There is no controversy. No one is considering your point to have any value because they all see it being vomitted from an emotional reactionary who isn't interested in honest discussion. Whether or not that's what you are doesn't matter. You've given the impression with your polemics.
​
​
Furthermore, my polemics are effective in highlighting both the superiorities of my position and the inferiorities of my opponent's position.
​
Not really. It just provides more convincing evidence that you shouldn't be taken seriously. That you're a grumpy little unhinged troll. And again, that might no be the case, but your polemics have driven people to assume it, thus being ineffective at your attempts to provide thought-provoking concepts.
​
​
The public has so many hidden assumptions, it is difficult to have simple discussions.
​
So effectively creating more assumptions by being childish and toxic isn't going to help you present a better discussion.
​
​
What does a message need to have in order to appear calm, collected and dispensing of rationality to you?
​
Well I'm not going to give you free writing lessons. Gotta sub to my Only Fans for that. Here's a tip tho: less polemics.
​
​
Part of debating is destroying at least some part of your opponent's position. You cannot destroy without offense.
​
Spoken like the new guy on the debate team who just doesn't get it yet.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Mental-Werewolf-8440:
You ignored so much of the discussion and relevant questions I asked you. Why are you ignoring my questions? Is it because my questions reveal how irrational you are? Regardless, you produce objectively poor quality content by ignoring relevant questions presented to you.
​
​
OK, this is insightful, but my question was intended to reveal what you think polemics need to achieve in order to be considered effective.
​
Well maybe if you had specifically asked that you would have gotten your answer.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
You replied with what you based it off of, but I did not ask what you based it off of. I asked how you are measuring the effect of my polemics.
​
You could have answered my specific question and then I could have got my answer.
​
Do you think the word 'measure' is meaningless? or what do you think it means?
​
​
Being clear and precise, rather than emotional and incredulous, will get you what you want a lot more.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
Please define emotion, then show exactly where I acted upon emotion, and explain how you know I acted upon emotion. Otherwise, how is this relevant to me?
​
What do you mean by 'incredulous'? Like skeptical? If so, how can being less skeptical get me more of what I want? Then, you do not believe everything you read, do you? If not, then do you consider yourself incredulous? If not, why not?
​
How does being emotional stop one from getting what they want?
​
Finally, do you know what I want? If so, how? If not, then how do you know following the rule will get me what I want in the first place?
​
Is this some sort of universal rule that applies to everything?
​
What if I only want people to become frustrated with me? Would your rule still apply?
​
What does it mean to be incredulous?
​
Do you have evidence for this rule? Please be precise and clear if you present it, and please present it if you have it.
​
​
If you are not persuading people, then are you not effective?
​
No it's about getting your point across. If your point was "I'm a grumpy boy who can't discuss this topic without stereotyping and prejudging large groups of people." Then you will have been effective.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
So, being effective is about getting your point across. You think I seem not very effective, so you must suspect I am not getting my point across. If I made my point known to you, then I must have got my point across, and therefore I will have been effective. If you do not know my point, then why do you suspect I did not get my point across?
​
What is my point?
​
If you do not know my point, then how can you figure if I was effective to begin with?
​
I did not say I was grumpy. I did not say I was a boy. I did not say I cannot discuss this topic without stereotyping and prejudging large groups of people. So why are you implying that me being a 'grumpy boy who can't discuss this topic without stereotyping and prejudging large groups of people' is the point I got across?
​
Is it possible for you to misread our interaction, so that the point I delivered is not the point you think I delivered?
​
The word 'effective' is about getting your point across? Is that all? This is a narrow definition. Are you so narrow to only have 1 definition of the word 'effective'?
​
​
My polemics are effective in generating controversy.
​
There is no controversy.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
There is controversy.
​
See, now there is also controversy in whether there is controversy.
​
​
No one is considering your point to have any value...
​
This means I do not consider my own point to have any value.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? or how do you know that no one is considering my point to have any value?
​
Regardless, no one is considering this point of yours to have any value. Since you use this method against me without providing justification, I am using this method back on you in the same baseless manner. You established it is a fair thing to do to your interlocutor.
​
Do you have any evidence of this? If so, what is it?
​
Since you tell me I do not consider my own point to have any value, are you trying to assert me into dominance by convincing me I am against myself?
​
I consider all of my points expressed here to have value, so you are lying. Are you intentionally lying? or are you just making errors?
​
Anyway, which point of mine are you talking about?
​
​
...because they all see it being vomitted from an emotional reactionary who isn't interested in honest discussion.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
Do you have evidence of this? If so, what is it?
​
Are you a human being who logs into Reddit and types your messages? Based on your claims, it seems more fitting that you are some kind of supercomputer with information of what everyone perceives.
​
Are you just building yourself up as some kind of enlightened genius in an attempt to stay afloat in a debate with me?
​
Also, who is 'all'? Everyone who reads this discussion? If so, how do you know what everyone who is reading is seeing? What if someone reads half of our discussion, or merely one single word from our discussion, and then leaves? Do they also see what you claim 'all' see?
​
Please clarify all of your statements that I have questions for.
​
​
Whether or not that's what you are doesn't matter.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
The truth does not matter? What do you mean? You do not value truth?
​
​
You've given the impression with your polemics.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
What happened when I gave you the supposed impression? Did it control your mind into making an assumption?
​
You made baseless claims about me, and ignore me when I engage for clarity. I think you are the one who is not interested in honest discussion.
​
​
Furthermore, my polemics are effective in highlighting both the superiorities of my position and the inferiorities of my opponent's position.
​
Not really.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
Look, more controversy - the thing you deny exists.
​
This is an offense to my position. You should consider speaking without offending, like your wise teacher said. Maybe consider if that is what they meant?
​
Also, what do you mean by "not really"? Do you mean "mostly not"? or perhaps "absolutely not"?
​
You claim it is "not really". Can you show how you arrived to that conclusion? or are you perhaps just going to continue dropping low-effort comments that offend my position without backing them up with substance?
​
​
It just provides more convincing evidence that you shouldn't be taken seriously.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
Does this mean you should not be taken seriously because of your polemics?
​
You said my polemics just provide more convincing evidence that I should not be taken seriously. So, what is the other evidence that I should not be taken seriously? If my polemics add to a pile of evidence, what other evidence do you have?! What else do you think I have done to deserve this charge?
​
​
That you're a grumpy little unhinged troll. And again, that might no be the case, but your polemics have driven people to assume it, thus being ineffective at your attempts to provide thought-provoking concepts.
​
Is this another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
So I am the unhinged driver, and everyone else are the helpless victims in the passenger seats. In this case, they are definitely victims, because you taught that the truth of the assumptions I cause them to have does not matter. So I am potentially causing them to assume falsehoods, which is a dangerous thing. That means I am putting them in danger.
​
OK. My polemics drove people to an assumption. Therefore, these people are not driving themselves. I control them and they are puppets. This is derived from your idea of people. Are you one of my helpless puppets?
​
Since you clumped everyone together earlier about what everyone sees of me and since you do not seem clear on this issue here, and since I am apparently the powerful one, I will figure you also are one of my helpless puppets along with the rest, as you seem to suggest.
​
Helpless puppets, meaning, you all will assume what I effectively cause you to assume. You all lack the independent intellectual power necessary to be free from my awesome control. I am not teaching you that I have helpless puppets under my control on reddit, but it is what you are teaching me.
​
Do you have any independent thought in that delicate shell of yours? If so, tell me why you assume you are driven by a grumpy little unhinged troll, and not an intellectually stable genius instead. I did not pull a string to make you assume I am a troll. Perhaps I pulled a string to make you assume I am an intellectually stable genius. Perhaps your strings are a bit frayed, and your intellect is not working properly. I think you are broken.
​
Also, how do you know I made attempts to provide thought-provoking concepts? Are you assuming I am a grumpy troll? or are you assuming I am attempting to provide thought-provoking concepts? Do trolls do that?
​
Is that just another assumption I put in your mind? You must be frustrated with all these assumptions I am putting in people's minds!
​
​
The public has so many hidden assumptions, it is difficult to have simple discussions.
​
So effectively creating more assumptions by being childish and toxic isn't going to help you present a better discussion.
​
Is that another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
What is childish? What is toxic? Where have I been these things? How is it fair to charge anything I said as childish and toxic? I am inviting you to demonstrate the things you claim against me. Perhaps you are the one who is childish and toxic.
​
Apparently you are on par with a supercomputer that has collected data about everyone, and I am a mad supervillain who is somehow polluting people's minds by forcing them to create bizarre assumptions.
​
What if people create all of their own assumptions, and I have been reasonable and intellectual this entire time? What would that make you?
​
​
What does a message need to have in order to appear calm, collected and dispensing of rationality to you?
​
Well I'm not going to give you free writing lessons. Gotta sub to my Only Fans for that. Here's a tip tho: less polemics.
​
Is that another assumption I put in your mind? No one is considering this point of yours to have any value.
​
I did not simply ask you for writing lessons. I am here to learn about your beliefs.
​
Regardless, you already did give me writing lessons. Do you not remember?
​
You taught me that being clear and precise, rather than emotional and incredulous, will get me what I want a lot more, and creating assumptions by being childish and toxic is not going to help present a better discussion. You taught me these regarding the written question and presenting written discussion.
​
Being clear and precise, rather than emotional and incredulous, will get you what you want a lot more.
​
So effectively creating more assumptions by being childish and toxic isn't going to help you present a better discussion.
​
But, you said you were not going to give me free writing lessons.
​
Well I'm not going to give you free writing lessons.
​
Does this mean you are going to charge me for the writing lessons you gave me? or did I perhaps put this assumption in your mind that you would not give me free writing lessons, and you turned out to be a lying helpless victim because of me, a grumpy unhinged troll?
​
Or do you perhaps mean you are not going to give me writing lessons from now on, as the ones you gave me before were free?
​
​
Part of debating is destroying at least some part of your opponent's position. You cannot destroy without offense.
​
Spoken like the new guy on the debate team who just doesn't get it yet.
​
If you corrected me, you would have presented an offense to my position. You have presented an offense to my position already, so are you a 'new guy' who 'just does not get it' yet?
​
Please forgive my break in time of replying. I have been busy.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor32 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Previous: [017] You Dropped Your Face
​
Enter: Additional Writings