Care to expand on how our arguments aren't strong?
Like, I'm not trying to be a dickbag by saying that "omg my arguments are right", but you have majors flaws.
First, by saying "My "intelligent" friend"", you're implying 2 things
1) By putting it in dashes, you're implying a self-given title or sarcasm or something.
2) You're implying that you're a dumbass. I'm not saying you are, but if you're saying "WELL MY SMART FRIEND THINKS YOU'RE ALL DUMB", then what you're saying is that you're incapable of disproving our argument, so you need to get someone "more intelligent" to figure it out. I'm not trying to call you dumb or anything, but just be aware that that's what it implies.
Also, wtf do you mean by trollosophy? From my thinking, I'm assuming it means that this entire thread is you being a weenie and posting things to "troll" us (With whatever troll means nowadays). That's not how discussions are made. Discussions are made when two people want to seriously discuss an issue. Not just to "spread trollosophy"
First, looking at your OP, and this is the part that annoys me the most.
You're saying "Why become a scientist?" because nothing can be proven. We're on the 4th page of this, and we're NOWHERE near this. I pretty much ended the thread by saying that things CAN be proven from science. We've proved that there is gravity in the world. We've proved that we live on the planet earth. Nothing is going to say anything different. But then we went off in the wtf direction somehow getting global warming and social media involved.
What I dislike about your argument is that you don't really support your position. I read every single one of your posts, and here's what I'm seeing, on a per-post basis (excluding the OP)
1. You seemed to, instead of proving why his answer was wrong, looked at his word choice. Just saying, math can also be subject to change. At any time, a new formula can be discovered to make things easier or to do certain things. Sure, the simple 1+1 won't change, and a lot of things won't change, but math, just like everything, is an entirely largely growing field.
2. This is where you started getting astray from the topic at hand. First of all, the post about contributing nothing to science. 2 things. 1st, a scientist isn't someone who sits at a desk and makes new discoveries up the ass. I was good friends with a chemist, and she never discovered anything. She just had a job to make things using chemicals. Scientists make discoveries, but that's not all that they do. Some people don't care about the discoveries, but rather, working with chemicals that interest them. 2nd, EVERY OCCUPATION can have the "oh no, I'm not going to make anything significant" I'm hopefully going to major in Music Therapy. I might not discover ANYTHING new. I might be COMPLETELY insignificant to the field. But who cares? I enjoy working with people and I love music. That's all I care about. If you're stuck dwelling on "WELL INSIGNIFICANCE I BETTER NOT DO ANYTHING" will get you nowhere. If you're so damned on being significant then go out there and do stuff. This is also where you started going into your argument about the social media. Like, you've proved nothing about how science itself hurts us. It gives us knowledge about problems, and allows us to fix them. It attempts to give us the best notice possible about natural occurances so we can prepare. Most of your argument is "LOOK AT TELEVISION. LOOK AT THE NEWS", which, although it's a completely valid argument, is NOT what your original post said, and is not related to what you were originally asking at all.
3. I already explained my problems with this entire post in a previous post :>
4. If you're going to have an argument on a forum or say something, then you have to reply to EVERYONE (or at least reply to the general concept being thrown). One does not simply say "I can't reply to everyone". I recently made a topic about my problems with my brother, and I had 2 full pages of multi-paragraph responses. I replied to every single one. When you ignore a large amount of people's posts, it does 2 things. First, it's rude. They took the time to make a long and detailed response, and you're like "nope". Second, it shows that you pick and choose your arguments. If you're forced to do that, then your position isn't very strong. If you're strong on your position, then you should be able to prove your point for EVERY argument provided. Read kanye's post for my feelings about the 1st line of that post.
5. First, before I even say anything. Scientists DO keep their findings in scientific journals. They publish discoveries in scientific journals and they share it with other scientists. They expand on it and do continual tests to prove it, and once enough tests have been done, they can make it a theory, and with even more testing, it can become law. Allright, so you're still on the social media. You're MILES away from your original post. They is nothing about proving anymore. It's just "Social media SUCKS" With the first line, that creates ANOTHER point you're trying to make. Like, that has NOTHING to do with ANY of the arguments. You're just trying to say things linked on the fact that it's scientists. Also, scientists make discoveries in BOTH saving lives and natural resources. I hear about both quite often. But also, just about the population thing, yes, natural resources is important, but it's complete human nature to want to survive, and do whatever it takes for survival. Does death happen, yes, but it's instinct to try to survive for as long as possible. Natural resources and survival are both key, but most people put saving their lives from horrendous diseases over finding how to make their car run better because of natural instinct.
6. Don't be a hypocrite. Also, for replies like that, it's best to simply ignore them. I know I said earlier "Reply to ALL the posts", but that's under the assumption that every post actually has relevance. Cuddlebun is just saying that your argument and logic sucks, mostly because you're proving yourself as an ineffective debater. No need to reply to that. Especially since you like, ignored the rest of the posts to post that. The attachment is also pretty big. Don't do that. It's annoying.
7. Oh god I hate it so much when you just say "Psycology" Like, seriously, we get it, you're in Psycology 101, you know the inner workings of the human mind. I get it. Also "Easier than responding to everyones arguments against me" really pissed me off too. As I said, REPLY TO THE ARGUMENTS. Your position looks like CRAP if you're just going to ignore them and beg questions and be a weirdo. I don't want to follow it, because you're not effective in the slightest.
8. Most of this is explained in the beginning of this post. But I'll just add on. Like, corporations don't just go to scientists and go "HEY FIND US A GOOD NEWS STORY" also, no, I don't know the rest. That's another ineffective argument strategy. Let's say I'm debating the subject of civil disobedience. I'm talking about the Civil Rights movement, mostly because I'm just starting my argument off and want to have people understand it with a relatively well-known movement. So I'm arguing, talking about how blacks were tortured by police officials and stuff. So I say "So there were massive riots, with police forces against the blacks, and d'aww you know the rest!" The two majors problems is that one, people sometimes don't know the rest. You'd be surprised of the weird things people don't know. It doesn't mean that they're dumb, it's just that they haven't studied that field exclusively. Also, you're leaving out SO MUCH room for using your ethos and logos to effectively make the listener believe in what you're saying. When you go "YOU KNOW THE REST", people have to think for themselves of the conclusion, which they may not imagine the same way as you. When you're able to use language in the way that you want it, then that's how your argument is effective, and just cutting it off short like a lazyass just ruins that entire chance. But seriously, corporations have VERY LITTLE to do with what scientists discover. Sure, there's instances, like "Hey we need a solution for xxx", but scientists don't just do things because corporations use them to. The word corporation also pisses me off. Maybe it's because I'm American, but in almost EVERY argument I hear, I'm like "IT'S THE CORPORATIONS, MAN. HOLDING THE COMMON MAN BACK." You can't just blame everything on corporations <_<. One more thing, if you're going to be a little "oooh your arguments aren't strong, but I understand because it's a forum and all", then WHY POST? Like seriously, at the thread I mentioned earlier about my issues with my brother, they got pissed at ME because they said that they weren't qualified, but I sincerely felt that they would be able to help me. Sure, they're assholes, but at least I took their suggestions seriously. Just like in a real debate, you take the other side seriously, and they take you seriously. Like, seriously, it's stupid to spend 4 pages of talking just to go "Welp you guys are silly because you're just random forum goers"
So, please, tell us why our arguments are invalid. Tell us how we're not solid. Reply to a decent amount of posts. Seriously, I'm NOT ok with having this kind of debating online. If you're going to bring up an issue and spend 4 damned pages trying to make your point solid, then at least know what the heck you're doing. Or at least STAY ON TOPIC. Everything you say has to have a purpose, relevant to the ORIGINAL THING BEING DEBATED. I've participated in formal debate before. Our argument was "Is civil disobedience justifiable." I was placed on the "con" side, and all of my arguments lead to how civil disobedience hurt society, and was not justifiable. I don't have the exact things I said with me at hand, but I know one of my arguments was about an act of civil disobedience in a local town in Colorado. Everything I said about it, I tried making relevant to the topic at hand as much as possible. I believed that through that argument, that civil disobedience ran into a case of not just fighting for freedom, but fighting for petty needs that may not even be logical at all. There were two other things I mentioned, that I don't recall at the moment. tl;dr, my group won the debate. My speech was effective because I had not only appeal to the listener, with a booming voice and a confidence in what I said, but also because all that I said was relevant, and I brought up things that people didn't know about before. I could have brought up "Oh yeah, the American Revolution. . . Civil Rights movement. . .uuum. . . that's it", but I chose to appeal to the reader with new information that they had never heard of before, maybe changing their opinion, and it was all relevant to the point I was attempting to prove.
That is what your argument lacks. I've learned NOTHING from this discussion on your side (Actually, a good portion of your information is vague and/or false). Global Warming is a boring thing to discuss. It's probably one of the easiest things to use to prove your point, and you're failing to achieve it effectively. But still, Global Warming is just one of this topics that people go "Not this crap again." If you want to prove whatever the hell you're trying to prove, maybe try a different issue. Bring up something ELSE that proves. . . whatever the hell you're trying to prove, I don't even know anymore. Bring something that we're never heard of, then make it relevant to what we're discussing. Also, these little 2 sentence replies are POINTLESS. There is NO effort being given to prove your point. You're just begging the question in half of these posts instead of proving why your position is stronger.
So please, once again, bring your, as you say "-intelligent- friend" over and show us how our arguments aren't solid. Then have him tell us why your argument are solid. I'm interested to see what he has to say.
Also, please, learn how to debate more effectively. Maybe then people will take you seriously.
Also, if you ignore this post, I'm going to be pissed. I'm ok with you disagreeing, but please, don't just tl;dr this like you've done with half of the posts in this thread <_<.
