[eskimosik]

We don't need no steenking rules.

[VarenHokalos]

That'll work fine up until two people disagree over the definitions of rationality, logic, evidence, etc.

[intifatry]

Ah, bliss.

[steevytraunse]

That's quite a confession to make after 30,929 posts

The majority of my posts are in the on topic forums... where actual discussion occurs (well, most of the time )

[Qeiafib]

This file must've been written by a passive-aggressive person.

[strmini]

What did it say was the problem with fag hags and gay men?

[nofkayalk]

What did it say was the problem with fag hags and gay men?

I didn't click on the link to find out.

[RLRWai4B]

Thank god there's no rule against simply beating your opponent down with a stream of invectives.

[Kingerix]

Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

YES - aliens may abduct me and replace my brain with one of a batshit crazy person

If one of your arguments is shown to be faulty will you stop using that argument (with everyone)

YES - I will not use that argument with everyone anymore. Only some select few of them.

Are you prepared to abide by basic principles of reason in discussing this topic?

YES - but only the most basic principles, nothing advanced

Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved

CONFIRMED - I will only introduce old arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved

Do not move on to another argument if it is shown that a fact you have relied upon is inaccurate

CONFIRMED - I will only move onto another argument if it is shown that multiple facts I have relied upon are inaccurate

Provide evidence for your position or arguments

CONFIRMED - I will demonstrate sufficient evidence that my position or arguments are due to dementia, delusions of grandeur, and constipation

Do not argue that you do not 'need' evidence

CONFIRMED - I will instead supply evidence in the form of direct quotes from the first Google result that confirms my beliefs or suspicions on the topic

Did you breach any of these rules in the discussion

NO - technically it was more of a flanking maneuver

CONGRATULATIONS! I am a rational human being!

[Abaanto]

@ Aeson.

[secondmortgages]

after successfull implementation this place will explode with people on teh internets flocking to this discussion heaven... making the site laggy and unusable again, so we better skip this

"discussion heaven"

[ambientambien]

Thank god there's no rule against simply beating your opponent down with a stream of invectives.

[AndyPharmc]

b etor !

[georgshult]

Mike didn't provide proof this was needed therefore he loses!

[Ankeseiband]

Mike didn't provide proof this was needed therefore he loses!

I didn't say it was needed therefore I didn't need to prove it was needed.

FAIL.

[glagoliska]

They aren't my rules, and we haven't actually introduced them.

DOUBLE FAIL

Maybe we should just call a DOUBLE FAIL an OERDIN!

[namaikaimvputka]

Was I actually advocating them or was I posting them 'cause I thought people might find them amusing?

QUADRUPLE FAIL! I mean DOUBLE OERDIN!

[zzquo0iR]

You actually think I would seriously try and make debates here follow some kind of rules?

I mean, I didn't even put SERIOUS in the thread title.

[Mymnnarry]

My sarcasm detector just went off the scale.

[BrainTop]

I use my own simpler rules. I scan through the last ten posts of a thread and if I see any post that doesnt seem to be written by a 15 year old neo-marxist ****nut and I have something to say (ontopic), I think about making a comment. I rarely "discuss" anything online. Whats the point.