Had an arguement

[Kris Strife]

I had a fight with a friend irl, about the only one I talk to since I moved. We were having a debate on the digital conversion and he said he was tired of me taking apart the points of his arguement, and that was such a "democrat thing to do". I told him thats the point of debate, and he said it doesnt matter if every point of his arguement is flawed, his arguement is still valid. He said he wanted to argue, I asked should I attack him instead. Not sure why I'm telling this here, just need to talk I guess.

[Vella_Malachite]

Awww :smallfrown:.

Arguing with friends sucks. Talking about is a good catharsis, though. I hope you and your friend don't fall out.

[Seffbasilisk]

Well, as warped as it is, he might have a point. The theory, or backing of an argument may be sound when each of the component points individually can be dismissed.

That said, it sounds like he just wanted to argue, and you didn't want that.

Perhaps branch out? Join a club, talk to a stranger, try something new?

[reorith]

this reminds me of a story of my youth. once when my paw was away on a cattle drive, an old yeller dog visited my family uninvited. i tried to shoo the dog away, but my little brother immediately took to it. my ma interfered, reasoning that the family could use a good dog. though i initially loathed the rascal, as i called the dog, and tried to get rid of it, the dog eventually proved his worth, saving me, my brother and the family on several occasions. i grew to love that dog. one day, the rightful owner of the yellow dog showed up looking for his dog. well, my little brother didn't quite like that and he threw a fit, but the owner recognized that my family needed and had become attached to the dog so he traded the mutt for some stew and biscuits. well eventually, the dog developed rabies after being bitten while defending my family from a rabid wolf. to protect my family, i tearfully shot that dog, my best friend and learned a valuable lesson about life and what it means to be a man

my point is this, kris strife. if there is one thing to take away from this lesson it is that there are three types of people in this world. there are those that understand reason and logic, those that cling stubbornly to whatever schema makes their world rational, and those that will try to get you to read a summary of old yeller.

[thubby]

I had a fight with a friend irl, about the only one I talk to since I moved. We were having a debate on the digital conversion and he said he was tired of me taking apart the points of his arguement, and that was such a "democrat thing to do". I told him thats the point of debate, and he said it doesnt matter if every point of his arguement is flawed, his arguement is still valid. He said he wanted to argue, I asked should I attack him instead. Not sure why I'm telling this here, just need to talk I guess.

you should both take a course on logic.

[Serpentine]

and those that will try to get you to read a summary of old yeller.Oh, is that what that story's about? All I knew was "a kid had to shoot a dog, and he cried a lot".

[Assassin89]

You are starting to fall into the ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) logical fallacy since you are asking whether to attack you friend, rather than his points.

[Kris Strife]

You are starting to fall into the ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) logical fallacy since you are asking whether to attack you friend, rather than his points.

Please note, he complained and belittled me for attacking his arguement.

[Assassin89]

Please note, he complained and belittled me for attacking his argument.
Yes I understand that point, but your friend fails logic forever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever), since he performed an ad hominem by belittling you, rather than trying to refute your point with evidence.

[Jack Squat]

I'm just curious on why there was an argument about the digital conversion.

[The Neoclassic]

Yeah, your friend does not know how to have a productive argument. He's learned how to "argue" from angry people on TV, I'm betting, where it devolves into personal insults and lacks any sort of productivity. Apparently some people like that? However, for me, there's no point in having an argument/discussion unless you are going to find some common ground or at least gain a better understanding of why your opponent holds said view. If some of their points are wrong, that may mean that their entire argument isn't, but they should be able to concede that and strengthen their other points! If all of their points are wrong, well, then so is their argument (most likely- or else they just aren't familiar with any good way of supporting it).

Some people are just antagonistic. If you do not enjoy angry, nonproductive conversations, don't let them drag you into arguments. Easier said than done, I know, but that's how things go...

[king.com]

I dont mean to offend anyone here but it seems like there are no details of this incident, or how im supposed to react. The post, im contacting, so i feel sympethy towards him. For all i know his friend could be the PsychoGM but for some reason im compelled to ask why?

Talking is always good, i assume the arguement became heated and dangerous. Sounds like someone i know, with these people, just let them win the arguement, concede. It is very hard to do but do it. It allows 2 things, 1 if he wants to continue arguing, he wants to argue for the sake of arguing, and 2 if he doesn't he simply wanted you to recognise his intellect (even if its not all there :smallwink:). Make him feel good, if you don't there is a high chance you will loose him.