Thread:BadlyBruisedMuse/@comment-4655954-20150607232818/@comment-2253059-20150608070010

Alright, I see where this is going. I said I would only partake in this debate if you supported your arguments and listened to what I had to say. You are already showing signs that you will perform neither of these actions. Claiming your English professor and your academic peers do not perceive "dropped" being intentional without any contextual clues does not refute my argument. You need concrete evidence to prove they believe that. Otherwise, that claim is empty because you could say anyone believes a certain thing, regardless whether or not it's true.

It's bad enough that you won't acknowledge the fact that Zara does fall; this puts the two words on equal footing in regards to accuracy. It's even worse that you say you'll just dismiss the issue of perception when the evidence you've used against me is insufficient for the reasons stated above. But what's most troubling to me is you are flat-out stating you will not read my posts if they're too long for you. You don't seem to grasp the concept of a debate. In a debate, you are supposed to get your viewpoints across. Doing so requires elaboration so the reasoning behind your viewpoint is clear, which means your arguments are going to become lengthy. Nevertheless, that's all part of a debate. Brief, non-specific statements lead to a back-and-forth affair where no progress is made.

It doesn't matter if you think your opponent's argument isn't "viable." In a debate, you have to be willing to listen to his viewpoints. You have to understand where he is coming from and why his reasoning differs from yours. Knowing exactly why he holds a certain opinion enables you to explain, not just simply state, why you believe he's wrong. If you are in the right, your logic will triumph over his.

What you are doing indicates you believe you are right and nothing I say can change that. You are not going into this with an open mind and considering the possibility that you are wrong, which is crucial in a debate. One person has to be wrong, or at least one person's logic is weaker than the other's. In order for any progress to be made during a debate, that person has to admit he's wrong and the ideas deemed superior can be put forward. I am aware I could be wrong. That's why I listen to what you say, comprehend what you're arguing, and see how your argument compares to mine. Discovering faults in your argument enables me to explain in full why I believe you are wrong and strengthens my case.

Your primary tactic involves just telling me I’m wrong, which will not convince me nor anyone else that we’re wrong. Why would we listen to you? Why should we take your word and your word alone that we’re wrong and you’re right? Because we’re “wrong” and you’re “right?” No, simply telling someone he’s wrong isn’t going to convince him of anything. He has no valid reason to believe your word and your word alone. In fact, he’ll probably just become agitated by the sheer arrogance of the statement and things will turn ugly real quick. Explaining why somebody is wrong won’t always convince that person he’s wrong either, but doing so gives you a much better chance of changing his mind. Reasons for why he could be wrong are right in front of him. He can actually see why he might be wrong. He still might ignore the explanation, but that’s on him. You at least made the effort to try to change his mind. Unfortunately, you’re hardly trying and when you do try, it involves faulty claims, like stating your English professor shares your opinion, when you have no evidence to prove that.

So what’s the point in even debating you when nothing, literally nothing I say will change your mind? What is the point in debating you if you won’t even listen to me? There is no point. If we didn’t have this debate, the outcome would still be the same; you believing “dropped” is downright superior to “fell” in these articles. No matter how good and detailed my arguments are, no matter how many examples I provide to support my case, you will remain unmoved and uncompromising on this issue. Therefore, I must depart from this discussion and I will not return unless you are willing to listen to me.

One more thing- you could claim leaving an unfinished debate is wrong. However, when conversing with someone whose mind is made up and cannot be swayed to change his viewpoints, no matter what is used against him, leaving is the right thing to do. This debate is going to have no impact on what we believe in. If I stayed, nothing would change, or at least nothing good would come out of it. It’ll probably just turn into the ugly debacle we had before and I don’t want that to happen again. So this time, I’m going to do the right thing and leave.