Originally Posted by Mal
Assuming we are basing our idea of the "devil" on Christian theology, as he most often is, then he is not omniscient. The devil is able to feed our minds with ideas and temptations, but unable to know what we are thinking. He is no doubt the greatest schemer ever, but to prevent me from simply turning on a light or walking out into the sun no doubt requires an alteration of reality on some level.
Whoa, wait a second here. I was re-reading this thread and I can't believe I missed this the first time through. SOLID MOTHER FUCKING SNAKE once used an owl to trick a guard into thinking it was night while the guard was standing outside in the middle of the day.
Obviously SOLID SNAKE is the greatest schemer/deceiver ever. Not this devil clown.
Originally Posted by Redneckboy
Would you like me to link you to a recent debate where I did not try to prove someone wrong and I actually ended up agreeing with them a bit despite the fact that what they follow is the complete opposite of my worldview? You guys just mainly suck at debating. Miburo is good, but he insults and I end up doing it back in retaliation so I don't debate with him as much as usual. 48 is good, Mashed is smart but never debates. You, IMHO, don't really know how to debate. This is mainly because I don't think you really question your beliefs much. Same for SK. Of course, this is based on an indirect observation of mine that does not necessarily support my opinion on your debating skill.
People on this site mainly debate just to win. I personally see it as a learning experience.
Again, whoa. I strengthen my resolve and conviction all the time through debating, constantly evolving my argument in the process. And I learn much about my opponents as well. You can learn a lot about people through conflict, afterall. I'm just as curious, if not more so, about the people I'm debating as I am in the topic I'm debating. Which is partially the reason why I jest and get condescending. To see how people react. And because I'm a dick. =p
Besides, it's not like I resort to using ad hominens instead
of producing arguments and counter-arguments. I just mock people while
busting out the debating skillz.
And there isn't anything wrong with playing to win. It's not like you can't win AND learn at the same time. And if your argument is flawed then you can't win against a good debater anyway. So if you play to win then you're going to have to learn and improve regardless. If learning is your ultimate goal, then you should want your opponent to go all out to win and you should do the same. Adversity is the catalyst to understanding and enlightenment. Debates aren't discussions, don't confuse the two.