>define your terms

>>2275738
>he doesn't autistically define every word he uses
le wittgenstein face

File: 1474597081460.png (134KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 306x306px

>I know exactly what you're trying to get across but I'm going to keep on asking you define your terms until you eventually contradict yourself because I'm a low IQ subhuman and this is the only way I can claim a victory through sophistry and obfuscation and meta meta arguments

>>2275748
>until you eventually contradict yourself

Seems like you had a poor arguement in the first place then.

Show me on this doll where Socrates touched you?

File: 9B9EF5E3-2C72-4072-9E42-E71B30C39B4A-247-00000084F9D8E1B2_tmp.jpg (8KB, 400x343px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x343px

>>2275748

>I can't explain my concept in anything but the most general terms without creating inconsistencies, but you're the retarded one here

>>2275748
lmao, I used to know a guy like this

>>2275788
This. Not clearly defining your terms is just lazy philosophy.

>>2275834
>>2275788
>having a debate
>guy randomly decides to say "define your terms" about a specific word you use
>proceed to define it for him
>he disagrees and provides his own definition
>proceeds to reason that because your definition was slightly different to his that your entire argument must be false


This is sophistry of the highest order.

>>2275851

If you argue that X+1= 4, but can't effectively argue that X= 3, then yes, it does make sense that your inability to define your terms correctly disproves the entire arugement

If you can't argue effectively on terms, how did you ever get expect to be able to argue on concepts?

Learn how to persuade people if you want to stop being so booty blasted.

>>2275851
Who gives a flying fuck about his definitions when he's asking you to define the terms?

>>2275851

Need a more specific example than "My opponent acts like a retard because I say he does"

What was the term in question?