*** Official *** BluffTHIS! Cyrus accusation containment thread

[The once and future king]

Its worth pointing out to the those not in the know that the reason some are being so aggressive about cyrus is that he regularly crushed them in debate.

Most of if not all of the mud slinging and accusations constitute the archest hypocrisy and pot meet kettle.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Its worth pointing out to the those not in the know that the reason some are being so aggressive about cyrus is that he regularly crushed them in debate.

Most of if not all of the mud slinging and accusations constitute the archest hypocrisy and pot meet kettle.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's worth pointing out that that a great many posters here who don't think well logically admired Cyrus a lot and were snowed by his method.

The Cyrus method of debate:

1) minutely parse another poster's post and reply line by line;

2) throw in as many irrelevant links as possible to sources to show erudition and seeming knowledge, when in reality it only shows skill with search engines;

3) intentionally distort the views of the poster being responded to;

4) use a couple logical fallacies to dupe the logically challenged, as is done in political commercials all the time and use bold and italic font to highlight same;

5) construct and tear down strawmen;

6) throw in some more irrelvant to the issue at hand remarks in order to obscure the above;

7) claim the poster has been refuted;

8) refuse to be pinned down one sub-issue at a time when the above is replied to and instead insist on replying to multiple points only so as to obscure the errors and make others think "where there's smoke there's fire";

9) reap the admiration of the gullible;

10) rinse and repeat.

[The once and future king]

Excuses excuses, or what I tell myself to help my self esteem deal with the fact that Cyrus kicked my arse with steady reasoned debate on an allmost constant basis, by bluffthis.

[Phil153]

In Cyrus' defense he was specifically named by Sklansky, along with El Diablo, as some who was "smart" and "has obviously thought about things". So I'd say DS probably disagrees with a few of BT's caricatures.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
In Cyrus' defense he was specifically named by Sklansky, along with El Diablo, as some who was "smart" and "has obviously thought about things". So I'd say DS probably disagrees with a few of BT's caricatures.

[/ QUOTE ]


Phil,

Reading comprehension matters. I too believe Cyrus to be highly intelligent. What I am discussing is the dishonest ends/means to which he uses that intelligence in political debate. And when I talk about the gullible and stupid, I am referring to those who believe his lies and distortions. However anything Cyrus says about blackjack is probably worth reading as he is an expert in same.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
In Cyrus' defense he was specifically named by Sklansky, along with El Diablo, as some who was "smart" and "has obviously thought about things". So I'd say DS probably disagrees with a few of BT's caricatures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus had definitely thought about alot of things. One of the things he thought a lot about was winning debates through deceit and lawyering.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Its worth pointing out to the those not in the know that the reason some are being so aggressive about cyrus is that he regularly crushed them in debate.

Most of if not all of the mud slinging and accusations constitute the archest hypocrisy and pot meet kettle.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "crushed" you mean "used tons of ten-dollar words, cleveryly constructed logical fallacies, and tons of intellectual dishonesty" then yeah, you're right. And I try not to throw the "intellectually dishonest" label around as freely as many here do.

Cyrus is a smart guy, no doubt. And he did OK in debates, but for every debate he did well in there was another one where he limped around on (very well-camouflaged) bait-and-switches.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If by "crushed" you mean "used tons of ten-dollar words, cleveryly constructed logical fallacies, and tons of intellectual dishonesty" then yeah, you're right. And I try not to throw the "intellectually dishonest" label around as freely as many here do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've yet to understand the magical distinction between "intellectual dishonesty" and "non-intellectual dishonest". Corollary to that, I don't think I've ever seen a compelling argument that "intellectual dishonesty" means anything more than "I have a fundamental disagreement with this poster but I'm out of relevant objections to what they're saying and yet they continue to disagree with me, so I'm going to accuse them of intellectual dishonesty and hope the [censored] sticks".

[BluffTHIS!]

DV,

Do you see any distinction between two persons who in debate utilize a logical fallacy, perhaps a subtle one, but where one is ignorant of the fact he is so using that fallacy, and the other intentionally uses same in order to mislead?

It seems to me that in debate, we should be seeking to get at the root of our disagreements and examine same. Since two honest debaters can arrive at different conclusions, the usual cause of same is differing axioms, or perhaps unstated premises, on which the logic of the argument rests. But surely the first step in analyzing another's arguments is to see if the logical chain is valid, so as to be able to focus in on the premises and whether they are valid, far-fetched or unprovable, etc.

However if the object of debate is to "win" via any means possible in the manner of a slick lawyer or salesman, then I guess it is only the efficaciousness of the rhetoric to persuade the unthinking or unlearned that matters.

[ElliotR]

hahahahahahaha This is great!

I must confess, I started this thread because I was about to get on a flight home and wondered what would happen without my ability to respond to the inevitable BluffTHIS! excuse making. Seeing all this 11 hours worth of flying later is a rich reward indeed.

For the record, it will come as no surprise that BluffTHIS! is full of it.

As to his number 3, the notion that he and he alone knew that Mickey was Cyrus at any point is laughable.

And as to number 5, I challenge you to post evidence that I've used gimmick accounts. C'mon, BluffTHIS! Put up or shut up, buster.