I said I'd tear apart your argument, didn't I?

All 10th graders are uneducated.

Ad hominen- Attacking your opponent's personal traits in order to undermine their argument. Not to mention using a baseless argument with absolutely no evidence behind it. And not to mention that a good deal of adults who can vote are uneducated.

Uneducated in the context of Trump supporters refers to those holding college degrees.

And the fact that people who enter college are likely to change their political views to those closer to the democratic party while there [in college] has nothing to do with that?

I have two masters degrees from a prestigious university, you're in high school. Thus, you're uneducated by comparison.

For all that, you're not very polite. Also, education does not equal intelligence. Not to imply that I'm smarter than you, simply stating that you knowing more than me does not influence the truth of an opinion.

Support for Trump is far, far, higher among people with high school diplomas, or less, than it is among those with graduate and especially post graduate degrees.

So Trump is a populist? I don't see your point here. It's like you're implying that going to college makes a person more knowledgeable about political views, when American colleges are completely skewed towards the Democrats favor. Frankly, intellectual freedom is at an all time low in America.

Lack of education isn't the same as being unintelligent, it's more akin to being inexperienced and uncultured.

Agreed. You're totally correct there. See, isn't it nice to be polite?

"BTW, later I'm gonna come back and tear you're argument to shreds. But I'm busy right now."

Top 1% of tenth graders - doesn't know the difference between you're and your. Also has abysmal winrates in a game centered on mathematics and problem solving. Also makes up words like "gonna" when writing.

1). I wasn't on a computer.

2). I obviously know the difference between "you're" and "your", I just don't care all that much.

3). Says the guy who hides their win rates...

4). 14/33 is abysmal? Also, on a game centered on mathematics and problem solving? Are we playing the same game here?

Not to mention, judging win rates is very difficult. For example, purely statistically, assuming all people are of equal intelligence and that "luck" isn't a factor, a person should win a 10 player FFA 1/10 times. My point in this is that a persons win rate isn't reflective of their gameplay at all.

I'm concerned about the future of this country if you're the top 1%.

Again, ad hominem. Can you really do anything other than insult peoples personal attributes and

If you're going to argue that Trump supporters aren't by and large uneducated hicks, try not to look like one when posing such an argument.

Wow. You made such a huge assumption that it's just amusing. I am trying to respect you somewhat here but.... you are just rude.

Not only that, but isn't your argument about Trump just a reverse-bandwagon?

You're the most ignorant moron I've seen since the last time you posted.

Please explain by the way how I'm extremely immoral.

Or were you just using big words like profligate to try and look clever without actually understanding what they mean? Maybe you picked it up from a Trump speech. Don't worry, I'm sure he didn't know what it meant either, he has other people write his speeches for him.

PS: Drop the greentext, this isn't 4chan. It doesn't make you look intelligent, and it's not clever.

Greentexting is just the illiterates way of trying to come across as witty without actually articulating their views or having anything of actual substance to add.

Spenglerian Traditionalist is a troll, but honestly... I can kind of understand his point about your post not being worthy of a person who's claiming two have two colleges degrees.

Instead of actually rebutting his (admittedly) idiotic arguments, you just made person attacks. Which, again, is a logical fallacy, and it's certainly not worthy of the behavior of someone who's claiming to be highly cultured and more educated than the other people he's talking to.

Computer Science, and Pure Mathematics.

I'm still waiting to know why I'm extremely immoral.

I suspect I'll keep waiting because like your candidate all you're good for is weak ad-hominem attacks.

Actually, again, the troll Spenglerian Traditionalist again out debated you. He pointed out that you only attacked his character/ personal attributes, but didn't actually point out the stupidity of his argument.

You, Nauzhror, are the one using weak ad-hominem attacks. What's worse, you are taking the internet, an internet troll, and a tenth grader with an amount of seriousness unworthy of someone who's claiming to be a highly educated person.

Second of all, although you might not agree with all of Trumps views and opinions (as we all should), it is not okay to clearly lie and use another ad hominem by claiming that all of Trumps arguments are ad hominem.

If you're not going to rebut anyone's argument and just issue more personal attacks, please go away. I don't have any time for a person who spent almost a (presumably) a decade in college and can't argue outside of using personal attacks.

Edited 10/17/2016 20:18:33

Wow a Theocrat! Makes you really wonder what God's plans were for this white genocide!

Stating that 10th graders are uneducated is not ad-hominem. It is a statement of fact. I did not call all tenth graders unintelligent, or call you unintelligent because you were a tenth grader.

You claimed to be educated, then referenced being in 10th grade. You contradicted yourself, plain and simple.

"And the fact that people who enter college are likely to change their political views to those closer to the democratic party while there [in college] has nothing to do with that?"

This is basically just rephrasing my statement that college educated people are more likely to hold liberal views. It's not an argument, you're also not demonstrating that the reason for this is factual, or even articulating why you think more highly educated individuals are more prone to hold liberal beliefs.

"For all that, you're not very polite."

I wasn't aware I was striving to be polite, or that politeness determined how correct someones beliefs are.

"It's like you're implying that going to college makes a person more knowledgeable about political views, when American colleges are completely skewed towards the Democrats favor. Frankly, intellectual freedom is at an all time low in America."

You can make that statement, but you're not really presenting anything to support it, it's just a blind assertion.

"4). 14/33 is abysmal? Also, on a game centered on mathematics and problem solving? Are we playing the same game here?"

It's pretty damn bad. Especially if not playing the absolute best players.

The game absolutely revolves around mathematics and problem solving, there's some luck involved, but not a ton. When I lose games, it's because I made egregious errors. Eve when I win, I usually made errors. The existence of error-free gameplay is largely a myth, people that think they lose in games where they don't make errors just aren't knowledgeable enough to spot their errors.

I have 23 unexpired games on the 1v1 ladder right now, I won 20 of them, I am rank 8. I don't lose games because of luck often at all, what separates players that are top 10 on the ladder from those that blame luck are when I lose a game I sit down and analyze what I did wrong and try to prevent from making the same errors in the future. Many people look at it as "just a game", but the reality is that the same traits that make people good at games are typically the same traits that lead to success in other aspects of life as well.

As for the rest of your post:

Spenglerian Traditionalist didn't make a single point. There wasn't anything for me to rebut. He didn't even debate anything.


He started by calling someone a dirty spic.
He then proceeded to insult blacks.
He claimed I was extremely immoral, and that Hillary Clinton is a culture distorting jew.

He didn't out-debate anyone because he didn't even debate anything, he just randomly hurtled insults.

Ad-hominem is not the same as insulting someone in a debate.

This is ad-hominem:

You're an idiot. Idiots can't be right. Thus your entire argument is invalid.

That is a logical fallacy. Merely insulting you is not, as it is not actually attempting to make an argument on the basis of an insult.

http://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2011/09/15/what-is-an-ad-hominem-what-isnt/

Here's an article more verbosely explaining the difference.

Stating that 10th graders are uneducated is not ad-hominem. It is a statement of fact. I did not call all tenth graders unintelligent, or call you unintelligent because you were a tenth grader.

You claimed to be educated, then referenced being in 10th grade. You contradicted yourself, plain and simple.

Define "educated".

"And the fact that people who enter college are likely to change their political views to those closer to the democratic party while there [in college] has nothing to do with that?"

This is basically just rephrasing my statement that college educated people are more likely to hold liberal views. It's not an argument, you're also not demonstrating that the reason for this is factual, or even articulating why you think more highly educated individuals are more prone to hold liberal beliefs.

No it isn't. You implied people who are in college are more liberal because they are more educated.

I implied people in college are more liberal because the majority of college professors are liberal, and teach more liberal ideology and thinking.

"For all that, you're not very polite."

I wasn't aware I was striving to be polite, or that politeness determined how correct someones beliefs are.

So being impolite and discourteous is something that you, as a supposedly educated person, are ok with?

"It's like you're implying that going to college makes a person more knowledgeable about political views, when American colleges are completely skewed towards the Democrats favor. Frankly, intellectual freedom is at an all time low in America."

You can make that statement, but you're not really presenting anything to support it, it's just a blind assertion.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/14/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservative-faculty-5-to-1-academics-explain-why-this-matters/

"4). 14/33 is abysmal? Also, on a game centered on mathematics and problem solving? Are we playing the same game here?"

It's pretty damn bad. Especially if not playing the absolute best players.

The game absolutely revolves around mathematics and problem solving, there's some luck involved, but not a ton. When I lose games, it's because I made egregious errors. Eve when I win, I usually made errors. The existence of error-free gameplay is largely a myth, people that think they lose in games where they don't make errors just aren't knowledgeable enough to spot their errors.

I have 23 unexpired games on the 1v1 ladder right now, I won 20 of them, I am rank 8. I don't lose games because of luck often at all, what separates players that are top 10 on the ladder from those that blame luck are when I lose a game I sit down and analyze what I did wrong and try to prevent from making the same errors in the future.

You know, maybe some people just don't care about this game? Maybe they are here for games that aren't strategic? Say, diplomacy games? Or maybe they just want to have fun, and genuinely don't care about winning?

Ever consider that people might not share your opinions?

Also, luck isn't involved? Admittedly, skill matters a lot, but luck is also a major factor. Where someone chooses opposed to you can make all the difference. So can (if luck is set from 1-99%) random computer calculations.

Many people look at it as "just a game", but the reality is that the same traits that make people good at games are typically the same traits that lead to success in other aspects of life as well.

Mass generalization.

Spenglerian Traditionalist didn't make a single point. There wasn't anything for me to rebut. He didn't even debate anything.


He started by calling someone a dirty spic.
He then proceeded to insult blacks.
He claimed I was extremely immoral, and that Hillary Clinton is a culture distorting jew.

He didn't out-debate anyone because he didn't even debate anything, he just randomly hurtled insults.

Insults which you did not refute or even try to. You instead just sent some insults back.

Edited 10/17/2016 22:25:37

Tl;dr but Nauzhor, having a STEM degree/statistical proficiency is worthless for political debate, so the "more educated" arguement is bull, and every political course is just indoctrination so that isn't really education either. If I had to guess, Karl knows a lot more than you, since he can read books + articles 24 hrs a day and you probably have things like a job and/or education to worry about.

"Also, luck isn't involved? Admittedly, skill matters a lot, but luck is also a major factor. Where someone chooses opposed to you can make all the difference. So can (if luck is set from 1-99%) random computer calculations. "

I didn't state luck wasn't involved.

"there's some luck involved, but not a ton. "

was what I stated. Luck impacts games, but it very rarely decides them. It most commonly decides games among top players. Even then I mean, it has more impact on their games than it does on less skilled players, not that luck determines most games among such players.

Even in my ladder games, I have only won one game ever that I felt I made 0 errors in, and it was a relatively short game. I've beaten many of the games best players, I made small errors in those games despite that.


Now, as per the only real topic that actually matters in regards to the clinton/trump conversation:

"According to 2009 data from the Higher Education Research Institute, the number of students who said their political views were “liberal” or “far left” jumped 9.2 percentage points from freshman to senior year."

I'm not disputing the accuracy of this claim, so much as the significance.

We have the following things presented:

Most Professors are Liberal.
More seniors are liberal than Freshman, thus people become more liberal while they are in college.

What I don't really buy into likely has more to do with why you feel most professors are liberal, or why you feel more seniors are liberal than freshman.

I never had a professor make a big deal over their political beliefs, or ever try to convince students to hold specific beliefs.

I'd actually argue that rather than indoctrination, college teaches people to be more openminded, and that opemindedness leads to a more liberal belief system.

Note, I am much moreso referring to being socially left than fiscally left. ie. Going to college will cause you to be less racist, less sexist, more open to LGBTQ equality, and less religious.

I also feel students are more likely to influence each other, than professors are to influence their students. Peers are more likely to discuss such things, they are also likely to spend more time together.

The article offers that professors being very liberal is good for conservative students, but bad for liberal students as their views aren't challenged as much. I just really don't buy it, at least not socially. I think people having their beliefs challenged is typically what leads to them being liberal, or libertarian.

Atheists tend to be atheist because they question and challenge things, not because they were indoctrinated. It's young children that are too young to rationally yo think for themselves that are the most indoctrinated in regards to religion.


Religion isn't about god. It's about world leaders creating a set of rules and morals, and enforcing them upon the masses by making people afraid to go against them.

I am your king and I tell you not to do something - you may or may not listen. I tell you it is the word of god, and that if you forbid his Law then you will burn in hell for all of eternity. That sounds a lot scarier, that's going to make people mindlessly do as I tell them because they'll be afraid of what happens if they don't.

To people it's also a coping mechanism, it gives them hope to have something bigger than themself to put their faith in when things look grim.

So, yes, I feel liberals are not only more educated, but more intelligent, because intelligent people seek education. Intelligent people question things, and intelligent people are more likely to think for themselves.

was what I stated. Luck impacts games, but it very rarely decides them. It most commonly decides games among top players. Even then I mean, it has more impact on their games than it does on less skilled players, not that luck determines most games among such players.

You're bragging. Luck impacts games much so. Yes, skill is often the deciding factor, but random chance influences much.

I never had a professor make a big deal over their political beliefs, or ever try to convince students to hold specific beliefs.

When did you go to college? The world changes very quickly.

I'd actually argue that rather than indoctrination, college teaches people to be more openminded, and that opemindedness leads to a more liberal belief system.

Openminded about some things. Not so openminded about some things...

Note, I am much moreso referring to being socially left than fiscally left. ie. Going to college will cause you to be less racist, less sexist, more open to LGBTQ equality, and less religious.

That's because colleges are areas where large amount of people gather. The more of something you are exposed to generally the less likely you are to dislike it. (in context)

The article offers that professors being very liberal is good for conservative students, but bad for liberal students as their views aren't challenged as much. I just really don't buy it, at least not socially. I think people having their beliefs challenged is typically what leads to them being liberal, or libertarian.

Unless, you know, the Professes are unfair to conservative students because of their believes. /end speculation

Atheists tend to be atheist because they question and challenge things, not because they were indoctrinated. It's young children that are too young to rationally yo think for themselves that are the most indoctrinated in regards to religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Murray

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

I call bull. Atheism can be as indoctrinating as Christianity, or more so.

Religion isn't about god. It's about world leaders creating a set of rules and morals, and enforcing them upon the masses by making people afraid to go against them.

I am your king and I tell you not to do something - you may or may not listen. I tell you it is the word of god, and that if you forbid his Law then you will burn in hell for all of eternity. That sounds a lot scarier, that's going to make people mindlessly do as I tell them because they'll be afraid of what happens if they don't.

Wrong. Good God, this is so wrong. Where did you learn that shit? That alone ruins your entire argument.

How many people in history have been tortured by their own King/ Emperor/ Ruler for there faith? How many religions have lasted, and even grown, during periods of huge hostility?

You call yourself "openminded" but religion-bashing is extremely close minded. You can't declare yourself openminded then proceed to make a comment bashing all religions.

So, yes, I feel liberals are not only more educated, but more intelligent, because intelligent people seek education. Intelligent people question things, and intelligent people are more likely to think for themselves.

*cringe*

That's so very... close minded of you, that the hypocrisy is sickening.

^ http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Irrelevant however.

@Benjamin628

http://hollowverse.com/nikola-tesla/

You can't just chalk Nikola Tesla up as atheist to support your own belief. Most peoples beliefs (especially most intelligent peoples, especially historical figures) are a lot more complex than that.

It's much more ridiculous to just try and name one person out of many billion as being the most intelligent person ever.

Most scientists, and all of the most reputable scientists, are atheists. There's a reason for that.

"How many people in history have been tortured by their own King/ Emperor/ Ruler for there faith? How many religions have lasted, and even grown, during periods of huge hostility?"

None of that disproves what I said. Being tortured for believing the "wrong" religion absolutely in no way disproves its purpose as being a control mechanism.

Edited 10/18/2016 01:22:48

"Wrong. Good God, this is so wrong. Where did you learn that shit? That alone ruins your entire argument."

That by the way is ad-hominem, real ad-hominem, the only such in the entire thread.

For you to say that, you would have to have had no knowledge of a good deal of historical events, and no knowledge of religion, which throws the whole idea of you being a cultured person out the window, as one of the most important aspects of any country is religion. Considering that you're whole "argument" has been about how you went to college and play Warlight well so you're smarter... well, you should be able to understand it.

Most scientists, and all of the most reputable scientists, are atheists. There's a reason for that.

There are plenty of arguments for believing in religion outside of science.


On another note- what were we arguing about again? I forgot.

It's much more ridiculous to just try and name one person out of many billion as being the most intelligent person ever.

Also, I never tried to name one person as the most intelligent person ever.

Edited 10/18/2016 02:34:31

tl;dr..

Nauzhror you're better than this.

Aborigines in Australia are the greatest conserve voting bloc in existence, 70 average IQ makes it so

I've never actually seen an argument on warlight not contain an ad hominem, as it is often easier to question the consistency of the opponent than the consistency of an argument.

Also no matter how right or wrong your opponent is, neither are going to change the others mind.

Luck impacts games much so.

It really doesn`t mate. Especially since 0%SR is the new standard.

By far most games get decided by mistakes rather than luck. Luck plays a tiny part, but is ofter blamed by players who do not understand why they lost.

Depends on what you consider luck.

Stating that a 10th grader is uneducated isn't ad hominem, but is a hasty generalization, so it is still fallacious.

Depends on what you consider luck

Your definition of luck must be really broad if you think luck influences the game a lot.