Bad Manners

[Neatras]

So lately there has been a startling surge in posts where the following things occurred:

A. A poster has made a post, and when the first immediate response did not address every single topic point, the poster decides that means the unaddressed point is without contention, and therefore is true.

B. A poster has made a post, waited up to a week before replying to other posts, but expects replies to his posts within 24 hours, otherwise assuming victory.

This fosters a poor debate environment, as it holds the opponent to unreasonable double standards. Rather than asserting victory at points in the discussion where such a thing isn't certain, it would be wise to wait a while, let posts and answers accumulate, answer challenges as they are brought up, and bring attention to any points that haven't been addressed yet. These debates can take days, or even weeks to draw up a suitable discussion.

Now, this is likely a response to tactics employed on this forum, but I'll have to dispel the idea that this is simply a reversal of tactics.

For one thing, if a challenge is made to a debater, then they should be given ample time to answer. If a challenge is made specifically toward one individual, more time should be given. If they do not answer or acknowledge the challenge within, say, a few weeks, then reminding them (without assuming victory) is the correct way to approach the situation.

[Talishi]

A. A poster has made a post, and when the first immediate response did not address every single topic point, the poster decides that means the unaddressed point is without contention, and therefore is true.

This is a well-known logical fallacy known as throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.