Yes but is Inquirer the same person as Sensy or not? That's what this all revolves around.
Legga invested everything he has into the idea that Inq = Sensy so I am very invested in confronting him with his mistake
True, I am still waiting to be exposed.
No, I'm pointing out your attempt to pre-deflect Legga's future answers. You're setting the room for justification traps for why you won't have to take his future arguments seriously, which is something I'd expect more out of someone trying to be intellectually dishonest.
As seen from your perspective, yes. A perspective you seemingly can't look beyond. Even if you disagree with my idea of reasonableness/common knowledge you should still see that my arguments make sense in the context of what I argue, but instead you keep assuming I am playing your game but want to stall or be dishonest.
When it comes to active participation you're the only one accepting your own perspective here, save for MissComm at one point who otherwise bowed out when it was apparent how much worse she made your case. You spend more time saying your arguments are good than actually making good arguments.
Your arguments are "fighting ghosts". Do you even understand why John Johnson evidence is superior to yours for instance, or are you instead going to waste more pages stamping your feet? It's like you can't even read the words being put in front of you.
you keep assuming I am playing your game
So you're just going to sit there and make up a bunch of "Inquirer Rules" to go with your "Inquirer Evidence" so that you don't actually have to risk participating? This isn't "my game", this is how debate works.
It must be so easy to win when you're only playing your own games, especially when you can just redefine the rules to suit yourself. 
Say I made two claims: the sky is blue and Obama is secretly a reptile in human skin. You call these claims unreasonable, countering that the sky is blue and Obama is actually human.
According to you, 1) unless you prove Obama is human our claims are of equal value and 2) my claims would be superior to yours if I could prove the sky is blue. Is this accurate?
These things can be proven, and if it got to such a point I'd bother with it for the sake of argument instead of filibustering like you're doing.
This kind of stuff is required praxis when debating Flat-Earthers and the like.It's not filibustering if we're specifically debating whether we can judge reasonableness without verifiable evidence, it'd be counter to the sake of argument. If I started to dig up verifiable evidence then the focus of the whole debate would shift away from my argument that Legga's list was unreasonable on the face of it.
Who is even arguing over how reasonable his original list was anymore!?
I disagree it is required praxis with flat-earthers. There comes a point where somebody is unreasonable enough that you're free to dismiss them out of hand.
This stops being the case once you've thrown yourself into a debate with one however.
To walk away after you've already begun debating with them simply because their base of logic is not the same as yours is not you dismissing them, it's you deflecting them after the fact. If you want someone to actually listen to you, to be appealed to by you, then you need to actually convince them instead of holding your head high baselessly.
If you were the fool, you'd never know it if you aren't willing to test the validity of your beliefs.
So can I assume my example is an accurate description of your position?
Not at all.
How active am I in SC chat?
So you never read it, just the threads? You missed a number of threads he posted too.
I was on EC during that. Even after that I'd quit SC for a while beyond the occasional pop-in that'd slip past my trying to resist the place.
You're projecting what you've seen to be something you figure everyone has. Who's to say someone didn't purposefully ignore those juicy details either? Some people here actually have that sort of decency/apathy.
Even so, whether I've seen it is technically not of importance, it's about what Legga's seen.
It's not "common knowledge", it's a reputation heuristic on the backs of what few have seen it.
Are you disagreeing with the concept of common knowledge here or what actually is common knowledge?
Turncoat said:For a debate 1-on-1, you can't just fall back on "common knowledge" when your opponent otherwise lacks it, rendering it no longer common but instead of a 50% spread.
This falls back on the "Common Sense" argument people fall onto to try to make their opponent look like they lack it. It's an Ad Hominem in disguise and otherwise serves to waste everyone's time.
Debate isn't just yelling your opinions at each other, it's reasoning through them to test them against each other. By your model, you'd refuse to do such a test because of a believed sense of entitlement towards your information over others, a very closed minded approach that completely undermines the point of debate.
I've seen the same shit out of Bible Thumpers who figure their Holy Book either is or ought to be common knowledge, and that it's a waste of their time to listen to those who "haven't even read it". It doesn't work that way.
The argument about if it is or isn't common knowledge is an irrelevant one if your opponent lacks that information, and in this case you're calling him on something I don't even have myself and then have done nothing to provide that information to support your points.
You too readily expect to be taken on faith.
For a debate 1-on-1, you can't just fall back on "common knowledge" when your opponent otherwise lacks it, rendering it no longer common but instead of a 50% spread.
I could call all sorts of things you haven't seen "common knowledge", and what, you'd just take me for my word being backed by a bandwagon of people who figure it makes sense to them without proof?A 1-on-1 debate is couched within a larger context where common knowledge does exist. Your example on flat-earthers is a good one, where I believe we can reject them for being unreasonable.
They can reject you for being unreasonable just as quickly, and practice debating with such types is how to grow. This is a big part of why debating someone like Spatial is so important, you both are prone to similar mistakes from two different bases of knowledge. 
By denying the "fool" their right to the stage, the only one being "unreasonable" here is you. Without listening to them you may miss something important within their logic that is otherwise something worth learning. In many cases, much like Shakespeare has enjoyed playing with, the supposed "fool" is actually wiser than the onlooker, showing it to be the fault of those who'd close out it's unsung genius.
By denying them their room to speak, you make yourself a fool through willful ignorance.
Inquirer said:If your idea of common knowledge is backed by a bunch of people then I'd say that lends credence to that actually being true, at least within the group itself. It doesn't make the knowledge itself necessarily true but it does make it reasonable to consider or take seriously.
What, no are you kidding me? Following "The Herd" is a very easy way to be thrown off track, especially with this lot. You'd be stuck believing all sorts of false rumors and stories if that's all it takes, and in many cases it's been the smaller group that's been right in place of the groupthinking charismatically pushed rumor mill. We have people here who know how to budge a crowd in many different ways, so accepting the group's take can often mean accepting the agenda of but a few within.
So if you found yourself on a Gangstalking forum, you'd overtime start to accept their insane ideas about color coded manipulation techniques? If you found yourself on a Scientology forum, you'd find yourself questioning your Thetin count and Entheta outputs? If you found yourself on a Christian forum, you'd run with the whole "he can walk on water" and immaculate conception crap?
Have you never had to argue in favor of something where a large group didn't agree with you?
Inquirer said:Turncoat said:Mostly, if you have the stamina to say why you don't wanna, wouldn't it have saved time and potentially even effort to actually try instead?It'd distract from the argument and I'd most likely do it in vain anyway since Legga would reject it.
It'd distract from the argument to present actual evidence? What kind of madlad logic is this?
Well, my high IQ does sometimes prevent me from having “normal” interactions with people. I don’t think you knuckle-dragging apes will truly understand the struggle of being intelligent though, since I am very much alike to the great minds of science and philosophy and anime.
scoffs
I’ve already learnt not to even go anywhere near simpletons below my IQ. As a young protegé, I was considered the “outcast” in many social gatherings, when I was truly calculating the quantum theorom and doing advanced formulas only the smart could dream of being able to solve. On the off-chance that a below 140 IQ scum does try to talk to me, they’ll immediately find it much to hard to understand, and will most likely just shrug it off and say “whatever dude” before walking off to most likely participate in simple-minded activites. It’s not just being unable to keep up with me, dumb people also emit brainwaves which interfere with my absolute genius, forcing me to lose 5 IQ points every second spent in their proximity. Fortunately, I can replenish them in no time, however I will most likely be dumbed down if I spend too much time near them. In fact, I’ve already developed, wrote and conducted 10 (yes, I find it hard to believe too, no big deal though) independent studies on the entire concept of “dumb” brainwaves. You can only comprehend them if you have a 280+ IQ like me, so for you weak-minded fools, don’t even TRY TO READ THEM!!!
runs hand through hair
Have I mentioned how I love Rick & Morty yet? Haha, I probably have already. If you can actually keep up with me in a normal (basically talking about standard quantum mechanics, the meaning of life and the universe) conversation, I’d probably go off on a full 10-hour long speech about R&M. Of course, like everything I watch (The Big Bang Theory, Young Sheldon, Bill Nye the Science Guy), the show is for pure intellectuals, like me. The characters and plot are so thoroughly developed, it’s like the combined genius of some of the greatest minds in history bleeding through my screen and enhancing my intellect to levels unimaginable to an unwoke human being. The humor is a plus too, I find it hard not to laugh at some of them, because I actually understand them. I’d venture a guess and say 99.9% of everyone who watches Rick & Morty don’t understand the subtle jokes and references, and therefore should be executed on the spot, in hopes that they either be reincarnated as someone that can actually contribute to society. But I’ll stop myself here, just incase I go off on a tangent about Rick & Morty. You can feel free to have an intellectual’s conversation with me though, anytime, anywhere.
adjusts fedora
I think that’s enough of an introduction from me. I’d love to hear from you, just kidding, don’t even attempt to talk to me, since you’ll most likely fall short by about... 10 light years haha but seriously kid frick off. If you can answer what the Riemann Zeta Einstein function of the derivative of the quantum integral means, then I might give you a chance 😉. Nothin perssonel kid 😎😎
Inquirer said:You can also still prove your list (for every person) and I'll admit I was wrong about calling your list unreasonable.
(for every person)
Inquirer said:I am defending my reasoning on the basis that it is reasonable
Inquirer said:To prove what's reasonable we can ask people what they think.
Inquirer said:If you debunk my argument about reasonableness
Inquirer said:When it comes to verifiable evidence I have explained I think your level is too stringent, but I have also listed what I believe I can find.
We can only find enough names to verify his paper's idea that it's "insane" for you to think that there's this many Swedes on this forum, and even those few haven't had their proof posted.
Let me just re-post this instead, since you didn't reply, except by stating that you indeed hold to your claims.
Compilation of your past arguments and the current status:
"The reason you did not provide stringent evidence is because it's unreasonable / impossible on an internet forum."
I have now shown that it is reasonable.
"We can't prove anything here, and that is why more stringent evidence should not be used."
I have proven that more stringent evidence is possible.
"The standard/quality for evidence I want is too high and can't be met."
I have shown that my standard can be met.
"If I have any ideas about how to realistically procure verifiable evidence then I should share."
I have given you a suggestion, and you accepted.
"I demand far more comprehensive evidence than what any of us can reasonably provide."
I have demonstrated that it is possible to provide the evidence I asked of you.
"You wanted "reasonable" evidence, but failed to define what that is.
I gave a criteria that could be tested, and you accepted.
"If I prove my criteria can be used to provide evidence, then you will find the criteria acceptable."
I did.
Let me also ask you: Why is it that you find a criteria for evidence acceptable only if it can be applied to specific people? Is it not a valid/reasonable view to hold that, for example, a person is not proven to be Swedish unless they've spoken on vocaroo/Skype and you've heard it?
You already promised you'd find it reasonable if I address your concerns, namely that it is possible to procure such evidence. And I did; even a barely literate person would understand what you agreed to. And the evidence is certainly much more stringent than not being able to verify someone's nationality by voice chat or other similar means.
Furthermore, why do you find it irritating that I have applied it only to one person? Will you be satisfied if I show the criteria can be applied to more people than just one person?
Inquirer, just admit you're wrong. You can't just keep twisting your arguments to decide what this debate is or isn't about when you get called out on them. I'm addressing specific claims you've clearly made and debated at length. The ones I'm quoting.
Leaving aside my astonishment that this thread is still kicking, did you guys know that Cadaver does not feature in his startup anymore? Did we really screw him over? Holy shit XD
