But he didn't say science is hard. He said he is wrong if I am an engineer or a chemist.
Do you only go by what is said, or by what is meant?
Do you think your saying you're one of those two jobs has him now suddenly humbled to the point of thinking you his superior?
I only think that he is wrong if I am an engineer or a chemist, going by what he said.
Isn't the point of these debates to try to appeal towards your opponent and the surrounding audience? If you just sit there being like "Well, by the words he said I get to feel like I'm right", then why even reach out in relation to your opponents in the first place when you could just smuggly pat yourself on the back?
If you aren't one of those two jobs, which again you could be sitting on purely for the convenience of the position as opposed to the merits of it's truth, then he still thinks that given enough time he'll do better than you, even in other complex fields of study.
For instance, if you were teaching advanced theoretical physics, he'd think he could do a better job than you.
Turncoat said:If you just sit there being like "Well, by the words he said I get to feel like I'm right",
But he literally just said he's wrong if <condition>:
Chapo said:If you’re an engineer or a chemist I am wrong.
I don't consider this to be a debate. He made bold assertions, then he admitted he was wrong, if I am an engineer or a chemist.
He's not a computer.
????
Suppose he says he's wrong, if I am a chemist or an engineer. Does it mean that he's wrong, if I am a chemist or an engineer?
That is, if I am an engineer or a chemist, is Chapo right or wrong?
He's not a computer.
????
Suppose he says he's wrong, if I am a chemist or an engineer. Does it mean that he's wrong, if I am a chemist or an engineer?
We can't prove if you are or aren't one of those things is the problem, which could just as easily make your answers as if it were the case a cowardly dodge, a lie of convenience. As such, in your shoes I'd be seeing the real victory be present from winning the argument regardless of what your job is, in lieu of you doing something stupid like presenting us your IRL qualifications.
If I were you, I'd be aiming to answer my former question if it's otherwise aiming to appeal to the person you're talking to, rather than simply patting yourself on the back:
Do you think if you were not a chemist or engineer that he'd do a better job than you if given the time?
This is why I've presented 'theoretical physicist' as a further hypothetical qualifier; it's neither of those two things and it still takes qualifications to be taken seriously within that field.
TLDR; Either he thinks he just can't do those two fields, or he thinks he can't do any higher form of work.
