Absolute Wuss

[Cranky Old Man]

Well, in this case, the information is a scientific study, and even if it's done with dancing monkeys, the burden of proof probably lies on you now. Show me a paper that says that realistic video game violence doesn't desensitize people.

Oh, that point. I refute it with this point. I mean point c). ...on page 2.

Really? Prove it. Prove that debating doesn't work that way, without "telling me where the supposed truth is to be found".

So the formulation that you're looking for is something like "They put a bunch of people to watch video game violence, and then showed that they had become desensitized."?

Neighh!

Then don't argue ad populum.

1. Oh no you don't. You're the one who made an outrageous claim without presenting any proof. You prove it.

I presented the proof, as approved by Science and all of his little minions, but you decided that you somehow weren't going to like it anyway. That's not how it works. If I present proof, then you present at least an equal amount of proof, before you can decide to not like my proof. The burden of proof is on you.

2. I meant same point as a)

Yes, but you never declared what your points was referring to in the first place, and you had five points, while I had four sections.

3. I will. First a topic is decided upon (in this case whether or not videgame violence affects people). After that the person supporting that claim (that's you) needs to present evidence or give a satisfactory explanation on why that claim is worth supporting. This is debating 101 dude; the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim. It is not my job to disprove your claim because if it is particularly outlandish (and yours is) then there is no way for me to disprove it. Prime example: "I say God exists and now you disprove my claim." What the hell can I say? Your claim has no grounds in reality and if you tell me it's true just because a book says it is (the Bible) then I lose by default. I can't provide any evidence that God doesn't exist, which is why the burden of proof lies on you. There, and I didn't even need to refer you to a fucking book.

Yes, that's a nice theory that you've got there about how debating works, but as I can simply choose to not believe in it, you've proven nothing. You can't prove how debating works, unless you bring in outside sources - sources which you don't accept, and I can choose to not accept just as well.

4. It's better than nothing, even though it's bullshit. Show me a study (done under completely unbiased circumstances with a large sample group) that says videogame violence makes you more violent because when exposed to violence x brain cells make your violent psychopath meter go up. That's scientific and realistic. Too bad there is no such study because it's debatable.

You've never even read the studies I referred to, and you still say that they don't live up to your standards because their circumstances are biased and the control group was too small. You're being completely unreasonable.

6. I'm not. That doesn't mean I have to concede that I am wrong because I am one of the majority.

Actually, I don't think you're one of the overall majority at all.