Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-24.247.91.107-20140511154823/@comment-25801533-20150917202845

These are valid points.

Verdan, at the point of fire and ice you are dealing with scientific fact. This situation would be more comparable to Schrodinger's cat, as until the box is opened we cannot know for certain one way or the other.

Live, again the facts show that she is not, whether the person is being ridiculous or not to attack them personally for having an idea is, I find, incredibly bad manners especially in a debate. You dont have to call the person a fucking idiot in order to get the point across that they havent looked at every piece of evidence or that their logic is flawed. There is usually some piece of evidence that causes a person to form a theory but many times they dont know how to work backwards to that point and express their evidence (its happened to me on occasion). However if someone points out flaws in your theory there is no reason to pitch a fit and get angry, it just means you may not have seen every angle, and besides nobody can see every single angle themselves, we arent perfect.

In short, admit your mistakes, take responsibility for your flaws, argue the idea but dont attack the person. Thats what I find to be appropriate in a debate (hope i didnt miss anything *brain stops thinking*)