@DarkprinX2500 You're missing the point, man. You're correct, and if that were the fight, you'd win every time. But Nick's specialty is making the fight into his own fight. He knows the logic doesn't make sense -- but the public doesn't know, and that's all he cares about.
I think theres a mistake in that scene. At first, I really like it. And I know what it should be about, BUT he says "I hve proven that you are wrong, and if you are wrong, I am right." If you listen exactly.. he didn't prove that Joe is wrong. He changed the topic yes. But he didnt prove that Joe is wrong. Which also means hes not right, he just say that, but its not working like that. He proved nothing. He simply changed the topic.
@Benny1642 He knows that. What he's doing it something called ignoratio elenchi or "ignorance of refutation." He's changing the topic and making an irrelevant conclusion. He's not trying to prove him wrong; what he meant by that was that the average ignorant person would feel as though the kid had been proven wrong.
@spycommunistspacebee wow is that what your learning at UNI better ask for your money back. Just watch fox news bill oreilly if you want to learn how to spin a debate. Im pretty sure your classes have taught you about red herring and you would know that this approach in intellectual debate is frowned upon. Only people you would be able to persuade with this approach are gullible little retards who get persuaded easily. Unless you want to become a politician that is then NVM.
@imboardnotstupid Just because you aren't a politician, doesn't mean you don't need to play politics.
And besides, even if the only people you would be able to persuade with this approach IS "gullible little retards", being able to convince the majority public is still a very powerful tool to have in your arsenal.
BASKETBALL REASONS
AlexTechie 2 months ago
when you eat ice cream.. other people around you don't inhale that ice cream against their will
DarkprinX2500 2 months ago
@DarkprinX2500
In a public debate about ice cream, the other people around you listen to what you say.
And what he says - beats what you say.
mega17 2 months ago
@mega17 when you smoke in public or around other people -second hand smoke violates the rights of other people around you
DarkprinX2500 2 months ago
@DarkprinX2500
Aww, you poor schmuck.
You don't understand the point of the movie at all. lols
mega17 2 months ago
@mega17 i didn't watch the whole thing.. just snippets.. could you care to explain..
DarkprinX2500 2 months ago
@DarkprinX2500
Just watch the movie. It's not actually trying to convince people cigarettes are good for you, it's social commentary satire.
tubub 1 month ago
@DarkprinX2500 You're missing the point, man. You're correct, and if that were the fight, you'd win every time. But Nick's specialty is making the fight into his own fight. He knows the logic doesn't make sense -- but the public doesn't know, and that's all he cares about.
trdl23 3 weeks ago
@trdl23 i see what your saying .. i'll watch it :)
DarkprinX2500 3 weeks ago
yes but ice cream doesn't contain POISON!!!
DarkprinX2500 2 months ago
@DarkprinX2500
He could probably convince you you're wrong in under 5 minutes.
Even if you're stubborn, he can probably make you doubt your own thinking. :P
mega17 2 months ago
unfortunately you cut the best part that follows the end ... when they both walk away with vanilla ice cream :)
lorikhaxhiu 4 months ago
@lorikhaxhiu Sheep
loismlsx 1 month ago
@loismlsx Sheep?
lorikhaxhiu 1 month ago
Comment removed
Claurice 5 months ago
I think theres a mistake in that scene. At first, I really like it. And I know what it should be about, BUT he says "I hve proven that you are wrong, and if you are wrong, I am right." If you listen exactly.. he didn't prove that Joe is wrong. He changed the topic yes. But he didnt prove that Joe is wrong. Which also means hes not right, he just say that, but its not working like that. He proved nothing. He simply changed the topic.
Benny1642 6 months ago
@Benny1642 Yes, but to the casual onlooker it'll look like he had proven them wrong, which was all he needed to do.
Kirrindead 5 months ago
@Benny1642 whoosh
Kerberoz01 4 months ago
@Benny1642 He knows that. What he's doing it something called ignoratio elenchi or "ignorance of refutation." He's changing the topic and making an irrelevant conclusion. He's not trying to prove him wrong; what he meant by that was that the average ignorant person would feel as though the kid had been proven wrong.
NumbFlynn 4 months ago
from what movie is this ?
tiqaatiqah 6 months ago
@tiqaatiqah The name of the movie is "Thank you for Smoking" :)
Psychotic999 6 months ago 3
They can both be wrong, though.
tazer95 8 months ago
0:42. turn ur volume up and stop there.. u will hear a weird cat......
forex35 1 year ago
what classes?
cshutout33 2 years ago
This is what im learning to do at uni lol
spycommunistspacebee 2 years ago
@spycommunistspacebee Yeah, I'm studying communication and media so same thing here. :)
Psychotic999 2 years ago
same here :D
xr0ckkid 1 year ago
@spycommunistspacebee wow is that what your learning at UNI better ask for your money back. Just watch fox news bill oreilly if you want to learn how to spin a debate. Im pretty sure your classes have taught you about red herring and you would know that this approach in intellectual debate is frowned upon. Only people you would be able to persuade with this approach are gullible little retards who get persuaded easily. Unless you want to become a politician that is then NVM.
imboardnotstupid 10 months ago
@imboardnotstupid Just because you aren't a politician, doesn't mean you don't need to play politics.
And besides, even if the only people you would be able to persuade with this approach IS "gullible little retards", being able to convince the majority public is still a very powerful tool to have in your arsenal.
Numer0us 9 months ago