Well damn, man. Just throw those fallacies out there.

You just called me a dumbass and unfit to debate because we disagree on the nature of philosophy itself.

Can we agree that you just don't have the means to respond to my argument?

I'll accept that maybe you haven't considered the matter up until this point and haven't been challenged on it.

not going to debate you on a matter you have no knowledge of, and only want to go to google and loook up stuff to probe your point

I brought you definitions. As defined by Oxford, even.

And you disagreed with that definition.

And you sent me Wikipedia pages, uncited, which proved my point, and not your own.

If there is anyone in this debate who does not have the standing to argue, it has been proven to be you. And when challenged, you resorted to ad-hominem, and told me that I was not 'smart enough' to debate you on the matter. This is the play by play of our debate here so far. All you have left is ad-hominem, because the argument has been stripped from you.

And I know that sentence was redundant, but damn, man, it's got to get through your skull that just because we disagree doesn't necessarily default to you being right.

so no idea what axiology means and practical phylosophy

just google up stuff

make it fit to your definition of science

```Science
NOUN
1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
1.1 A particular area of science.
1.2 A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.```
Oxford.

see

googled more stuff

Your point? You said that I've got my own definition of 'science.'

I'm going by established definition.

Philosophy is not a Science.

....

having google doesnt mean you have knowledge

Having knowledge doesn't mean your knowledge is right.

lol

And Knowledge isn't wisdom

MY GOD hes a retard i am wasting time

this can relate to ethics

on my original point

I once was stuck in a debate with a friend for about an hour until she stopped and asked how I defined a single term. Once she heard how I define that one term, no mater how passionate she was, I would not except her point of view just based on the definition. As such she agreed that according to how I defined the term, she was wrong, however if we used her definition... then there would be room to talk.

Basically, this. Agreed-upon definitions are important if you're going to properly challenge your own ideas against someone else's - arguably the entire point of Debate. I've found that A LOT of disagreements come down to different definitions of a commonly used word within an argument. That's why establishing definitions 'looked up on google' from institutionally recognized Dictionaries is important, and why what may appear to be a tangential discussion on those definitions might be an important challenge to held beliefs in and of itself.

If someone argues with an SJW about what's racist and what's not, if one of them is using 'Power plus Prejudice' as their definition of Racism, then no real ground can be made to strengthen an argument.

Which is why I trap them with "Bigot"

Until they redefine that word, too...

For now it is a bear trap of a term

When you control language, you control thought.

I knew I'd seen that quote somewhere.

```“Control language and you control thought; control thought and you control action; control action and you control the world.”```
— Peter Kreeft

vir·tue sig·nal·ing
noun
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
"it's noticeable how often virtue signaling consists of saying you hate things"

For some reason I thought it was 1984. Although that was definitely a theme in it...

wewlad. that's a messy google search

how about this

Dang it I can't put the meme Quote