I like going to etymology when I want to avoid a point. someone
   goes to the dictionary, I go to the etymology and the underlying
   concepts and wreck it from that level. == I also have a couple
   of dictionaries on hand I got from archive - 16th + 17th century
   and show the sources of the definitions, who authored the
   dictionaries, their biases -- it's rare I do that because it's a
   pain but wrecking a particular dictionary's authorship can take
   the rug out of an argument. Of course there's always going for
   the jugular and hitting the platonic realm.. that's my favorite
   - and I can provide an alternative (embodied cognition) which I
   happen to mostly agree with... .. and then there's the certainty
   issue. cognitive structures - the emotion of certainty... these
   systems being the frozen remains of someone's emotional
   cognitive certainties.. but that's usually too esoteric for most
   ppl... == The main methodology is bypassing the systems your
   opponent is using and use the methodology that YOU happen to be
   good at. Mine is the realm of analogy/metaphor - "poetry logic",
   trying to go to underlying concepts. If you know what system
   you're stronger with, use it and allow the opponent to use
   theirs as much as they like, but only engage in THEIR systems as
   briefly as is necessary to switch over to yours. Then, it's a
   stamina game. Sometimes to cut it off, a reminder that we're on
   a little forum on the Internet, each sitting at our
   computers/phones and the ultimate meaningless of the game we're
   playing, let's shake hands and be friends cause it was an
   enjoyable debate, wasn't it? So there, revealed for the first
   time. smile emoticon == Ah - well, I call that the Fallacy Game.
   I usually respond by comparing the list of fallacies to a list
   of sins not-to-be-committed, their adherence to it as a
   religion, poke at the lack of absoluteness to logic itself by
   shredding the platonic realm in which it lives... In short,
   systems thinking. You're using one system, I would use another
   system to combat it. Different rulebooks I don't know if it's
   "art of war" stuff or not, but by seeing these as systems, it
   opens me up to choose to use logic/fallacy, psychology, history,
   sociology, etymology, physical science, absurdism/humor -
   whatever it takes. == I'm cursed with excess lateral thinking.
   It has its drawbacks, believe me. People who are wedded to one
   system can go much deeper than I can ever go because they
   believe in its truevalue more than I. I see the systems
   metaphorically and in my mind, many things are perfectly
   interchangeable that someone who has a particular system that
   they rest their truth-values upon would not agree to. So,
   lateral thinking is powerful yet it makes "plunging deep" with
   in a singular system more difficult for me at times. == I start
   with: Everything is true. Confuses people but perfectly valid.
   From that point, we can discuss what we don't LIKE, and call
   them false for various reasons. Starts things off on a different
   footing, different vantage point, although I've been known annoy
   many with my ways. smile emoticon == Ultimately for true, I have
   to go pragmatic. "True enough for now in this context". Ultimate
   truth, I think is perhaps a bit of a dream to chase, as I think
   everything can be proven to be TRUE _in *some way*_ yet also
   shown to be false in another. == but consider it this way:
   Aren't you checking the self-consistency of one glossary against
   itself? == fallacies - True - they're the hand granades of a
   debate. Without proper shielding, can knock the opponent onto
   their feet and if nothing else, disorient them for a few
   minutes... sometimes sidetracking the conversation completely
   tongue emoticon -- Basic definition of a proposition that is
   non-specific: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment
   or opinion. "the proposition that all men are created equal" You
   have to define what system you're working within that RESTRICTS
   "proposition" to a particular limited meaning. == It _can_ but
   at the same time, we're discussion the nature of truth, which is
   a pretty big deal - or could be - so perhaps not excluding
   middles might prove the more pragmatic choice tongue emoticon ==
   Just enter a group of women gossiping about whether or not
   someone's boyfriend intended to manipulate her into believing
   that he was really working when he was probably sleeping with
   that bitch down the road, while she's not in the room to defend
   nor is he. Non-classical logic abounds. == Indeed. Most of what
   we get now is recycled anyway, and they've been replacing trees
   for decades now, at least in the USA - and like you said, the
   forests being taken down aren't even the ones being used for
   paper.... == It can still be ambiguous though because THEN you
   have different definitions of cheating and a multitude of "yes,
   this is cheating if he looked at her" "it's only cheating if he
   slept with her" "it's only cheating if he says he loves her"...
   etc. It gets convoluted. It's all perfectly logical and there's
   really no uncertainty per se but rather LOTS of overlapping
   certainties, sometimes impossible to resolve ==