In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being logician or a philosopher to being Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an “antagonist” depending on their goal being dismissive.

If you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over – if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves…and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. Is the Greek word, I would say, “the loser of the debate by default”?

If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).

If they quote quite a complete story and contradict the reality then you are free to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. Get more evidence and facts to help the debater. Is it out of bad taste to do this?

If you are debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can’t just walk away because you won’t. Why do you feel like a punk?

In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being logician or a philosopher to being Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an “antagonist” depending on their goal being dismissive.

If you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over – if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves…and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. Is the Greek word, I would say, “the loser of the debate by default”?

If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).

If they quote quite a complete story and contradict the reality then you are free to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. Get more evidence and facts to help the debater. Is it out of bad taste to do this?

If you are debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can’t just walk away because you won’t. Why do you feel like a punk?

In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being logician or a philosopher to being Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an “antagonist” depending on their goal being dismissive.

If you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over – if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves…and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. Is the Greek word, I would say, “the loser of the debate by default”?

If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).

If they quote quite a complete story and contradict the reality then you are free to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. Get more evidence and facts to help the debater. Is it out of bad taste to do this?

If you are debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can’t just walk away because you won’t. Why do you feel like a punk?

In the context of logical argumentation, they move from being logician or a philosopher to being Rhetorician, a Sophist, or just an “antagonist” depending on their goal being dismissive.

If you have caught someone in a contradiction in a logical debate and you call it out, the argument is over – if the situation requires them to look or read something because you tell them they have contradicted themselves…and all they need to do is look; refusal is tantamount to them looking and recognizing the contradiction. Is the Greek word, I would say, “the loser of the debate by default”?

If they dismiss the contradiction without even addressing it, yet aggressively push the argument forward, they are the Loser by default, but they are also an Antagonist or an Oppugner (this is rooted the same as a Pugilist; therefore, although not widely used, I think it is an apt term).

If they quote quite a complete story and contradict the reality then you are free to counter with anything, including an ad hominem attack, because, logically, anything follows from reductio ad absurdum. Get more evidence and facts to help the debater. Is it out of bad taste to do this?

If you are debating someone in prison who dismisses the contradiction and begins aggressively arguing forward, you can’t just walk away because you won’t. Why do you feel like a punk?