Oh, it’s you. I really want to have a good discussion about this, but it is not possible with your debate style. Once again, fragmenting your opponent’s argument into a million partial statements and then responding to those is ineffective for several reasons:
You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making, and so you do not learn anything by engaging with it. You must first understand to learn.
By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context, you are likely to change its meaning, so you are no longer even responding to the meaning of what was said.
You are not making a point of your own, which means you are less likely to figure out your own mental model. You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true, without knowing why you believe them to be true.
Expanding on point three, it’s very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it. For example, “No they can’t. The rules are universal” and “It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven”.
Also expanding on point three, this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes you’re making and correct them, because mistakes in your mental model are only visible through the statements you choose to make, which are incoherent when taken together. For example, I can see that you don’t fully understand what I mean by “operator precedence”, but this is not obvious from your main point, because you have no main point, because you do not understand what mine is.
If your opponent also used this debate style, the argument takes hours and ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning, completely destroying any hope of having the debate provide any actual value, ie. greater understanding.
Please do not take these as insults; it’s a long shot to fundamentally change someone’s perspective like this in one post, but I would love if you saw the beauty of discussion. To bring it back to your original comment:
Those Brackets don’t matter. I don’t know why people insist it does
Understanding the purpose and methods of debate allows you to understand why people know the brackets matter.
I really want to have a good discussion about this
says person who deleted their previous post when I proved how wrong it was 😂
it is not possible with your debate style
There’s no debate - the rules are in Maths textbooks, which you want to pretend don’t exist
You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making
You haven’t got one. That’s why you keep pretending Maths textbooks don’t exist
By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context
says person who deleted one of their posts to remove the context. 😂 The context is the rules of Maths, in case you needed to be reminded 😂
you are likely to change its meaning
Nope. I’m still talking about the rules of Maths 😂
You are not making a point of your own
Ok, so here you are admitting to comprehension problems. Which part did you not understand in addition and subtraction can be done in any order? 😂
You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true
You left out backing it up with textbook screenshots and worked examples 😂
without knowing why you believe them to be true.
There’s no belief involved. It’s easy enough to prove it yourself by doing the Maths 😂
it’s very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it
And yet I never have. Why do you think that is? 😂
“No they can’t. The rules are universal”
Which is correct
“It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven”
Which is also correct, and in no way contradicts the previous point, and I have no idea why you think it does! 😂 The first point is about the rules, and the second point is about conventions, which isn’t even the same thing
this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes
That’s because I’m not making any 😂
I can see that you don’t fully understand what I mean by “operator precedence”
Says person who in their other post claimed “addition first” for -1+3+2 is -(1+3+2) = -6, and not +(3+2)-1=4 😂
If your opponent also used this debate style,
Which you don’t, given you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your points with 😂
ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning
I’ve been on-point the whole time, and you keep trying to deflect from how wrong your statements are 😂
Please do not take these as insults
Well, obviously not, given I just proved they were all wrong 😂
allows you to understand why people know the brackets matter.
Except I’ve proven, repeatedly, that they don’t, and so now you’re trying to deflect from that (and deleted one of your posts to hide the evidence of how wrong you are) 😂
I’m falling for the troll here but I feel compelled to point out that you did NOT read the post I deleted lmao. I deleted it because I posted it before you “responded” to my points. Go check it out, I just restored it. To avoid any further temptation to respond I will be blocking you. Your absence from my future will be greatly appreciated. I feel that the deleted post is in itself a very good final word to this disappointment of a “conversation” even if it is not entirely accurate. Goodbye.
Oh, it’s you. I really want to have a good discussion about this, but it is not possible with your debate style. Once again, fragmenting your opponent’s argument into a million partial statements and then responding to those is ineffective for several reasons:
You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making, and so you do not learn anything by engaging with it. You must first understand to learn.
By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context, you are likely to change its meaning, so you are no longer even responding to the meaning of what was said.
You are not making a point of your own, which means you are less likely to figure out your own mental model. You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true, without knowing why you believe them to be true.
Expanding on point three, it’s very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it. For example, “No they can’t. The rules are universal” and “It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven”.
Also expanding on point three, this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes you’re making and correct them, because mistakes in your mental model are only visible through the statements you choose to make, which are incoherent when taken together. For example, I can see that you don’t fully understand what I mean by “operator precedence”, but this is not obvious from your main point, because you have no main point, because you do not understand what mine is.
If your opponent also used this debate style, the argument takes hours and ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning, completely destroying any hope of having the debate provide any actual value, ie. greater understanding.
Please do not take these as insults; it’s a long shot to fundamentally change someone’s perspective like this in one post, but I would love if you saw the beauty of discussion. To bring it back to your original comment:
Understanding the purpose and methods of debate allows you to understand why people know the brackets matter.
says person who deleted their previous post when I proved how wrong it was 😂
There’s no debate - the rules are in Maths textbooks, which you want to pretend don’t exist
You haven’t got one. That’s why you keep pretending Maths textbooks don’t exist
says person who deleted one of their posts to remove the context. 😂 The context is the rules of Maths, in case you needed to be reminded 😂
Nope. I’m still talking about the rules of Maths 😂
Ok, so here you are admitting to comprehension problems. Which part did you not understand in addition and subtraction can be done in any order? 😂
You left out backing it up with textbook screenshots and worked examples 😂
There’s no belief involved. It’s easy enough to prove it yourself by doing the Maths 😂
And yet I never have. Why do you think that is? 😂
Which is correct
Which is also correct, and in no way contradicts the previous point, and I have no idea why you think it does! 😂 The first point is about the rules, and the second point is about conventions, which isn’t even the same thing
That’s because I’m not making any 😂
Says person who in their other post claimed “addition first” for -1+3+2 is -(1+3+2) = -6, and not +(3+2)-1=4 😂
Which you don’t, given you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your points with 😂
I’ve been on-point the whole time, and you keep trying to deflect from how wrong your statements are 😂
Well, obviously not, given I just proved they were all wrong 😂
Except I’ve proven, repeatedly, that they don’t, and so now you’re trying to deflect from that (and deleted one of your posts to hide the evidence of how wrong you are) 😂
I’m falling for the troll here but I feel compelled to point out that you did NOT read the post I deleted lmao. I deleted it because I posted it before you “responded” to my points. Go check it out, I just restored it. To avoid any further temptation to respond I will be blocking you. Your absence from my future will be greatly appreciated. I feel that the deleted post is in itself a very good final word to this disappointment of a “conversation” even if it is not entirely accurate. Goodbye.