I am pretty sure that anybody that comes around these parts (and reads what I write) has picked up that, I argue a lot, maybe not just argue but argue with an intent of winning an argument.
With the advent of micro-blogging that has become difficult, arguing on twitter is like your phone ringing every second paragraph you utter — the interruptions break the conversation flow.
… how can a debate be allowed to persist on twitter — how much can you say with 140 characters to spare?
So, I have decided never to engage in debate over twitter — imagine security guards arguing with walkie-talkies, not a very efficient way to convey a thought.
What I wanted to say on this essay is:
inasmuch as enjoy arguing and debating things — I refuse to debate with anybody who fails to set a baseline for the argument.
you know? Its like an Atheist arguing with a god-fearing-believer, that debate is going nowhere:
… because both are not willing to accept each others baseline argument.
The debate, argument will go on forever — as a matter fact, I refuse to engage an argument with anybody that fails to accept what is known (or accepted) to be true:
… for every argument there is, almost, always an anchor of fact that the debate is based on — without it, what exactly are we arguing about?
q.e.d
