Originally Posted by FlugelFlyer

Anyways, the basic goal of knowledge is to get to the top level, correlation. It would seem then, that a great debater would want to correlate knowledge into an argument to create a nearly indisputable claim. However, it seems like not just forum posters, but politicians and other people especially are content debating on the rote level of things. For instance, I'll see someone state a claim and then quote someone or themselves, looking something like "blah blah blah, big unusual word, blah blah blah, word that no one uses anymore, blah blah blah." I may come in then and say something like, "Well you said this, but in fact over in this neck of the woods, things exist like this, not that, so how do you account for this scenario within your argument?" Then, I'll get the same regurgitated phrase back from the person, "no, your wrong, because blah blah blah, big unusual word, blah blah blah, word that no one uses anymore, blah blah blah. Get that?"