How about incorrect, with intent to mislead?
The intent of a poster in saying something is often discussed in GD. It’s sometimes helpful in carrying on debate. Arbitrarily deciding that some intents are too awful to speak of gives the advantage to those who lie, as their intentions are placed beyond reproach or analysis.
Certainly not. As always, you can Pit them.
I think in effect it is pretty much allowed. Or at least, i’ve seen occasions of “I don’t believe you’re honestly debating this position” or similar weaseling before go unmoderated.
Implying it OK I think lol. But yeah, calling someone a liar is an insult, and it’s not like there isn’t a more factual way to get the same point across. Just say that you are having trouble believing certain statements, and ask for a cite to back them up.
Actually in general, even in a positive way, I think it’s… misleading or at least imprecise to call people anything! Saying someone “is” something is just a verbal shorthand for implying something else, like they have done something or have something. Why not cut to the chase and just state the factual circumstances. For example instead of saying “he is a doctor” I would say “he practices medicine at a private clinic”.
It seems to me, at least in the thread that spawned this, that the accusations of “liar” came about because allegations were made, then refuted, and then repeated. I believe this is because most of those posting to the thread were not reading it.
It’s unfortunate but difficult to avoid concluding that people who aren’t listening are doing it with intent to piss others off.
Not referring to anyone in that thread, but there are posters who deliberately misstate things. Setting up a caricature of your position in order to attack a post that is otherwise unassailable is SOP for some of those trolls. Pitting them does no good, and letting the repeated falsehood pass unremarked merely means that another troll will repeat, both in that thread and in others, “Why are you still posting? You have already been refuted.” And then we get a pile-on.
Again, not everyone in the other thread did that - many did not, on both sides. But it is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that those who do are trying to wear out the other side by tag-team posting of the same stuff. And doing it on purpose.
Ideally, it would be that no one attacked anyone else’s motives in GD. But I can think of several posters who make a practice of it, and are allowed to get away with it. And someone who knowingly posts falsehoods is, after all, a liar.
Regards,
Shodan
Absolutely not: saying “This is a lie” is semantically meaningless 
Everyone in this thread’s a liar.
Whether or not all of these accusations had been successfully refuted was an open question. I might think I have brilliantly refuted your position, but unfortunately, I am not the judge. So if you recast and reposition, perhaps it is not because you are a liar but because I did not do such a good job refuting in the first place.
One’s first recourse should be to look at oneself critically rather than calling one’s partner a liar or doubting his honesty, “intellectual” or otherwise.
But if it’s a lie, then it’s not true. But if it’s not true then it isn’t…
False. If it’s not true, it’s false.
That’s why I try in cases like this (when I have contrary facts) to say “You’re wrong” or “I think you’re wrong.”
There’s no shame in being mistaken. But being called a liar is an insult, and ought to be reserved for those times when we have proof of an intentional falsehood.
If someone is deliberately posting falsehoods and not debating in good faith, we should be able to call them liars.
How would you go about proving that?
As long as no one tries to pry “I sense disingenuousness in your arguments” from my cold, dead hands, I see no particular need for the L-bomb in GD.
Not that I spend a lot of time posting in GD, but still.
Sure seems like an insult to me - and a certain way to derail the thread. I also don’t equate “Cite?” with “You’re lying!” (with or without the exclamation point). “Cite?” far more often than not suggests that the other poster may be mistaken or misinformed, not necessarily lying, and simply asks for additional info. Nothing wrong with that.
Since when is “provable” or “not provable” enter into what is said in Great Debates? How many “does god exist” threads are there?
Please note: I think I was the first to be called a liar in that thread, and I think it was within FinnAgain’s rights to call me a liar, even though I wasn’t lying. IMHO, his calling me a liar when he did and in the manner he did exposed the weaknesses of his own “arguments,” which were little more than spin and FUD. I think he was misrepresenting is motives, and I called him on it. The writer should be free to say what he or she wants. but is up to the reader to decide who, if anyone, is lying. That’s how free speech works.
I disagree. In theory, we should be able to call them liars. In reality, though, this allowance would be badly abused. If someone is deliberately posting falsehoods and not debating in good faith, we should be able to Pit them, which we can.
And sometimes, IME, at least, “Cite?” means, “I’m interested in finding out where you got your information, because I might be mistaken or misinformed”.
See, and I think just the opposite. I think that Finn was destroying you (and others) debate wise…so calling you a liar was unnecessary…it was, in fact, inflammatory. Your own weak arguments showed ME at least that you weren’t grasping things…even if that wasn’t the case and I DID think you were lying (I don’t think you were…being wrong isn’t the same as telling a lie), I don’t think it was necessary to CALL you a liar.
I can understand his frustration and I totally sympathize with the guy…but I think that the Mods should tighten up this loophole in what’s allowed in future. I just think calling someone a liar in GD is unnecessary and is an insult…and should not be allowed in future.
-XT
Ask them if they can make a s’more with just a graham cracker, some chocolate, a marshmallow and their pants?