slantedangle t1_jacarc1 wrote
Reply to comment by ixid in Students can quote ChatGPT in essays as long as they do not pass the work off as their own, international qualification body says by Parking_Attitude_519
>We're talking about pre-university level education, talking about quoting sources is rather grandiose.
And yet that is precisely what we are talking about here, isn't it?
>Most kids just look at the textbook and wikipedia. ChatGPT is not even lowering the level. Hopefully the context wasn't lost on you.
Then he already has a source, no? What is the point of quoting the chatgpt rather than the source? I see the point of READING the chatgpt. Not QUOTING it. Apparently the context was indeed lost on you.
ixid t1_jacaxvq wrote
It's a pity schools can't teach people not to be bellends. You'd have benefited.
slantedangle t1_jacy34k wrote
>It's a pity schools can't teach people not to be bellends. You'd have benefited.
It's a pity schools don't teach people to just stop or say "I don't know", when they can't answer a question, instead of relying on ad hominems to end their conversations. You'd have benefitted.
ixid t1_jad0hb4 wrote
It's not an ad hominem, it's an insult, dummy. Check what ad hominem means.
slantedangle t1_jae3fp3 wrote
You can certainly use insults to deliver an ad hominen, there are others, such as attacking character or reputation or with motive. Ad hominen is used to describe a strategy in which a person using it will focus on the person making an argument rather than the content of the argument.
ixid t1_jaed3j7 wrote
ad hominem: you're wrong because you're a dick.
Insult: you're a dick.
I was doing the second of those because of your extremely condescending tone.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments