Debater Nomination Topic

[aeghrur]

I will say this about GOD!: The amount of shi! that comes from his mouth in some recent debates is so appalling, that if we were to let him in, we might as well let BOB SAGET & Hooblah in with all due respect.

Are you basing this off argument he had with RDK? I mean, I can see that the guy is either pretty religious or really likes to play Devil's advocate, but I wouldn't put him on the same level as Bob Saget and Hooblah. At least he has some good points. =/

Just because you argue with persistence doesn't mean you argue and/or debate well.

True.

Just because you think "empirically and faith" based doesn't mean you argue/debate well.

Based upon your perspective, which is more logic based, thus giving you bias towards one debate style instead of another. Of course, I'm also biased cuz I want another LordoftheMorning type in here. xD It depends upon who's reading the debate.

Just because you think differently than other people doesn't mean you argue/debate well.

Just because you're thinking differently doesn't mean you're thinking is wrong.
Just because he argues for ID doesn't mean he's an empty-headed Christian with no idea of how logic works. Although, arguing for ID in a place filled with liberals is both really stupid and really gutsy, lol. More the former than the latter IMO.

In his case, he can't debate worth a shi!.

Meh, diff opinions on how well he debates. I wouldn't rank him as THAT low. =/

And with his posts, evidence and him won't be meeting up anytime soon.

He gives empirical evidence from his own experiences... however much that counts for,

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Are you basing this off argument he had with RDK? I mean, I can see that the guy is either pretty religious or really likes to play Devil's advocate, but I wouldn't put him on the same level as Bob Saget and Hooblah. At least he has some good points. =/

What good points has he had?

Based upon your perspective, which is more logic based, thus giving you bias towards one debate style instead of another. Of course, I'm also biased cuz I want another LordoftheMorning type in here. xD It depends upon who's reading the debate.

Debating logically is a problem because...

Just because you're thinking differently doesn't mean you're thinking is wrong.
Just because he argues for ID doesn't mean he's an empty-headed Christian with no idea of how logic works. Although, arguing for ID in a place filled with liberals is both really stupid and really gutsy, lol. More the former than the latter IMO.

Sure does look like he is debating like an empty headed Christian...

Meh, diff opinions on how well he debates. I wouldn't rank him as THAT low. =/

Bet if you took a poll of the DHers here that they wouldn't rank his debating skill very high.

He gives empirical evidence from his own experiences... however much that counts for,

That counts for absolutely nothing when debating on things which are based on fact (e.g. evolution).

 

[aeghrur]

What good points has he had?

That the debate hall is filled with arrogant liberals/libertarians.

Debating logically is a problem because...

Nothing. o_o never said it was.

Sure does look like he is debating like an empty headed Christian...

Meh. I don't think he's empty headed, just much different beliefs than me.
W/e suits you though.

Bet if you took a poll of the DHers here that they wouldn't rank his debating skill very high.

If I took a poll of the more active DHers here, most of them would probably be liberals/libertarians who find conservatives like him illogical religious freaks. (not saying he might not be, just saying we're veryyyyyyyy biased.)

That counts for absolutely nothing when debating on things which are based on fact (e.g. evolution).

I completely agree, lol.

 

[RDK]

Don't get carried away with the personal attacks guys. There's a lot of "empty-headed" and "freak" accusations going around. This is the Debate Hall; let's keep it mature.

And Kazoo, try to tone it down on the smiley faces. It makes you look like you're 12 years old.

 

[Deleted member]

Seriously. I'm so close to getting that smiling idiot booted

 

[aeghrur]

Don't get carried away with the personal attacks guys. There's a lot of "empty-headed" and "freak" accusations going around. This is the Debate Hall; let's keep it mature.

And Kazoo, try to tone it down on the smiley faces. It makes you look like you're 12 years old.

Hm, you're right.
If you read this GOD!, my apologies.

 

[Aesir]

After reading The Center Stage thread I realized RDK gets all the fun, this is what Warcraft has done to me, I never catch the fun debatse =(

 

[RDK]

After reading The Center Stage thread I realized RDK gets all the fun, this is what Warcraft has done to me, I never catch the fun debatse =(

Join in the fun!

He just made a new post a few minutes ago, and it's chock-full of creotard nonsense.

 

[manhunter098]

I really wish I could join in the fun, but I think I would be more active in the PG than the DH, not that Ive been all that active in the DH lately.

 

[Mewter]

I nominate F1ZZ!
He's demonstrated his debating skills in the PG, and he's done it many times over.

Er, sorry. I don't have a medal for you.

 

[manhunter098]

Im not really quite positive that F1ZZ is really up to DH material quite yet, he has certainly proven himself a small cut above the rest in the PG (and he certainly has the desire to get in) , but he hasnt really made a stunning impression with his debating skills, his debate skills need a little more sharpening in my opinion, but I am sure with the proper pointers he will be able to refine his skills and bring them up to the level of the DH.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

What manhunter said: F1ZZ needs a little more time before being let in. He is on the bubble, though.

 

[CRASHiC]

Omni posted the best response to the satire piece.
I'm not recommending yet though. I still am judging his other post.

 

[RDK]

From what I've seen, hillbillyhick seems like a competent and well-spoken poster. He gets my nomination.

 

[manhunter098]

Ill give him my vote too, he's made a few more posts since I last mentioned him and he has a consistent level of high quality posts.

Edit:The more hillbilly debates the more I like what he has to say.


Edit2: Aside from a few shortcomings, GOD!'s most recent post was impressive compared to what he was posting earlier. GOD! still needs to understand what Aesir meant when he said that GOD! made the same mistake that he did (argumentum ad numerum if you happen to be looking at this GOD!). And I dont think he really understands what a logical fallacy is quite yet (its not just something illogical, there are tons of different fallacies you can make GOD!, here is a link to a large number of them http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html, read it, understand it, take it to heart if you want to be a DH member). He still needs work in understanding why evolution is a theory though and intelligent design is not. (GOD! theory is not a term that scientists throw around lightly, you hear).

GOD! is the most promising theist in the PG right now, (though he has yet to earn my nomination) and that is all I have to say on him for now, hopefully he can continue to improve.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Ill give him my vote too, he's made a few more posts since I last mentioned him and he has a consistent level of high quality posts.

Edit:The more hillbilly debates the more I like what he has to say.

I concur.

Edit2: Aside from a few shortcomings, GOD!'s most recent post was impressive compared to what he was posting earlier.

If by a few you mean a few hundred.

GOD! still needs to understand what Aesir meant when he said that GOD! made the same mistake that he did (argumentum ad numerum if you happen to be looking at this GOD!). And I dont think he really understands what a logical fallacy is quite yet (its not just something illogical, there are tons of different fallacies you can make GOD!, here is a link to a large number of them http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html, read it, understand it, take it to heart if you want to be a DH member). He still needs work in understanding why evolution is a theory though and intelligent design is not. (GOD! theory is not a term that scientists throw around lightly, you hear).

I think anyone who even considers wanting to be in the DH should know about logical fallacies. It is pretty common knowledge, and he also should know about such things now. He's from the same state as I am (GA) and we learn about them around in high school or so. It may vary by county to county, but most people I know learned about lfs the same time as I did. Don't rationalize his ignorance.

GOD! is the most promising theist in the PG right now, (though he has yet to earn my nomination) and that is all I have to say on him for now, hopefully he can continue to improve.

He is the most promising theist, but that is really not saying much.

I have been to a number of forums which have these open styles of debate (here, league of reason, talk origins, and to a slightly lesser extent, YouTube). I can say in my past experience of going through (and reading) debates for the latter part of a year, I can say with 100% certainty that Creationists/ID supporters are, by far, the weakest deabters. They consistently fall into the same traps of poor debating:

1. Bad sourcing
2. Inability to comprehend logic.
3. Inability to comprehend reason
4. Logical fallacies

It really doesn't change with respect to GOD!. What's worse is that he doesn't take any of our criticism to heart--he just continues along as if we said nothing.

The upshot: I really can't stand for people to be admitted just because they happen not to fit into a certain group. People should be let in the DH because they can debate, and that reason alone.

 

[manhunter098]

Well as far as logical fallacies are concerned it probably varies by curriculum, I for instance encountered them first on these forums, and I learned nothing about them in high school, the next time I came into contact with them was in my college composition course that focused on argumentation, and that was the first formal introduction I had to them.

That aside...

I think that part of the reason he is not taking the criticism to heart is because you are attacking his beliefs, wrong as they may be. If you want him to open up to seeing the error of his ways those debating him need to use more tact and less brute force (avoiding those drawn out quoting matches would help a lot). Im not sure if he has realized that ID and the theory of evolution dont necessarily have to be in total conflict with each other (and I am perfectly happy letting someone believe that god is the force behind the forces that are causing evolution, after all I cant prove he isnt), he does still need to understand that ID is not science before he will get my vote.

I know what you mean though, arguing against evolution and for ID is like saying that things fall to earth because god designed things that way, it doesnt at all cover the mechanism through which objects fall, or even try to quantify it. Evolution however is what for an intelligent theist should fall between intelligent design and the explanation for the diversity and constantly changing forms of earths organisms. They certainly dont just pop out of nowhere once god designs them.

 

[RDK]

Hunter, you're completely off the mark.

Someone who doesn't even read relevant links when provided, let alone the actual posts of the person he / she is arguing with, doesn't have anything to offer the Debate Hall. All GOD! does is lash out with meaningless remarks without providing any sort of evidence, external links, or sources, and on the rare occasions he does provide reasoning for his thinking, it's almost always fallacious.

 

[manhunter098]

He is intelligent though, and if he can shape up I would like to see him in here. And you keep missing the point that he has yet to earn my vote. Also we cant quite prove he is not reading the links, though I would agree given his responses he is either just skimming them, has no understanding of what he is reading, or he is flat out lying about reading them. Maybe I am being too soft on him, but I have hope that he can improve.

 

[Riddle]

Any reasonably intelligent person doesn't even need to be formally taught fallacies to learn them. I have never learned about logical fallacies in school, but I automatically don't use them without knowing their names, because they are usually obviously incorrect debating.

 

[GoldShadow]

Any reasonably intelligent person doesn't even need to be formally taught fallacies to learn them.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Dicto%20simpliciter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicto_simpliciter

 

[Mewter]

LOL.
Is he really committing a logical fallacy, though?
Goldshadow, you can't accuse him of making a logical fallacy because he is a debater. And since he is a debater, he cannot commit fallacies.
If you call him out like that, he might quit being a debater, which would terrorize the boards.
Face it. You've made the same error.
Problem solved.

 

[RDK]

Mewter, your entire post is an undignified lump of logical fallacies lol.

It's like a fallacy sandwich.

 

[Mewter]

Mewter, your entire post is an undignified lump of logical fallacies lol.

It's like a fallacy sandwich.

To shame, RDK!
You should buy me a large particle accelerator for my own personal use now that you've hurt my feelings. You don't want this to go down as Oliver twist did, do you?
Of course not, because you've made the same error.
You have, indeed, made the same, grave error.
The very, deep, unjustifiable error.

I await the delivery.

 

[Riddle]

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Dicto%20simpliciter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicto_simpliciter

Are you saying that there are intelligent people who need to be taught in school about logical fallacies and that it is acceptable for them to use them if they haven't? My point was that even if he hasn't been taught about fallacies he doesn't get a free pass.

 

[manhunter098]

Well he sort of does, but calling it a free pass is a little misleading. Its more like he is excused once and is given the chance to learn about them.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

He's been given 20 times to learn them and he doesn't.

As DJ Nintendo would say, he needs to quit life (as far as the PG is concerned).

 

[Aesir]

Great Kazoo is now my new favorite person.

 

[RDK]

From the Center Stage:

has anyone noticed how useless RDK is when posting?
I know I have.
RDK:
None of your points refuted my evidence.
All of your posts don't use reason.
All of my links are right and yours are all wrong.

That is what you are saying to me. So meanwhile, you can go and have fun in your mom's basement, cause I responded to everything you said for the past 5 pages or so.

Aesir: Please respond to the whole post I made. While you did respond to some of it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the entire thing before I make another reply.

Kazoo: $20 MM? Anything from $5-100 is good with me.

Kewkky:
Interesting thoughts. I wasn't saying, "I've taken classes so I must know more about logic than you." I was just proving that I know what I'm talking about somewhat, and that people here who are attacking me (and probably learned everything they know about logic from some website) should probably think before they say something dumb.

Also, truth is not relative, because it violates the laws of logic. Seeing a situation a different way and then coming up with different reasonable conclusions (which we have been doing here) is caused by mistaken first principles.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha. Ha.

Is this guy for real? There's no way he isn't a troll. I have too much faith in humanity to believe someone can be that stupid.

 

[aeghrur]

Okay, I'll admit it, I was wrong about GOD!
I seriously thought he had potential, and would be able to restrain from insults and the likes.
I'm disappointed.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah I haven't checked the thread yet because I've been busy with other things today, but after reading that especially the point he made at me I'm very disappointed. I can handle aggressive theists because I am an aggressive atheist but jesus christ.

Aesir: Please respond to the whole post I made. While you did respond to some of it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the entire thing before I make another reply.

I'm wondering if he's talking about how I didn't respond to points that had no barring on the discussion? Sorry I didn't feel like discussing my sex life in college. He blew little things way out of the water this is ridiculous he has to be a troll.

 

[manhunter098]

Ill have to agree that I too am rather disappointed with his last post, its seems like its one step forward and like 6 steps back.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Great Kazoo is now my new favorite person.

I aim to please.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha. Ha.

Is this guy for real? There's no way he isn't a troll. I have too much faith in humanity to believe someone can be that stupid.

He is not a troll--I did play against this guy @ a tourney. However, he does debate this poorly. What a shame.

EDIT: some comic gold for your eyes: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8210732&postcount=142

 

[Riddle]

Guys seriously? Do we operate by personal attacks here in the Debate Hall? Even if God! is a somewhat sub-stadard debater we should just give him constructive criticism and hope he improves. If he doesn't than simply don't let him into the DH. What are the attacks achieving?

 

[CRASHiC]

Riddle's keeping it real.

I nominate Omni

 

[Crimson King]

Guys seriously? Do we operate by personal attacks here in the Debate Hall? Even if God! is a somewhat sub-stadard debater we should just give him constructive criticism and hope he improves. If he doesn't than simply don't let him into the DH. What are the attacks achieving?

This.

RDK and TGK were reported as being overly offensive, so if I see it anymore, both will be kicked out the PG. We are trying to push the members to become better debaters, not attack personally. From here on out, all Debaters have this one warning before they will be booted from the PG.

 

[Aesir]

You guys can be convincing without throwing around insults, just don't make jokes because people will take them seriously and when you realize it's distracting the debate they'll make a big deal out of it.

Awesome.

 

[RDK]

The point is that he's a sub-par debater. You can only repeat the same thing over and over again before people see through you and decide not to pursue the conversation any longer. He's been accusing us of not backing up our claims for a while now, which is insanely ironic considering he's posted two links, one of them being an excerpt from Mein Kampf.

CK, I'm fine with being warned, but the truth is that I was just as rude as GOD! was, so if anything, he started it.

 

[Crimson King]

The point is that he's a sub-par debater. You can only repeat the same thing over and over again before people see through you and decide not to pursue the conversation any longer. He's been accusing us of not backing up our claims for a while now, which is insanely ironic considering he's posted two links, one of them being an excerpt from Mein Kampf.

CK, I'm fine with being warned, but the truth is that I was just as rude as GOD! was, so if anything, he started it.

I thoroughly care if the boy next to you started the fight first. This isn't grade school.

If you cannot speak to him with any sense of politeness, simply put him on ignore. I will obviously hold you more accountable for your actions.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

This.

RDK and TGK were reported as being overly offensive, so if I see it anymore, both will be kicked out the PG. We are trying to push the members to become better debaters, not attack personally. From here on out, all Debaters have this one warning before they will be booted from the PG.

My apologies for being offensive. I will do my best not to let it happen again.

However, I do have a point of inquiry for you and the rest of the brass: What is the best approach for PGers who consistently ****** their level of debating? It seems that nudging them in the right direction doesn't work, it seems that pointing out their logical fallacies doesn't work, nothing seems to work!

So, what should we do when confronted with this?