Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I think that grammar should not determine if one is good at debating or not. One can be good at debating even if they have bad grammar. There for it should not be the ultimate determining factor, And there for ICG should be let in to the debate halls grammar and all.
I do not know what you are talking about please expand upon this statement.
Grammar is a big deciding factor. If you don't know when to put periods and capitalize, you shouldn't be in the debate hall.
I wasn't talking to you. And unless you know who kupo, grey, and salt are, you won't understand.
ICG however is not THAT bad, if someone was indeed that bad I would not be in disagreement with you. He, however does have his basic grammar and grammar should not be such a determining factor that it sidetracks from the fact he is good at debating.
Oh, ok my misunderstanding.
Unfortunately he is THAT bad. His statements take me 20 min. to decipher.
I can read them just as easily as Shakespeare English, Which is medium to easy of a read. So really, I do not see why you have to "decipher" his post. They make perfect sense to me.
You might think his grammar's good, but everyone at the DH says it needs work.
I do not think his grammar is good. His grammar however is easy to read in spite of how "bad" it is and sense he is good at debating he should be let in. My argument is his debating skills out way his imperfect grammar which should not be a factor in not giving him access to the Debate Hall.
ICG's posts have been hard to decipher for quite sometime, and his topics have been head-scratching to say the least. And I've seen him posting in here for a year plus, and still not become a DHer.
You've gotten better, but I would say that there is still some improving you could do before you should be let in.
I can not understand why people are saying it is hard to understand him. Can you give some examples? And his topics are refreshing and unique and with a new wave of debates and thought it only proves that ICG is the hero that the world smash forums deserves, I guess most of the criticisms is a result of him being ahead of his time
.
This is a prime example of many of the problems ICG has in his debate style.I can not understand why people are saying it is hard to understand him. Can you give some examples? And his topics are refreshing and unique and with a new wave of debates and thought it only proves that ICG is the hero that the world smash forums deserves, I guess most of the criticisms is a result of him being ahead of his time
I understand where you are coming from. However, the topic you quoted could have real life moral implications based on what measures we as a species would go to in order to survive. Look at the Mutant Registration Program in the archives. A fine debate in my opinion, and it was not based off of things that happen in real life. HOWEVER,
This is the main issue with ICG. This is the reason why I wouldn't support his inclusion in the DH.
I'd be willing to help but I believe I will need more to go on. I'll admit I have not paid much attention to your posts, but I have reviewed this topic for the sake of argument.
I sense you're half pulling from Shakespeare and Dickens.
This is where you begin to define for yourself acceptable forms of Murder, in this case, revenge. Eye-for-an-eye mentality. But you claim that "current methods" are unacceptable, and then go further to say:
... so now we're talking about Capital Punishment. You see the difficulty here? Rather than sticking to one idea and formulating it, you've convoluted 2 ideas, "justifiable homicide" and Execution by the State. Though both can be considered "murder" (again since you didn't define it as such, this is an assumption), they're two different aspects and should be discussed separately.
Here you argue for manslaughter. And... cannibalism? yeah... a bit ... awkward to segue in this manner. But, as such it did add to your banter later on, lol. What it did not do is enhance your thesis at all, so in general I would recommend when you make an argument to remain focused on key aspects of the argument, and complete your thoughts before moving on to new ground. Always ensure that your points come back to your main thought.
Yes .
Not everyone. I don't think ICG should be let in, and there are people who already in the DH who I think should have been ejected for misconduct (I won't mention names, but everyone knows who I'm talking about anyway).
Ah, I see.
The thing is, you only disapprove of the extremes. For example, in thi above statement, you said to include dragoon fighter, who definetly needs work.You in the Jedi council said:
I haven't seen any of your PGer arguments, however, if you look at dragoon's "public execution debate", you can tell it needs work. And not because of philosiphys.
Hey! I am a member of that group. (not really sure what I wanted to convey there.) (I joined the group because if I do see mistakes in my post I correct them.)Here you go, Sucumbio.
Just doin mah job.
-_- Tou make me feel like the worst grammar nazi ever.
A grammar nazi is someone who is a stickler for grammar, sometimes to a fault. NOT someone with bad grammar.-_- You make me feel like I have the worst grammarnaziever.
