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!
It's only conflicting because one chooses to look at it that way. Or one is predetermined to. Or circumstances, attitude, etc. From either view for whatever reason we're talking about the same thing. The debate's about different perspectives in labeling a disagreement. Can this be resolved by 'defeating' the opposition? Tomato/tomoto.
I understand what you mean but my argument is null and void without evidence. Do not worry I will try again at a latter date once I get more practice in.
The do some research! It won't hurt!
Err... because debates generally tend to talk about the same thing but argue different viewpoints of it. You've basically just confirmed what I just said. Same thing with tomato/tomoto. We'd argue for which pronunciation is correct. One solid way to defend one pronunciation is to get an English dictionary and look up the word. Unless you're arguing tomato/tomoto in some other language, the person who just pulled out the dictionary pretty much stuck the nail in the coffin.
Taking my post color.... (ha, me claiming ownership over a color. <_<)
That sounds like something interesting to pick something out of. Except I shouldn't really say anything since I'm not guaranteed time anymore.
Do it whenever you feel you're ready. Just gauge yourself with how you feel you're doing in the thread's you're posting in now.
Get robbed :bandit:
I lost.
Tomato/tomoto is a figure of speech. Arguments about subjective topics can fill the history of human kind. Ones like this. I don't believe anyone is without bias but some things can be proven as facts too. Maybe I don't like the (please excuse the expression) black and white format. To simply defend an argument and defeat another can't view either in a realistic sense. When people spend energy and time arguing the subjective it diverts from common ground and issues that can be proven right or wrong through facts.
(Sorry I'm in a bad mood) people pick the most emotional and subjective arguments to distract from actually solving a problem. This isn't referring to these boards, just making that clear. One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone can't answer a question. People will sidetrack and do just about anything before admitting their views were flawed. One of my favorites is 'Q: what about the 47 million uninsured Americans? A: They should find jobs.'
Very well, I wish to challenge a debater to a debate on center stage. Who am I facing this time?
I will debate you. Pick any topic and position that makes you comfortable. I'd like to see how well you do when you are debating a topic you are comfortable with. Perhaps the censorship debate would be good. Please remember that I will take whatever position opposes yours, and it may or may not reflect my true opinions on the matter.
Yes, that is why bookworm was banned. It is explicitly stated in the SWF global rules that any alternate accounts are prohibited and will be banned.
Alright, I have never had a debate on censorship before, but I would like to debate that topic.
I do understand the point you are trying to make. However, you would only know "*****" was supposed to be there if you already know what the word means. What if some little kid was flipping through TV channels and ended up hearing that word because it wasn't censored?
True, explicit words are only explicit because we treat them that way. But our culture isn't going to change that much any time soon, and we need to respect the fact that in the current state of the world, these words shouldn't be heard by little children. If you keep saying "****" to a little kid instead of "fudge", they will eventually use that word as an expression of anger. When they say that word in school, the faculty and administration will not take it lightly. You can be suspended from school for using vulgar language (at least in my school district), meaning the kid could suffer educationally all due to you bringing them up incorrectly.
No problem, we'll just start from here. I don't need this to be a full official debate, I just need to see what skills you have.
It'll be fun though. Seriously.
In one sense I agree with you however in are internet connected culture it is a true challenge to sensor everything and more likely then not the kid will hear about the word before/during elementary. Even if the parents do everything in there power to keep the word from coming into the house and TV/Radio keep on doing what they are currently doing, more likely then not the kid will learn of the word and possibly use it once or twice.
Why should it not be heard by children in the united states and I am presuming the Europe powers (What country are we debating about)?
The parents should be proactive in preventing there child's usage of the word. Not by passively censoring the word but by explaining to the kid the situation and giving an honest discussion to there kids as to the results of using it in school.
Of course their kid will eventually figure out those words, but the parents should discuss why these words are bad and set a good example for their children. And TV/Radio broadcasters have every right to censor their program however they want. Ever consider that some people get offended/embarrassed just from hearing some of those words? Especially more offensive ones like "female dog" and the "N-word".
No country in particular is being debated here; rather, we are discussing the ethics of the issue. Why shouldn't children hear it? Well, I've already offered one explanation:
KrazyGlue said:
They should indeed have a candid discussion on why not to use the word, as that will help the child understand the reasoning. However, if parents openly curse around their children they are setting an example for them. If parents want to prevent their child from cursing, they need to set a good example, because children tend to follow their parents' lead.
Yes, in most games often the player repetitively kills people or fight some sort of monsters, and yes, humans pick up on habits or actions by repetition, although, in a game, there are no consequences, if the player kills an enemy, its just polygons, the player is not killing another person, so the mental factor and mental will is not needed. For most people, the mental factor of being able to kill, being able to suffer/ escape the consequences, really wanting to kill, ect. are non-existent, so it does not teach the player how to control emotions before murder/ violence.
I would actually consider today's games very realistic.
I'm pretty sure no normal person plays violent video games to releive their stress.
please go into more depth about why you say this, i know there are better graphics and basic motion controls, but those are not good enough to simulate violence completely realistically yet
Actually there are, not everyone does, most people who play games don't, but, there a still a lot of gamers that will use games to relieve stress. There was a violent flash game made by adult swim on cartoon network, called "Five Minutes to Kill Yourself" which, when advertised on TV, actually mentioned a way to take away stress, the game was very popular and well received. People love punching things, throwing things, hurting others, ect. when angry just because people naturally get calmed down by such actions. In games you can do all of that, and there many people who do all of that (not a large percent of the game community, but the game community itself is enormous). This can largely be contributed to online games, because, a lot of people will say they want to kill X person or punch Y person when angry, in online games like street fighter, they can actually kill X person or punch Y person without consequences or actually harming more than the person's character.
Have you even seen some violent video games?
[/quote]
yes i have, owning all 3 gaming consoles, playing the new games regularly, and having friends who play pretty much every new game which i regularly come over and watch, I've seen the types of games there are. From Gears of War, to God of war, GTA, ect. I have seen all the games, very few games depict realistic violence, because games like gears and god of war show completely impossible worlds, enemies, weapons, and situations. No gamer can take away realistic ideas of killing from unrealistic games, also, people understand games are not real, keep that in mind, we don't watch movies like Kill Bill and then try to kill hundreds of people in bloody ways with a sword for revenge, nor do people play GTA then steal a tank and blow up half of a city.
Not really, its still a violent video game, the concept is original, but the idea is still to murder someone in violent ways.
Do you need an impossible world to kill somebody?
What I meant is, killing yourself is very different than killing another person.
Yes it does, its much easier for people to kill a different life form, which is why animal hunters aren't rare, same could be said about aliens. So if aliens came to earth, based on human nature, we would not have as much mental difficulty killing aliens if need be.
I pointed this game out because it was a violent game meant to reduce stress (or at least that was mentioned when it was advertised). Obviously killing yourself requires a completely different mental mindset.
nope, never sad that, just a good amount of it
I'll debate you. Also, two people can go at the same time. Pick a topic and a position you will feel comfortable debating.
