The Debate Hall Social Thread

[GoldShadow]

Not quite.
http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-3-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282489798&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Eden-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282489795&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282489791&sr=8-1

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Oh... They're weird-titled books.

 

[Reaver197]

You're a weird-titled book.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...ge=2&ndsp=34&ved=1t:429,r:27,s:34&tx=68&ty=97

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...1t:429,r:3,s:41&tx=55&ty=69&biw=1756&bih=1075

Have fun with your new existential crisis.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I'm going places...Finally.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob: not necessarily. You're making the mistake of treating religion as a sinister united force. When in reality it's anything but that. One religion may have antagonized the other, but to the colonialists they were fleeing to practice their won religion without fear of persecution. Which they likely drew from the positive reinforcement of their own religion.

I'm not, I'm understanding that the disagreements between religions causes plenty of tension and conflict. The flight to the New World was in order to avoid conflict. This means that there was an issue, in that religion was a negative force in the world. Religion can be a positive force, but it's also negative, and the fact that people had to escape from a form of it, only adds to the point.

 

[Dre89]

Apart from the fact that people are committing the fallacy of compressing all religions together and treating them as one, if you're going to say that religion is a bad thing, then you have to say that all the development in western medieval civilisation is bad, and that ancient Rome was better.

You even have to say a society without universities is better, because they came from religion too.

 

[Sucumbio]

if you're going to say that religion is a bad thing, then you have to say that all the development in western medieval civilisation is bad

Not really. To say something is bad is to not necessarily also be saying that nothing good has come of it.

and that ancient Rome was better.

All societies since the beginning of civilization starting with Mesopotamia and including the Ancient Romans have enjoyed religion of some kind, ranging from the Shaman or Medicine Man all the way to giant temples of worship.

 

[blazedaces]

Apart from the fact that people are committing the fallacy of compressing all religions together and treating them as one, if you're going to say that religion is a bad thing, then you have to say that all the development in western medieval civilisation is bad, and that ancient Rome was better.

You even have to say a society without universities is better, because they came from religion too.

I'm tired of hearing you say this. Universities, I've pointed out over and over again, did not come from religion. The first university was started by Plato and had nothing to do with any religious institution.

Let me be abundantly clear, if the church never existed we WOULD STILL HAVE UNIVERSITIES.

If you want to say otherwise I would like some evidence/sources...

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

That was a progressive time in human history, but after the fall of the Roman Empire there was a period of regression. Afterward you didn't see universities, until the high middle ages period where you saw them coming back in the form of religious universities which would eventually evolve into what we see today.

 

[Sucumbio]

In the strictest of senses, Dre. is correct.

The oldest university is Bologna founded 1088 AD. Universities such as this, and others from around that time period, were run by the Church, and mostly existed for hundreds of years prior to them being identified as actual universitas as Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools. It is important to note the difference between these schools and prior Ancient higher-learning institutions such as the Platonic Academy . One of these key identifiers is the idea of Academic Freedom, which Bologna is the first to adopt in its charter, the Constitutio Habita. This charter guaranteed the right of a traveling scholar to unhindered passage in the interests of education.

 

[rvkevin]

University of Bologna The first university in the sense of a higher learning, degree awarding institute, the term 'university' being coined at its foundation.

If that's all he means, that it was the first institution to be called a university, since they coined the term, that's a pretty weak point. As for institutions that hand out degrees, I could take it or leave it. It is the learning that takes place that is significant, not the accreditation it gives to its members. In that case, the substance of universities was present before the term was ever coined, making his point moot.

 

[Deleted member]

Agreed, it's weak. You had places in the middle east much earlier than that doing more important things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom

 

[Aesir]

The point is religion has been beneficial to society, not all it's impacts are negative.

 

[rvkevin]

The point is religion has been beneficial to society, not all it's impacts are negative.

I don't think that was a point of contention. I've stated that even if it were the case that religion was beneficial in the past, it is irrelevant to its current utility. That it is a sunk cost in the annals of history, we must proceed from here as anew. The only reason to bring up religion now is to extol it for its utility or to bring it up as an example to avoid. Unless you think that example shows future potential for religion, no point has been made.

I'm not sure what the university example is supposed to accomplish. Learning about the world is a universal feature. Every culture does it to some extent. Noting that does not validate religion in any meaningful way. In what meaningful sense can you justify saying that religion caused or is responsible for higher learning? To me, they are merely correlated events in history. Any further elaboration on that has not been established thus far.

 

[Aesir]

The argument was meant to show that religion has had benefits on society, and religion still has it's utility today, saying otherwise is just plain wrong. Religion offers a lot of social services to people without asking much of anything in return.


edit; i'm not saying it was a good argument, I"m just explaining it.

 

[Reaver197]

Found this article, and thought it appropriate considering what you guys are discussing.

http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

It's about how not only did Christianity do little to nothing with helping the modern foundations of science and medicine, but during its rise and hold on power during the Dark Ages, actively fought against them, ruining much of Europe's intellectual ability and freedom after the Roman Empire, depressing and regressing them for centuries afterwards.

Also, this bit from the author's other post here: http://nobeliefs.com/Flynn.htm

universities: Precursors of the university occurred in ancient Greece at the University of Athens, founded by Plato. It was from the Greeks that the Dark Age teachers got most of their sources. In China the Nanjing University was founded in 258 CE. In Korea, Taehak was founded in 372 CE and Gukhak was established in 682 CE. In India, the Nalanda University was established in the 5th century CE. In Iran the Academy of Gundishapur was an important medical center of the 6th, 7th and 7th centuries CE. In Japan Ashikaga Gakko was founded in the 9th century.

If the definition of a university is assumed to mean an institution of higher education and research which issues academic degrees at all levels (bachelor, master and doctorate) like in the modern sense of the word, then the medieval Madrasahs, or more specifically the Jami'ah, founded in the 9th century would be the first examples of such an institution.

The Gupta rulers in India encouraged higher learning by patronizing centers of higher education at Nalanda, Takshila, Ujjain, Vikramshila and Vallabhi. Each university specialized in a particular field of study. Takshila specialized in the study of medicine, while Ujjain laid emphasis on astronomy. Nalanda, being the biggest center, handled all branches of knowledge. During the Gupta period India became a center for higher studies by attracting scholars from all parts of India and from several foreign countries. These universities became popular in the seventh and eighth centuries A.D. People flocked to the Sarnath university to study Buddhist religion and to Ajanta to specialize in art, architecture and painting. These educational institutions were financed by grants of land and liberal donations from kings as well as from other affluent people. [1] The first university in the Europe didn't appear until almost 700 years after the beginning of the Dark Ages! [2]

This blog post I found also seems pretty relevant.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html

So, ancient Rome was in deed preferable and more advanced than much of the successive western European civilization that came afterwards, and religion, both indirectly and directly, helped that decline.

Also, saw this and it seemed fitting to post.

http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/the-murder-of-larry-hooper/

 

[Dre89]

I'm tired of hearing you say this. Universities, I've pointed out over and over again, did not come from religion. The first university was started by Plato and had nothing to do with any religious institution.

Let me be abundantly clear, if the church never existed we WOULD STILL HAVE UNIVERSITIES.

If you want to say otherwise I would like some evidence/sources...

-blazed

The Academy was different in that it dealt purely with philosophy and thsoe sorts of dsicplines.

Universities that came from monasteries delat with a wider range of courses.

Granted, there were universities in the Middle East first, but who knows how long it would have taken for them to come to western civilisation without the Church.

 

[Deleted member]

but who knows how long it would have taken for them to come to western civilisation without the Church.

Arabian numerals got introduced here without the church.
If something that fundamental got here without help, I'm sure a form of education can.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Okay, four months ago, I said that Dre was straight smart trolling with his posts by flowering them up to make himself sound important.

After the misadventures with the PG threads, anyone wanting to reconsider and possibly revoking his pink so he can learn to debate a little bit more respectably?

Mods and everybody else, let me know what you think.

 

[Dre89]

I was pretty much the only person in the thread who wasn't calling people names.

Stop prejudicing against me because of my views. You and are the only people who constantly whine about me yet neither of you ever debate me.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I was pretty much the only person in the thread who wasn't calling people names.

Stop prejudicing against me because of my views. You and are the only people who constantly whine about me yet neither of you ever debate me.

Your posts speak for themselves. Just saying.

Also, I find it counter-intuitive for debating people who will make no admissions that they fuzzed up. Your debating style is something I've seen for the duration of a year on Youtube (such are the advantages of subscribing to the channels I do :3) prior to my coming on the boards.

I have, on multiple occasions, pointed out some errors in your debating tactics. But, as the custom with people of your debating types, you brush them aside and say they aren't sufficient, or just fail to address them on the appropriate level.

In fact, I have no problem with your debating viewpoint. Rather, it's the way that you debate which is the problem. In my (and mine's likely isn't in singularity anymore) opinion, you want respect from those you're debating automatically. So, an air of pomposity comes through when you do this.

In a previous life, I was guilty of this (but not on the DH), but I'm glad to say that has gone away from my postings on the crashboards. But it takes one to know one, and you, IMHO, are smart trolling out of control.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

In a previous life, I was guilty of this (but not on the DH), but I'm glad to say that has gone away from my postings on the crashboards.

TGK there's something about your posts that just irk me the wrong way. I feel like they're being sent in from a cell-phone while you're doing kickflips off vert ramps or something. "Hang ten dudes, here's my debate! WHAT UP!?"

 

[thegreatkazoo]

TGK there's something about your posts that just irk me the wrong way. I feel like they're being sent in from a cell-phone while you're doing kickflips off vert ramps or something. "Hang ten dudes, here's my debate! WHAT UP!?"

I ninja'd you before you even knew what was good. G@me.

But Arcostic has a valid point, and it happened to be one I address in the last post.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

*is too lazy to read last couple of pages* What's the current topic here?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I ninja'd you before you even knew what was good. G@me.

But Arcostic has a valid point, and it happened to be one I address in the last post.

Dre is far from the worst debater with DH status. His moral ethics thread is unique and he tries to play Devil's Advocate in order to add volume to a given debate such as in his "Legalization of Drugs" thread. I understand that some of his arguments in the "Homosexuality" thread in both the PG and the DH came under fire. Yet a couple of comments shouldn't revoke anyone of their DH status. Dre is a frequent poster and attempts to show an interest in the development of Proving Ground members as he has begun a Free Will vs. Determinism debate with Bob Saget.

In a Debate Hall there are often contested topics that will result in negative impressions, however, it is important to take into consideration the value that such users bring in and their intentions when they contribute to the debate at hand. I feel that Dre is a good guy and that he is not trying to troll anyone. I don't believe that the DH should be more exclusive and I feel that taking privileges away from Dre is an act of regression rather than DH progress. RDK and many other foundational members who contributed frequently to the DH no longer have the time or resources to make the same great posts that they used to make in the DH. I feel that users like Dre have a critical function in keeping discussion and activity in the DH to prevent the forum board from dying. Dre is already more experienced than the current batch of PG members vying for contention in my personal opinion and wouldn't be able to benefit the DH in the same capacity by limiting his access to the forum board.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dre is far from the worst debater with DH status

That's probably me. Lol, I haven't done anything uniques and original.

 

[Lore]

I'm ok with Dre, but I'd love to see him actually back up some of his arguments.

While we're on the subject of questionable debaters, how am I doing? I'd hate to be embarassing myself without realizing it.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Dre is far from the worst debater with DH status. His moral ethics thread is unique and he tries to play Devil's Advocate in order to add volume to a given debate such as in his "Legalization of Drugs" thread. I understand that some of his arguments in the "Homosexuality" thread in both the PG and the DH came under fire. Yet a couple of comments shouldn't revoke anyone of their DH status. Dre is a frequent poster and attempts to show an interest in the development of Proving Ground members as he has begun a Free Will vs. Determinism debate with Bob Saget.

In a Debate Hall there are often contested topics that will result in negative impressions, however, it is important to take into consideration the value that such users bring in and their intentions when they contribute to the debate at hand. I feel that Dre is a good guy and that he is not trying to troll anyone. I don't believe that the DH should be more exclusive and I feel that taking privileges away from Dre is an act of regression rather than DH progress. RDK and many other foundational members who contributed frequently to the DH no longer have the time or resources to make the same great posts that they used to make in the DH. I feel that users like Dre have a critical function in keeping discussion and activity in the DH to prevent the forum board from dying. Dre is already more experienced than the current batch of PG members vying for contention in my personal opinion and wouldn't be able to benefit the DH in the same capacity by limiting his access to the forum board.

Thanks homes. I value your opinion, and that definitely made me think of another side to Dre's arguments which I hadn't before.

That's probably me. Lol, I haven't done anything uniques and original.

Don't be down on yourself homes.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What about me?

Don't be down on yourself homes.

Debater gangster=sign of the apocalypse.

WE'RE DOOMED.

 

[Dre89]

Thanks for the support guys.

I do explain my arguments, it's just I can't answer eight people at a time.

People shouldn't be ganging up like that in a DH, it hinders productivity.

Kazoo, I dont understand what you want from me. I tell you what, why don't we have a 1v1 debate and see what people think? If I get good reviews from judges that you respect here, will you leave me alone?

This way, I can explain everything thouroughly and answer any questions, because I can focus on just you.

So what do you say?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Come on Kazoo. Give it a rest. I thought it was over, but nooooooo, as soon as I get home from vacation this is what I see. How about we hop off of the Dre subject?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Television and stuff like that can control what people do.

Discuss.

 

[Dre89]

Television and stuff like that can control what people do.

Discuss.

How about this, are kids violent because they watch violent television, or do they watch violent television because they're violent?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

How about this, are kids violent because they watch violent television, or do they watch violent television because they're violent?

Alternatively, it could be a mixture of both, where a positive feedback loop ensues. ie. Kids get violent because of television, and because of this, they watch more television that makes them more violent etc.

I've got no evidence to prove this though, so at the moment, this is basically a big "I reckon".

 

[Dre89]

But that would still essentially be the first scenario.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Thanks for the support guys.

I do explain my arguments, it's just I can't answer eight people at a time.

People shouldn't be ganging up like that in a DH, it hinders productivity.

Kazoo, I dont understand what you want from me. I tell you what, why don't we have a 1v1 debate and see what people think? If I get good reviews from judges that you respect here, will you leave me alone?

This way, I can explain everything thouroughly and answer any questions, because I can focus on just you.

So what do you say?

Yes, it's a conspiracy when someone calls you out! :O

History repeats itself, no?

I don't want a 1v1 debate with you. I know that I will likely not have the patience to deal with it, and it hinders on insanity. You know, the whole expecting something different when you do the same thing over and over and over...

I'd add a in before you scared there, but I'm gonna assume people are going to take the high road on this one and take my word for it.

Do you not see how what I've said about your debate style is @ least somewhat true--if you don't take my word, try:

1. CK
2. Sucummbio
3. Teran
4. Reaver
5. RDK
6. Even Xsy had animadversions on your posts on one occasion.

If you seriously are going to keep saying "ITZ A CONSPIRCZ!" with all of that, then you are further digging yourself a hole.

Look back @ your posts homes. Just saying.

Come on Kazoo. Give it a rest. I thought it was over, but nooooooo, as soon as I get home from vacation this is what I see. How about we hop off of the Dre subject?

See above. And you obviously didn't catch up on the PG stuff, which is were I needed to bring this up again.

 

[KrazyGlue]

PG Rules

I just recently noticed the forum rules thread that Sucumbio has posted in the PG. First of all, I think this is an excellent idea. We used to have, like, 5 stickied threads in the PG that are either covered in the new one or were antiquated and useless. So it was a great idea for organization. I also greatly appreciate that he took my suggestion of posting the "How to Post" thread in the PG. So for that, I thank you.

Moving onward, there is one minor gripe I have with the rules. And that would be the requirement of 3 threads, 5 posts, and 1 center stage debate to be granted DH admittance. This, to me, seems way to formulaic and unnecessary. The one thing I understand is the 5 post limit. Obviously we need that amount to ensure the person consistently maintains a calm demeanor, respectful attitude, and relatively serious tone in their posts. However, beyond that, no restrictions should be made on the DHers ability to decide when a PGer is ready for admittance.

For instance, I knew right away that Acrostic was ready for DH admittance. It was clear and obvious to everyone. It would have been an unnecessary burden on both the DH and Acrostic to have to wait for him to churn out 3 topics. This rule also encourages quick, brief topics to be posted simply in order to make the limit of three. Furthermore, some people are really better at posting in topics than starting them, and there is nothing wrong with that. I've only made maybe 3-5 topics the whole time I've been in the DH, but I post in topics consistently, and I don't believe that should have to change for future PGers.

So, I completely accept the 5 post rule, but completely reject the three topic rule. Now on to the middle-ground: the center stage debate. Again, this should not be required of PGers. If the debaters know they are ready right away (such as with Acrostic and most likely spookyskeptic as well) this should not be required. HOWEVER, the center stage is an excellent tool for two things: 1) Debaters can ask a certain PGer who is on the fence to participate in a debate there, and 2) PGers who have not been talked about much in the Jedi Counsel can advocate for themselves there. So, while the center stage can be a very important factor in whether someone is admitted or not, it shouldn't be a requirement.

Overall, the post is very welcome, and I commend Sucumbio for keeping the PG organized and professional-looking. However, I propose that the rules should be changed to reflect these suggestions. Another viable option is to keep the 5 posts rule but to make the other two things "suggestions". Thoughts on these changes?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Moving onward, there is one minor gripe I have with the rules. And that would be the requirement of 3 threads, 5 posts, and 1 center stage debate to be granted DH admittance. This, to me, seems way to formulaic and unnecessary. The one thing I understand is the 5 post limit. Obviously we need that amount to ensure the person consistently maintains a calm demeanor, respectful attitude, and relatively serious tone in their posts. However, beyond that, no restrictions should be made on the DHers ability to decide when a PGer is ready for admittance. So, I completely accept the 5 post rule, but completely reject the three topic rule.

Not an absolute requirement, but a recommendation. Look at the visitor message conversation between Dark Horse and Sucumbio:

On your requirements for getting into the DH, can you take off the "debate in the center stage" part? It seems unnecessary.

They're only suggestions, really. "The following procedure will help ensure your entrance in a timely manner." You don't HAVE to do all that, but someone who does do all that will most definitely get in. Someone who doesn't do all that will still get in depending on the quality of what they have done.

HOWEVER, the center stage is an excellent tool for two things: 1) Debaters can ask a certain PGer who is on the fence to participate in a debate there, and 2) PGers who have not been talked about much in the Jedi Counsel can advocate for themselves there. So, while the center stage can be a very important factor in whether someone is admitted or not, it shouldn't be a requirement.

Again. Covered in the above conversation between DH and Sucumbio. Not a requirement, but a recommendation. Also I thought Rapture was a good contributor in the PG and was being ignored by DH users. Rapture pointed that out in the Center Stage and received the proper attention that was due. I'm definitely an advocate for the CS but it seems like it's not being used at all by the PG members. Perhaps they don't want to feel pretentious by stating that they deserve membership and want to wait patiently for the Jedi Council thread to give them their proper due. Just speculation.

Overall, the post is very welcome, and I commend Sucumbio for keeping the PG organized and professional-looking. However, I propose that the rules should be changed to reflect these suggestions. Another viable option is to keep the 5 posts rule but to make the other two things "suggestions". Thoughts on these changes?

I think I cleared up most of the misunderstandings. Sucumbio decided to put that up after I asked him to verify the requirements that I dug up from early pages in the thread. The thread was really supposed to be a guideline for PG members to follow in case they were curious what they needed to do in order to get into the DH. Not a by the book manual.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Ah I see. That should probably be made more clear. Perhaps there should be a sentence like "The following procedure is not absolutely required but is recommended".

Even then, there are still a few changes that should be put in effect:

1. Make the 5 posts a requirement.

2. Add a clause that allows the DHers to request that a PGer participate in a CS debate before being accepted.

 

[Sucumbio]

ah you saw my thread ^^ yeah, it's all simple recommendations. if anything this will prove whether or not PG members are actually reading before posting nah, but yeah, as you have pointed out, KG Acrostic was ready from the get go. There are others too that were ready and only joined the PG because it's ... tradition? Not really the right word but I'm sleep deprived atm. Anyway, it's really just a general guideline. Someone who does all those things -successfully- should be let into the DH. Someone who does say, 3 posts, 1 topic and no CS debate, eh, we'd prolly want more from them.

And to clear things up:

spookyskeptic is my wife.

Also I told her the general guidelines as set forth in the rules thread, and she scanned the PG looking for interesting topics to post in. I told her it's okay to post in topics even if they're really old. I treat the PG like the User Blogs in this regard, there's no problem as far as I'm concerned if someone "necros" an old topic, it's not that critical, lol.

About the Dre. thing... he's getting a pass. We've agreed to disagree, all that jazz. Yeah, some of us here think "smart troll" fits or actually "concerned troll" more accurately. His views on homosexuality would fit most modern definitions of "homophobic." Spook being technically a lesbian (don't ask, it's a long story) feels that Dre.'s participation here is not only confounding (why isn't he room banned?) but inappropriate. To allow a troll to sit in our midst, plain faced and free to disrupt the boards.

I have reviewed the situation along with several other moderators I pointed to the Debate Hall/Proving Grounds, and of course with Gold Shadow. His infraction is reversed, and we've agreed he's not to be banned. Going forward, I've asked that when he posts regarding his views on gays that he do so with respect, avoiding blanket statements that can be construed as anti-gay sentiment (such as "gays are evil"). In the more recent DH version, he's kept the debate to a much more philosophical high ground, though there still seems to be some meandering on the floor about what is "natural" and what isn't. Meh, I've already locked the PG topic for fear it'd get further out of hand and expose posters to frankly inappropriate material. Lets not let that one get out of hand too. For those of you that honestly believe Dre. should not be a member here, your voices are heard, your stances acknowledged, but as Moderators, we have to be fair to everyone, and it's just not fair to ban him for the little that he's said and done.