CRASHiC
Smash Hero
And this is why I want the recommendation hall open again. That lack of letting people in is why the PG hall died, and with a lack of new members, the DH died with it.
-
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!
The Debate Hall Social Thread
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
I like both your ideas. Anything really, to stimulate activity whiles preserving some semblance of distinction. Otherwise as Eor says we may as well drop the title altogether and just make this an open form for any and all non-brawl debates.
Oh yeah what's a Discussion Leader. Saw that title on a couple of spry posters, Dan GR comes to mind... Denzi...
Oh yeah what's a Discussion Leader. Saw that title on a couple of spry posters, Dan GR comes to mind... Denzi...
Aesir
Smash Master
We could just talk about it here? I dunno. It was partly my fault why the first thread got closed. Once a troll always a troll. =[
You mean this thread?
Reading through some of it I felt like I was sifting through my parent's sock drawer or something
I do however like the premise.
Also I'm just gonna say right now: I think we're ready for Dre and Bob-T
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
Can you post some examples of Dre and Bob-T?
BLAH
first time for everything
</board made me double post>
first time for everything
</board made me double post>
Sure!
Bob T
Good thread showing off some of Bob Jane T-Mart's better postulates.
Dre
Tough subject matter, this one, Dre goes for a non-scientific approach (typical for him) but is still able to match wits with some good debaters.
Both
Like the dueling banjos Dre and Bob T go head to head in this idiomatic battle of wits.
Both
Dre really likes the thick stuff. Bob T tends to be more thoughtful in his posts, but both get to their points, just in different ways.
----------------------------
Those are more recent examples. While Dre surfaced around CK's essay challenge, Bob T has been posting for a bit longer.
Off Topic: Is Eor really super banned? surely not...
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
Bob T has stepped his game up quite a bit.
I would say he should be let in.
As for Dre--no.
I would say he should be let in.
As for Dre--no.
actually... I agree now that I think of it. Bob is ready... Dre needs more time in the oven.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
Not to be a stickler, but why would you say that Dre deserves a little more time in the oven? Is this a matter of empirical vs non-empirical arguments between the two?
We need opposing views to get debates going.
We need opposing views to get debates going.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
I understand that we want a differing set of views here, but there has to be some kind of a threshold. For example, I know that Dre. has supported that there is evidence for the supernatural, though he hasn't shown any proof for it.
He uses a little too much anecdotal evidence with this back and forth between Bob-T as well.
Hope that clears it up.
Aesir
Smash Master
Just let him in, who cares.
Let Dre in.
Just the fact he's holding up against the majority of Debaters who believe in a scientific approach shows he's capable.
It's good to let different mindsets in, it allows diversity and makes things interesting. Just because you don't agree with his views doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong.
Just the fact he's holding up against the majority of Debaters who believe in a scientific approach shows he's capable.
It's good to let different mindsets in, it allows diversity and makes things interesting. Just because you don't agree with his views doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
Look, his problem comes when he starts going off on the belief that "SUPRNATRL STFF IZ REAL GUISE" and then starts using anecdotal evidence to prove it, which is something that we should be avoiding like the plague around here.
What makes you think I don't want him in because he doesn't agree with me? Because it's seems that you are putting words in my mouth.
Obv.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
While I agree that he's used "anecdotal evidence" I also agree he has used some evidence and tends to put up a bit of a fight. As much as we want strict adherence to following debate protocol, we also need some energy, some more wood on the fire, so to speak. We need something to spark activity, and as far as I see it, an addition like him can't hurt that. He's also not too bad a debater.
I also think that in general we need to ease up on who we let in to the debate hall. Making the criteria too strict has hurt us in my eyes. But hey, I haven't been around too much lately, so I understand if you don't want to take my opinion as seriously...
-blazed
I also think that in general we need to ease up on who we let in to the debate hall. Making the criteria too strict has hurt us in my eyes. But hey, I haven't been around too much lately, so I understand if you don't want to take my opinion as seriously...
-blazed
I have to agree with Marik on this one. Just because Dre isn't the best debater in the PG at the moment doesn't mean that he's not deserving.
But that's just my two cents.
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
At this point I really don't care who we let in, unless it's someone like Bob Saget. As long as they'll post, I don't see why they aren't deserving. Being in here will make them better anyway, and activity is what we need right now. Hopefully we'll get back to a time where we have lots of activity, and then we can go back to the rigorous admission criteria or whatever.
Basically what Aesir said.
Basically what Aesir said.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
Point taken.
I'll contact CK and we'll go from there. I'm not a big fan of making a big deal out of admissions, so if active debaters agree on someone, then that somenoe is fine by me.
I'll contact CK and we'll go from there. I'm not a big fan of making a big deal out of admissions, so if active debaters agree on someone, then that somenoe is fine by me.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
I recomended Succumbio to CK about 3 months or so ago. Hope it doesn't take as long here as well.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
kazoo, I agree with you that Dre uses anecdotal evidence too much, but I'm gonna have to agree with the majority. We need some good debates. Furthermore, I think that the DH has been far too hard to get into in general. Like I've said before, I think that all a PGer should need for admission is some basic etiquette, posting frequency, and effort to improve.
And yes, I suppot Bob Jane as well.
(Sorry for being late on this...)
And yes, I suppot Bob Jane as well.
(Sorry for being late on this...)
No on Dre. As much as the DH needs activity, trying to debate with people who don't really back up their claims is not conducive to 'debating'. It simply leads to arguing in circles. Will it up the 'activity' in the DH? Perhaps. Will it lead to more 'debating'? I'm not so sure.
Aesir
Smash Master
As much as I agree with you and someone who's debated with him in the past I can agree with this all to much. But I think it will foster more debating, the only problem is he's kinda on this high horse with philosophy, which I find detracts from his debating.
It would be interesting to see how his approach to philosophy would stack up against RDK or Del.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Bring him on.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
I don't really see much that DeLoRtEd1 doesn't do himself. I think he'd be fine in the debate hall, and though he may not be able to contribute as scientifically as you do Goldshadow, that isn't really a problem as long as he has something else that he can bring to the table.
Actually, you're the boss now, yes? I personally got in by PM'ing CK asking if he thought it'd be ok for me to apply, he said yes. I applied, someone clicked the button, I got in. I assume it was him. Prolly one of his last moderator activities before going admin. Point is, plain and simple. CK had seen me posting for a while, and I specifically answered his essay challenge, and to his liking.
Now obviously if someone in the PG out of no where PM's you and is like "can I be a debater?" your response would likely be, "I dunno, can you?" And you'd want to see them in action, that's what the center stage is for. Dre and Bob T have posted enough in the PG and in the center stage to more than show their ability.
As for "time in the oven" I can elaborate but I think you know by now what that meant judging by the previous posts on the matter. And as has been almost unanimously decided, his shortcomings are -not- reason enough to bar him entrance.
So as such, let 'em on in I says.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Are you saying I don't really back up my claims?
I tend not to debate in threads that aren't inherently philosophical.I will however admit to giving up on the health care thread with Goldshadow. I want another shot, though.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Well, in some cases you don't. Not every one of course, but my point was that not every debate will be scientifical and not every debate will require the skills that Goldshadow says is lacking in his post.
I don't have any problem with purely philosophical debates, I think they're just as necessary and interesting. What I do have a problem with is someone who continually asserts their philosophy as being better evidence than science in a scientific debate.
Aesir
Smash Master
We're American's you're not going to convince us that Single Payer is the way to go, when we have a system that just needs to be fixed, starting from scratch isn't the answer.Are you saying I don't really back up my claims?
I will however admit to giving up on the health care thread with Goldshadow. I want another shot, though.
America should be shifting toward a more French or swiss system.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
We should at least put in Bob Jane T-Mart; it seems nobody is in disagreement with that.
Aesir
Smash Master
I'm still saying Dre and if that doesn't happen I will create a string of threads about utter non-sense. And any of you who read the CT player finder thread will know I am in abundance of non-sense.
/Casual harmless threat that probably won't be followed through
/Casual harmless threat that probably won't be followed through
Reaver197
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
Well, after reading through the user blogs section a bit, I can really understand why CK felt he needed to be able to restrict who could post in the debate hall.
However, at the same time, I still think we need a way that's easier for people to get in, yet still gives the people in charge a good way to yank out people that clearly cannot live up the standards set for the DH.
However, at the same time, I still think we need a way that's easier for people to get in, yet still gives the people in charge a good way to yank out people that clearly cannot live up the standards set for the DH.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Agreed; that's why I'm saying the PG should just be a "bare minimum" room to ensure that the debater has at least adequate etiquette, posting quality, actvity, etc. And I think both of the PGers up for consideration pretty much meet that criteria (although Dre needs to differentiate between anecdotal and hard evidnce).
Aesir
Smash Master
I was discussing Free Trade with someone who acknowledges they have no college background so right away that should have been a red flag to me. Forget about that though, someone decides to chime in and call me out saying I either belong with the Tea party or the Republican party if I favor free trade so much.
Now I'm sure many of you are probably laughing right now because all of you know how unapologetic I am in supporting the welfare state. But his comment really struck a nerve with me because if my view on free trade qualifies me as a republican than that means every economist is a republican. Which is funny because Paul Krugman is anything but a republican.
So anyway, am I republican?
I'll like to put on the record that I support free trade but I'm not a blind follower in the belief that free trade is always going to work. It's worked great in asia but in latin america not so much. Which is why i think re-evaluating our trade agreements is pretty vital. But anyway thoughts?
Now I'm sure many of you are probably laughing right now because all of you know how unapologetic I am in supporting the welfare state. But his comment really struck a nerve with me because if my view on free trade qualifies me as a republican than that means every economist is a republican. Which is funny because Paul Krugman is anything but a republican.
So anyway, am I republican?
I'll like to put on the record that I support free trade but I'm not a blind follower in the belief that free trade is always going to work. It's worked great in asia but in latin america not so much. Which is why i think re-evaluating our trade agreements is pretty vital. But anyway thoughts?
blazedaces
Smash Lord
No. People are just very quick to label. It's wrong. I highly encourage you to continue denying any such attempts to box you into a category.
It's also an attempt to straw-man the argument. By calling you a republican they can immediately start bringing up certain "ready" arguments they have against them. Republicans do the same thing by referring to socialism or "government take-over" and other such nonsense. Everyone is guilty of it across the board.
You're not a label. You are your own unique viewpoint and I commend you for trying to stand up for that.
-blazed
No, you're not republican for endorsing free trade. Republicans aren't even republican anymore, but that's another story.
I'd have probably told him to go to the library, check out a copy of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, and have a nice day.
I'd have probably told him to go to the library, check out a copy of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, and have a nice day.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Republicans endorse free trade?!
Only libertarians endorse free trade these days.
Only libertarians endorse free trade these days.
Aesir
Smash Master
Well Nafta was kinda first introduced by the first bush administration lol.