The Jedi Council

[Aesir]

I'm against freeman to be honest. But I'm a lone voice among many and my reasons are mostly from the tax thread where he used some pretty bad arguments.

I trust others decisions on this manner as they've had more experience with him than I have.

 

[Sucumbio]

so i'm back after a tiring move out of my in-law's place into my own apartment (final ****ing-ly) and I see freeman is still not accepted, lol. so I guess for now we'll have to move on. I'd still recommend keeping him in mind, but I do understand the resistance against him.

lol @ caps-crazy Krazy :D See I made my post in just under 10 minutes. Dre. would have to spend at least that providing a similar synopsis of the posts after the ones I pointed out. BTW I pointed those out because those were the initial posts before your argument segued into who's a better arguer. >< Instead of focusing on that (both of you are to blame there) you should have been the better debater and coached him instead of just taking the ball and going home.

 

[KrazyGlue]

lol @ caps-crazy Krazy :D

I was getting a wee bit ticked off, lol.

See I made my post in just under 10 minutes. Dre. would have to spend at least that providing a similar synopsis of the posts after the ones I pointed out.

Well, if he's not willing to put in 10 minutes, I'll never understand the reasoning behind why he doesn't want him in.

BTW I pointed those out because those were the initial posts before your argument segued into who's a better arguer. >< Instead of focusing on that (both of you are to blame there) you should have been the better debater and coached him instead of just taking the ball and going home.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here... All I want is for him to show what, in particular, he disdains so much about freeman. I mean, saying "he calls my points baseless assumptions!" isn't very helpful, especially when that's not the only thing he's doing. I've seen him make those claims, but I'd still like to see which particular posts Dre dislikes so much.

 

[Sucumbio]

sorry that wasn't directed at you, I was saying that Dre. and freeman both spent more time bickering than debating, essentially.

 

[Dre89]

+1 to Th3kuzinator. His posts appear logical and informed, and he displays a genuine interest to debate. There appears to be no reason to hold back his admission.

With regards to Feeman, I want to make sure people don't get the wrong idea. I noticed people -1'd him because they said had bad arguments, but your perception of bad arguments shouldn't be a reason to restrict someone from DH memebership.

I didn't object to Freeman because he had bad arguments, I objected to him because of his debate style, which was just labelling all my arguments as baseless without explaining why, and asking questions I've already answered. I also objected to him because his particular displayed he had no knowledge of the topic, yet he considered himself an authority. He made multiple historically incorrect claims, which are indisupted, and refused to back them up when called out, and also made arguments that only those uneducated in the issue make. All this reflected bad debating skills.

Bad arguments don't necessarily make a bad debater. For example, I read part of the renowned Christian academic Richar Swinburne's book "Was Jesus God?" where he attempts to provide a philosophical justification of the Trinity. This argument in particular I perceived to be really bad, but at the same time, I know Swinbure is well educated, and vastly superior to me in terms of intellect, so I'd be mad to object to his acceptance into the DH.

Dawkins is different however, because he's actually not educated on the God issue. The God Dellusion is literally no different to getting a plumber's opinion on God.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I noticed people -1'd him because they said had bad arguments, but your perception of bad arguments shouldn't be a reason to restrict someone from DH memebership.

Dre. I'm so sorry, but I couldn't stop myself from laughing after I finished reading this sentence.

 

[Dre89]

I always edit my posts to correct them. I'm surprised I most those.

Just proving to you all that the great Dre is still only human.

 

[Reaver197]

So, let's talk about the kuzinator. From the links he gave in the Center Stage, I'd say he should be an easy in, unless anyone has any experiences with him pointing to the contrary.

 

[Deleted member]

I meant to +1 kuz a while ago, but I must have forgotten. Luckily his post in the Center Stage reminded me. The stuff he's written in the PG is good and I've seen his posts in the 64 area too.

Plus, I'm actually biased against him. He helped me set up my Project 64, which single handedly ruined my academics last term.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, I give my support to kuz. +1 for a total of +3.

 

[Deleted member]

I think it's 4 if you include reaver, who didn't actually say +1 but seems to have meant it.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

If the score is already +3/+4, then the Center Stage 1 vs. 1 is really overkill. I hate the fact that I couldn't have been more involved this week. **** me.

 

[Sieguest]

You all are the most misinformed posters I've ever seen!

t3hkuzinator OBVIOUSLY does not need to be here yet for OBVIOUS reasons.
obv.

-1 for the sake RATIONAL thinking.

Spoiler

/lamejoking. I'm all for t3hkuzinator being in here. We all seem to agree that he's posted good since he's been here and even before. As evidenced in the center stage

If the score is already +3/+4, then the Center Stage 1 vs. 1 is really overkill. I hate the fact that I couldn't have been more involved this week. **** me.

You're making me feel like a horrible person here. I've only posted once this whole week. x.x

 

[Reaver197]

Oh yeah, +1 to kuz, and all that jazz.

Though, I don't even know how many pluses we need to reach.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Four votes with no dissension is an admit. Also, kuz doesn't seem like the type of person to warrant disapproval from Succumbio, Evil Eye, or GoldShadow.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Kuz... I've only seen him in the "Should Gays be allowed to Adopt" thread. However, what I saw of him was quite good.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Thanks for the support everyone!

Can't wait to actually use the DH now

 

[Evil Eye]

Posthumous +1 for kuz goes here

that's right kuz now you're dead

 

[Dre89]

+1 For Nicholas.

Regardless of what you guys think of his arguments, he's shown an adequate level of research, knowledge and logic to be accepted. I feel that rejecting him would just be personal bias.

The DH could do with one or two biblical scholar-orientated debaters anyway.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Posthumous +1 for kuz goes here

that's right kuz now you're dead

First I was like wait...what? Why did he misspell post-humorous?...I don't even get the joke anyway...

*looks up posthumous*

that makes more sense now.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah Nicholas isn't that bad. Plus we need to stir up some controversy around here. +1.

Also +1 to ballin4life.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Since I just joined I dont know if I have any pull in this thread.

But if i do.

+1 to ballin for sure

 

[Reaver197]

The thing that gives me hesitation about Nicholas was that I think I remember seeing on several occasions where he would call people's posts a waste of time, or idiotic (or something along those lines), at least when he initially started posting. It gave me the impression he just reacted out of hand to opinions differing from his. Maybe he's better though or I got the wrong impression, and I would certainly take other people's word for it since I haven't really read much of his stuff.

Otherwise, I would be fine with him coming in.

Ballin I've seen only a little of, but nothing that put me off. He seems like he would also be a good person to welcome in.

 

[Evil Eye]

+1 to ballin4life, I'll let him in if I see a join request.

aaaaaaaaaand there was not

 

[Dre89]

Reaver, he can be like that at times, but I think people were doing to him as well.

Also, we've had several DHers who have behaved worse than that, so we've already set a precedent.

 

[asianaussie]

Is a negative precedent really something you should be using as a reason to admit someone?

I haven't come across him so much, but the few times I did debate against him he pulled up some really silly examples, and while the way in which he argued with them was fine, he plain dodged a lot of my rebuttal (eg. 'just because it's an outlier example doesn't mean I can't use it', which is acceptable if it is backed up, which it wasn't) and jumps between realist and impractical views without warning.

I think his personal views sometimes cloud his acceptable debating ability, but he is inquisitive, will ask for clarification and addresses points methodically. Not going to take a side on the matter.

 

[Dre89]

I'd rather set a new precedent than follow a bad one, but setting the new precdent is too much time and energy and frankly isn't worth it in such a small community, especially when it's pretty tame at the moment.

 

[Reaver197]

If he is overall not like that, then I won't hold it against him. Just wanted to make sure that wasn't typical of how he argued.

 

[Deleted member]

I just stalked Nicholas's "Find all posts by", and he seems to have posted exclusively in the new testament and intelligent design in schools threads, with the exception of 1-2 extremely small posts in the gay adoption and the truth & science threads. Wouldn't it be better if we saw him post in some other threads first? For all we know he could just be extremely knowledgeable about the bible and that's it.

 

[Evil Eye]

I haven't come across him so much, but the few times I did debate against him he pulled up some really silly examples, and while the way in which he argued with them was fine, he plain dodged a lot of my rebuttal (eg. 'just because it's an outlier example doesn't mean I can't use it', which is acceptable if it is backed up, which it wasn't) and jumps between realist and impractical views without warning.

I think his personal views sometimes cloud his acceptable debating ability, but he is inquisitive, will ask for clarification and addresses points methodically. Not going to take a side on the matter.

This sums up all my thoughts word for word.

Frankly, Dre, I think you're the one that's biased -- not terribly, but a bit. I don't see bias in wanting to admit Nicholas, but I see bias in your firm stance on it, and the vehemence with which you defended him even at the very start when he was debating very poorly. It's also rather hypocritical as while Nicholas is clearly very well educated it some areas he's shown little knowledge of anything that isn't theological (and not even GENERAL theology like yourself... just Christian theology), there are a lot of parallels between freeman and Nic on opposite sides of the ideological tape.

I'm still thinking on Nic, but I've been extremely dissatisfied by what little input I've seen from him outside of theological debates. The gay adoption thread is an absolutely perfect example. You, Dre, had an astonishingly reasonable way of looking at things despite your views on homosexuality in general, while both Nic's views as presented and especially the actual presentation were tunnel-visioned garbage.

I think Nic has improved, but also that he can stand to improve a hell of a lot more. I want someone with Nic's views in the Debate Hall, I really do. We need some foils that aren't just Dre. or people playing devil's advocate, it'll be great for the debates. But we should hold people we admit on these bases to a high standard, because the debates will just degenerate into the ****ty Current Event threads (Prop 18, anyone?) if we don't.

I'd like to see Nic actively debate in completely non-theological topics, and I'd like to see him debate well, and reasonably in topics that are non-theological in their subject matter but which can brush against theologically-influenced beliefs. Toss in a good Center Stage debate that preferably concerns the former kind of subject, and then he'll have my +1.

 

[Dre89]

Well you bring up some interesting issues.

Firstly, I want to defend myself against your claim that I have a double standard with Nic and Freeman. All I had seen of Free was the ID thread and a Proom debate I had with him, which was on the same topic. I didn't know what he was like in other threads, but I said he shouldn't be admitted based on the ID thread.

I only saw Nic in the NT and Jesus threads, which he was good in, I don't know what he's like outside of theology.

Even if he was "tunnel visioned" in the adoption thread, he also admitted that his argument would derail the thread, because he knew had to validate the Bible.

It's also a bit of a double standard on your part to demand that he displays ability outside of theology, when most of us have particular strengths and will only post in specific sthreads. People like Sucumbio were accepted for a performance in just one thread.

The real question here which I've been hinting at for awhile now is whether we should admit debaters who are good on some issues, but then post with authority on things they know nothing about. I can name DHers who have done this, but I won't because that would be slack.

 

[asianaussie]

Check the old firearms thread, me and him went post for post there (which is where I formed most of my opinions of him).

My debating there could've used more evidence, now I look again...

 

[Dre89]

Lol "post for post".

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

From what I've seen of Nic, it wasn't particularly good. I his performance in the Gay Adoption thread wasn't very good at all. Comparing homosexuals to hardened criminals is nasty, no matter how you look at it.

Anyway, my feelings about him aren't particularly strong either way, I think I'll abstain.

 

[Reaver197]

The real question here which I've been hinting at for awhile now is whether we should admit debaters who are good on some issues, but then post with authority on things they know nothing about. I can name DHers who have done this, but I won't because that would be slack.

Might as well have it out, no point in holding it back. I feel that the point of the debate hall is to have tough conversations, even if it's about the politics of the debate hall itself.

 

[Dre89]

It's a question I don't have an answer for at the moment.

I mean, it's not as if you can tell a DHer to avoid certain threads because they're not considered good enough for them.

 

[Reaver197]

Well, wouldn't it be relatively simple to point out their lack of understanding by just, say, citing authoritative sources that shows something other than what they put forth?

I mean, if someone enters a debate without a clear understanding of what they're debating, I feel like it would be fairly easy to espouse that during a debate, but also have them learn something at the same time rather than just telling them they shouldn't debate about the subject at all.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Now that I've looked more into Nicholas, I rescind my +1.

 

[th3kuzinator]

I was not particularly happy with his statement in the gay adoption thread.

After looking at some of his other posts, I fall somewhere in the middle. He does make valid arguments in some threads but, on the other hand, he makes some authoritative statements on subjects that he obviously does not know much about and has not decided to research.

Not knowing much about a topic is fine, but posting baseless statements that do not contribute to the flow of the argument is not okay.

I would personally not advocate for him.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well, wouldn't it be relatively simple to point out their lack of understanding by just, say, citing authoritative sources that shows something other than what they put forth?

I mean, if someone enters a debate without a clear understanding of what they're debating, I feel like it would be fairly easy to espouse that during a debate, but also have them learn something at the same time rather than just telling them they shouldn't debate about the subject at all.

However, you must remember that there are those who will not shut up about subjects they know nothing about. They think they have all the answers they won't listen to anyone else. I'm not saying Nick's like that, I'm just saying that you can prove some people wrong time and time again, and they'll keep saying the same thing like a broken record.