The Jedi Council

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

That has to be like 20 for numbers...

 

[Theftz22]

I take away my -1 on Macman, but will still hold out on the +1 until I see him debate on a few different topics.

 

[eschemat]

LOL yeah Numbers is in I'm pretty sure. Sucumbio, what do you think?

 

[th3kuzinator]

+1 ciaz a

 

[Dre89]

I've been watching too much MMA, so I came up with these fighter aliases for some DH members-

Bob "The Pain" Jane T- Mart

Rv 'The Iceman" Kevin

Budget "The Player" Cadet

Down-Under-Thunder-Doggs (he's Australian).

Alt "Labcoat" F4

That's all I got for now....

I didn't want to name myself, thought that'd be arrogant, I'd rather let someone else do that.

I know what ya'll thinking- how the hell did this guy get a girlfriend....

 

[AltF4]

I'm actually not a scientist, I'm an engineer. A physics TA of mine once told me that the difference is that "scientists dislike engineers because we're smarter, but you get paid more". I'm tempted to agree. I don't think I've ever worn a lab coat. Software guys pretty much get to wear whatever we want. Jeans and a collared shirt. And even less formal on Fridays.

T-shirts with witty phrases and/or nerdy jokes always welcome.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Keep this in social please.

 

[asianaussie]

+1 Battlecow

because i can

 

[ballin4life]

I'm actually not a scientist, I'm an engineer. A physics TA of mine once told me that the difference is that "scientists dislike engineers because we're smarter, but you get paid more". I'm tempted to agree. I don't think I've ever worn a lab coat. Software guys pretty much get to wear whatever we want. Jeans and a collared shirt. And even less formal on Fridays.

T-shirts with witty phrases and/or nerdy jokes always welcome.

 

[Dre89]

Fair enough Alt, I need a new name for you then.

Alt "The Fifth Dimension" F4.

 

[Sucumbio]

esch I supported numbers ages ago, but people thought he was too crass. Now he's seem to got overwhelming support, so... either he's improved or people have loosened up a bit.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Never ever thought I would be saying this but

+1 Blackhat Battlecow

 

[Ocean]

+1 battlecow
-1 numbers

 

[Sucumbio]

that's +4 to battlecow I think... it's getting hard to keep track
that's also at least +5 for numbers
ciaza had +3

I think that's good enough for all of them to apply and be let in unless anyone has any serious objections.

 

[Sucumbio]

so are we ready for battlecow yet?

ciaza's in

 

[rvkevin]

that's +4 to battlecow I think... it's getting hard to keep track

Three pages back, his score was -3.

Edit:

Tally on Battlecow:
underdogs22 -1 Battlecow
Savon -1 Battlecow
rvkevin -1 Battlecow
blazedaces -1 Battlecow
Succumbio +1 Battlecow
Dark Horse -1 Battlecow
th3kuzinator +1 Battlecow
Ocean +1 Battlecow
asianaussie +1 Battlecow
eschemat +1 Battlecow
Dre. +1 Battlecorw

Total: +1

 

[Sucumbio]

heh, wow. split the DH in half this one has. Okay! Well he'll need to achieve more then it seems. We're starting to run out of DH members to weigh in, so it seems he'll have to convince -1'rs to change their mind.

 

[ciaza]

Just in case you're out of the LOOP Sucumbio, in the Center Stage I've been debating

Spoiler

poorly

for BC's admission, and he's been arguing against it.

Naturally I +1 him.

Making the tally:

Dark Horse -1
underdogs22 -1
Dre. +1
Dragoon Fighter +1
Savon -1
BJTM -1
Sucumbio +1
rvkevin -1
Blazedaces -1
eschemat +1
asianaussie +1
kuz +1
Ocean +1
ciaza +1

Total +2

 

[ballin4life]

it's like you're inviting me to participate in this awful system

 

[Sucumbio]

I am always in the loop I think you did okay, it was a ... strange debate to begin with, but entertaining nonetheless.

ballin you are always welcome to voice your opinions on the readiness of PG members to join the DH, and it need not necessarily be adorned with a + or -, that's just a tl:dr version of people's thoughts. It's not even an official system, it's just a way for DH members to say "hey, I think such-n-such is ready to join the PG."

Now if by _system_ you mean having a PG in the first place, that's a debate that's been had on a few occasions.

 

[th3kuzinator]

And that debate has pretty much always been started by Ballin himself.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Battlecow Review:

Spoiler

Battlecow conjectures that killing old people is a means to increasing felicity. First of all, there is little to no practical value in debating such a topic as it has minimal chance of actually occurring. Second of all, there is no evidence that the death of the elderly will lead to getting rid of government systems such as social security|medicare. Finally, Battlecow doesn't explain how getting rid of such programs will result in money distribution to citizens and whether this money will actually help in improving the quality of life of the individuals at the cost of psychological pain. Battlecow does state that problems exist in his theory, but he doesn't bother to provide a cost benefit analysis as to why his proposals outweigh the costs and tends to rely on insults, subjectivity, and personal appeals to drive his point across. This tends to be a trend in the topics he creates and even though he does deviate at times to provide examples, these are more of a rarity than a norm with respect to recent behavior.

Attemping to trace the logical arguments and fallacies in a topic such as Jews Being a Master Race, Environmentalists are Hurting Society, and Censorship of the Word **** are difficult due to the fact that these topics are controversial, therefore the argument needs to be constructed with a foundation of objective rationale and statistics to make it plausible. However, Battlecow makes little to no effort to be objective and gives off the feeling that providing such information is trivial as anything can be looked up on Google and be used as contradictory evidence in an argument.

Ciaza's premise for letting Battlecow in is that the DH has low standards and BC's response to CK warrants that he is capable of debating and showing coherent sentences. My belief is that anyone can argue on a basic level: th3kuzinator I think you're stupid because you have a purple name. That is an argument, it is also an ad-hominem and it also does not have logical correlation. It is also a strawman example. Therefore let me quote you a section of the post that Ciaza posted:

The ONLY argument you can make for abortion being OK is that the foetus' life isn't worth preserving. At 3 months? Maybe. But babies are ****ing cute, yo, and late-term foetuses are basically babies. No, they're not self-aware. But unless you're willing to go to baby-killing lengths like Budget cadet over there, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

A subjective personal appeal right in the crux of Ciaza's argument who is pro-Battlecow acceptance substantiates the initial premise of what can be expected from Battlecow in a normal conversation. Ciaza concedes that Battlecow may not be a consistently good debater. Again on what criteria should we evaluate good debaters? There is always going to some degree of subjectivity regarding this issue. Therefore the best criteria from which to judge someone would be someone who relies on objectivity, facts, and logical thought processes in order to construct and refute points. Does this sound like the kind of debater that Battlecow is? Because if it doesn't then you know where your vote should go.

Quotes from Pro-Battlecow Side:

Spoiler

Battlecow has posted in two of my threads just saying "Dre is wrong", which is a needless insult that I ignored. I don't have anything against him, I find him entertaining/amusing.

stop taking battlecow (and yourself) so seriously. if he bothers you that much, then block him, but you're getting worked up over something you shouldn't be.

 

[ciaza]

Super-awesome-better-Battlecow-review/rebuttal:

Spoiler

Battlecow conjectures that killing old people is a means to increasing felicity. First of all, there is little to no practical value in debating such a topic as it has minimal chance of actually occurring. Second of all, there is no evidence that the death of the elderly will lead to getting rid of government systems such as social security|medicare. Finally, Battlecow doesn't explain how getting rid of such programs will result in money distribution to citizens and whether this money will actually help in improving the quality of life of the individuals at the cost of psychological pain. Battlecow does state that problems exist in his theory, but he doesn't bother to provide a cost benefit analysis as to why his proposals outweigh the costs and tends to rely on insults, subjectivity, and personal appeals to drive his point across. This tends to be a trend in the topics he creates and even though he does deviate at times to provide examples, these are more of a rarity than a norm with respect to recent behavior.

Following from your first point, there's nothing wrong with debating hypotheticals. I don't believe The Sleeping Beauty problem is going to happen in real life any time soon, but that doesn't mean that by not debating it we won't learn anything. At the very least, you keep your DEBATING SKILLS sharp.

Concerning the rest of your point, analysing specific arguments of his was something I was very reluctant to do in my debate. This is because I'm sure if you gave him that argument he'd have a rebuttal. And I'm sure you'd give a rebuttal to his rebuttal, and so on until the whole debate just springs to life here. The only thing that should be addressed is if there are flaws in how he presents his arguments. For example: him just telling you to Google it, not being objective, etc.

Unless I slipped up, I didn't specifically say that the DH had low standards, I did quote Battlecow when he said "he hit the baseline" a couple of times, but those are his words not mine. Obviously, I was using any argument I could conjure and argue for his admittance, even if I didn't necessarily agree with it. In reality, from what I've noticed, the line to get admitted varies often. In comparison, I did substantially less than say ballin and aa, who had a long debate over the education system followed by aa debating abortion in the Center Stage. We need the line set in stone.

Ciaza's premise for letting Battlecow in is that the DH has low standards and BC's response to CK warrants that he is capable of debating and showing coherent sentences. My belief is that anyone can argue on a basic level: th3kuzinator I think you're stupid because you have a purple name. That is an argument, it is also an ad-hominem and it also does not have logical correlation. It is also a strawman example. Therefore let me quote you a section of the post that Ciaza posted:

First of all, I believe your comparative example is flawed. You of course gave an extremely fallacious argument about th3kuzinator. This isn't arguing at a basic level, this is arguing well below a basic level. I can go out for a drive and crash into a few people, but that's not driving to a basic level, that's driving ridiculously badly. So I guess it comes down to what defines a basic level? I maintain that the only thing we have to go off is GoldShadow's OP way back when. BC is very caustic (I like this word thanks aa) and can be insensitive, and hell you can probably find a few examples where he does use a fallacy. However, to say that he hasn't made many posts, with substance, that logically follow each other, and that are clear and concise would surely be wrong.

A subjective personal appeal right in the crux of Ciaza's argument who is pro-Battlecow acceptance substantiates the initial premise of what can be expected from Battlecow in a normal conversation. Ciaza concedes that Battlecow may not be a consistently good debater. Again on what criteria should we evaluate good debaters? There is always going to some degree of subjectivity regarding this issue. Therefore the best criteria from which to judge someone would be someone who relies on objectivity, facts, and logical thought processes in order to construct and refute points. Does this sound like the kind of debater that Battlecow is? Because if it doesn't then you know where your vote should go.

I would argue that his subjective personal appeal is taken out of context. If it were stand-alone, sure, I'd have to say it's flawed. However the statement that babies are cute and late-term fetus' are basically babies, shows that the point he was trying to get across is that fetus' share a common trait with babies - that they're cute. If he can demonstrably show that enough traits are shared between the two it develops into a logical point to be argued in the debate.

Finally, on the other, better side of the coin: does BC argue coherently, make more points with substance than one's that don't, and generate healthy debate? Has he fulfilled the almighty GoldShadow's criteria? Casting away your personal bias', or perhaps an off-hand insult that he once threw your way, it's clear that BC needs your +1.

And before I forget: thanks to everyone who gave me support for the DH, especially you Acro for getting that ball rolling. :3

 

[Ocean]

it's good to see you in ciaza.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Before I respond to Ciaza, I may have been rude when I did the critique. I wasn't in a good mood and it may have affected the tone of my analysis. I still disagree with having Battlecow in the DH, but I won't vote because I haven't debated with him personally. People who have debated with him: Ciaza, underdogs, Savon, rvkevin should honestly have more weigh-in regarding this. Also contemporaries voting for contemporaries, groovy. It's good to see camaraderie in the DH|PG.

Response to Ciaza:

Spoiler

¶1: Arguing a realistic topic polishes debating skills as well (null point). Debaters must argue based on a body of events that have occurred rather than formulate events that have not or will not occur. Debaters will become educated in the effort to debate such topics. This is not to argue that hypothetical arguments do not have any basis in realism. It is just that a hypothetical topic does not require there to be a base of realism from which to argue upon.

¶2: If debates were made with the intention to be judged, then I think they should have some semblance to LD Debate. However it is really a hassle to construct arguments in such a manner, but you might be interested in checking it out: Lincoln-Douglas Debate, value premise, value criterion.

¶3: There are no set standards to DH and it is impossible to try to make absolute standards. Everyone has a different opinion on what it means to be a debater and how such a position should be treated. Battlecow's opening posts remind me of some threads I read in the User Blog section. Interesting, highly opinionated pieces of work that focus on ideas over fact. However I disagree that this is debating. It reminds me more of blogging or chatting. I am open to unconventional style, however at times I question whether Battlecow is seriously looking for a debate based on the fact that a debate is highly centered on structure. An aspect that is often lacking in posts I have seen from Battlecow.

¶4: Yes, I pointed out that the argument was flawed. By basic level I was using very minimal, "I can argue if I needed to argue" in reference to your quote of GS in the CS thread.

As long as you are reasonably capable of debating and forming coherent sentences and arguments, you'll be let in.

These terms are intentionally vague in order to make the DH flexible. My sentence and argument were both coherent. I was arguing that th3kuzinator was stupid off the premise that he has a purple name. I should be let into the DH as I met these minimal standards. There are no official standards to accept or refuse a debater aside from collective acceptance from the batch of current debaters in the DH.

I know that I read all his recent opening threads and did an impression analysis of two of them. The statement that: "somewhere in someplace something has to exist that proves I am right," is NOT a contention to argue. It is a freaking faith advertisement. I have no reason to believe something that hasn't been proven with evidence when I have presented evidence otherwise. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the initial argument and I took on this responsibility when presenting my case as well as when I addressed yours.

¶5: Pro-choice arguments can range from collective benefits such as population control in third world countries that simply don't have the type of economy to support a rapid population expansion to individual benefits such as quality of life in that a woman who doesn't want a child will not be burdened due to abortion. This argument can also be pro-life in that some can consider the child's quality of life to be endangered which drives the question of what to consider life itself. There are a lot of better reasons that could be brought up from a Devil's Advocate perspective. This coming from someone completely disinterested in the topic.

I don't feel I have been biased. I have actually given negative votes to members I feel are better than Battlecow because I wanted to see them improve. If Battlecow dislikes me for caring, then honestly I'm sorry. I'm just trying to be sincere about how I feel about you dude. I'm sure I'd find you a funny guy in the Pool Room or the User Blogs. And also you're probably going to be let in at some point and can make fun of me when you do since no one treats this seriously anymore.

 

[ciaza]

Clicking "Show" will blow up the universe and everything in it.

Spoiler

1. I don't agree that we should only argue on past and not on possible future events. Simply because a hypothetical is lacking the component of realism wouldn't mean that not debating it would be fruitless. We can use smaller examples that might be indicative to what might might happen in the grand scheme of things. In BC's euthanising the elderly case, if we note that if an old person dies, and we don't have to pay for his cost of living thereby saving money, we could argue that killing every old person would save us hella money.

2. Alright cool. That seems like an objective system to rate debaters, but as you said people do have unconventional styles.

3. I don't disagree that there is an absolute standard, but GS' rule seems to be the closest we have. I'm also aware that the reason he has a mix of +'s and -'s is because everyone has a different standard of what it means to be a debater. However, outside the realm of maths, very little is "fact". If his points follow logically, like "killing older people will save money", you wouldn't need a source. Even so, that is shadowed by the fact that OP's would need that even less. jaswa's First Cause topic springs to mind, where he doesn't give much of an op, but rather an idea to generate discussion. Once discussion has started, the real debating begins. Basically, what we should be criticising is not Battlecow's OP's, but rather his responses.

4. If we put your argument example in the form of the syllogism:

1. People with purple names are stupid
2. Kuz has a purple name
Therefore Kuz is stupid.

While your argument may be coherent and valid, I'd hardly say it showed that you were "reasonably capable of debating". Now, as I said before it's probably an arbitrary line as to what does define a basic level of debating, but really, unless BC is making those sorts of arguments 90% of the time I wouldn't say he doesn't meet the basic level, arbitrary as it may be.

5. I'm sure that the Cosmological Argument is a better argument than say Pascal's Wager. Even so, that doesn't mean that Pascal's Wager shouldn't be brought up in a God Debate

Spoiler

OK horrible example but roll with me here

. Same should follow with BC. If he wants to bring up a specific argument over another, we should let him, and not criticise him simply because there are better ones out there.


Finally no, you haven't been biased. If anyone is, it's me because I like the guy personally. That said, I'd like to think that my personal feelings aside that he is a capable debater worthy of the DH.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

+1 Battlecow.

 

[Evil Eye]

+1 Macman

 

[Evil Eye]

Just checked. Numbers doesn't have a join request for the Hall, and therefore MY HANDS ARE TIIIIIIED.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Just checked. Numbers doesn't have a join request for the Hall, and therefore MY HANDS ARE TIIIIIIED.

This is the same thing that happened last time. I think he's doing it on purpose. >_>

 

[ciaza]

+1 Battlecow.

Thanks.

 

[Sucumbio]

+1 Battlecow.

Just in case you're out of the LOOP Sucumbio, in the Center Stage I've been debating

Spoiler

poorly

for BC's admission, and he's been arguing against it.

Naturally I +1 him.

Making the tally:

Dark Horse -1
underdogs22 -1
Dre. +1
Dragoon Fighter +1
Savon -1
BJTM -1
Sucumbio +1
rvkevin -1
Blazedaces -1
eschemat +1
asianaussie +1
kuz +1
Ocean +1
ciaza +1

Total +2

So that's a net +3

It's time.

I think mac's got a net +3 or more, I don't remember see any minuses, so he can join also.

Also, who is Sold2

 

[th3kuzinator]

He's a moderator of Decisive Games.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Also, who is Sold2

Town Antichrist.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Damn

Kuz beat me to the explanation

Acrostic beat me to the joke

 

[Sucumbio]

ok well, officially if he wants in he'll have to join the temp debaters first...

 

[rvkevin]

HomeStylePie +1

 

[Theftz22]

^^

 

[Sucumbio]

we have a join request from aAndy ... don't know much about this poster, anyone else?

 

[blazedaces]

we have a join request from aAndy ... don't know much about this poster, anyone else?

Anyone want to be more awesome than me and provide links to his posts/threads started to evaluate him?

I've barely heard of him, but lately I haven't been seeing much activity in the PG...

-blazed