The Jedi Council

[Deleted member]

Well ideally a democratic process should be objective in determining who's in and out. I haven't been here long enough to see whether or not it actually works that way (based on what you're saying though, and I believe you, it isn't entirely objective).

I don't want to respond to those particular quotes (I suspect I will need more context to understand them, and the ID thread is getting pretty big), but I agree with you about his logic in general.

There was one person in the PG who I really liked and I can't remember who right now. Next time I post here I'll put his name down (I don't think he's too active).

 

[Sucumbio]

It's annoying how you won't listen to me, then when EE says virtually the exact same thing, you listen to him.

"Way to breathe, no breath."

I wasn't noting his argument. I was noting his clarification:

I want to clarify that I do not think, in any way, that freeman is a bigot.

Do you mean that my arguments are too long/complicated? Or that my behaviour was bad?

If it's the former, I'm not going to dumb down my arguments for people who haven't read up on the issue.

If it's the latter, perhaps you need to have studied philosophy to realise how much of an insult this guy is to philosophy of religion (that's not meant as an insult).

He's the equivalent of young Earth creationist saying "well if we evolved from apes why are gorillas still around?".

No, I mean your arguments tire me. I have stuck up for freeman because I went through the same thing (we all did) when you were in the PG originally. Seriously, it gets old after awhile. You DO make the same mistakes I tried to help you with all that time ago. You build houses of cards. You start with an assumption/generalization/statement then based upon that go forward. Problem with this style of argument, is that it's only valuable if the first domino is sound (which most of the time, in your case, it's not.)

He's made virtually no arguments in the ID thread though. All he does is just say my arguments are basless, without explaining why, then ask questions I've already answered.

No, I've read the whole thread twice through. He has the same complaint I have. I can't debate you in that thread because it's inapproriate, but he's basically facing the same face-melting appeals that have plagued all along. You can't just say X and then based on that continue with "so Y." You have to PROVE X is X. With citations. Or examples. Until you start citing your material this won't happen. You'll continue to run into debaters that don't just nod politely.

He even says I provide no arguments, when I do, he just disagrees with them. For him, it's only an argument if he agrees with it, which shows his immaturity.

Again it's only a valuable argument if there's two proper sides to it. You can't expect him to treat your arguments respectfully if there's no way to argue back.

EE is right, he's uneducated on the topics he participates in. He made many factually incorrect claims about Christianity and theism in gerenal.

The thing is, even if he's good in other threads, which I haven't seen so I can't comment, he's shown he's the type to participate in threads which he has absolutely no knwoledge about, then has the ignorance to throw claims which are completely incorrect.

Firstly, I don't think that's what EE was saying. Secondly, and I reiterate, I didn't see anything like this. Maybe I need to read it a third time, but ignore your posts and just read his, scanning for errors. If I read it through including your posts, I'll die of an aneurysm.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

eh, +0 to freeman. Practically what EE said.

Also, thoughts on ConF1ictz?

Also, ballistics has improved somewhat. He now responds to criticism somewhat..

 

[Sieguest]

*poof*
I'm staying on the fence with Freeman. He makes legitimate points in both threads I have read, but when it looks like he doesn't quite understand a post that counters his, he seems to throw it out or write it off as not worth responding to. And it's not just Dre.'s posts that it happens to.

No, I've read the whole thread twice through. He has the same complaint I have. I can't debate you in that thread because it's inapproriate, but he's basically facing the same face-melting appeals that have plagued all along. You can't just say X and then based on that continue with "so Y." You have to PROVE X is X. With citations. Or examples. Until you start citing your material this won't happen. You'll continue to run into debaters that don't just nod politely.

The thing is, if that truly is the problem, then wouldn't it just be better for freeman to prove Dre.'s X wrong with citations instead of just writing it off as no argument?

Moving on.... I can overlook his posts that people call misinformed because, quite frankly, we've all done that before some time while in a discussion with someone. Whether or not these posts continue or not may change me to -1 or +1. I may end up going back through the ID and Mosque threads again to make sure my head is on straight.

One cent into the Jedi Council Thread Contribution Fund.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Dre this thread isn't about you. You've already been accepted into the Debate Hall. Congratulations. You're a Debate Hall Member. Let's focus on getting more members into the club so that hopefully there will be less "bias." Unfortunately, the last member we collectively picked was Jaswa. That truly demonstrated how collectively biased we were as a collective group. Notice the term "we" as in, not "you" or "me" but a collective. Yes. When people work together there are choices that the majority chooses that you as an individual might not like. That is one of the many caveats to participating in a group environment. It's horrible. I know.

On freeman123, I think that we're all looking forward to a Center Stage argument before we can make a decisive decision. As it seems that Evil Eye and puu seem vocal against his acceptance, then it only seems appropriate that they debate against freeman123. Dre's discussion with freeman123 has led to our current stance which currently rests at a state of indecisiveness. Therefore, different debators should elucidate on different strengths and weaknesses to freeman123's style.

"Ah yes, 'Reapers'." I believe that bias regarding DH acceptance on the issue of Reapers can be subverted if the Center Stage debate is favorably something non-theistic, philosophical, or meta-physical in nature. Taking such action will allow us to dismiss such a claim.

 

[Dre89]

Suucmbio- I don't make assumptions before conclusions. I state the conclusion first, eg. "Self-necessary beings cannot co-exist", then I set-out the premises that arrive at that conclusion. Just because I say the conclusions first doesn't mean that's what I arrived at first lol. It's not as if I'm reasoning as I write the post, it's obviously prepared beforehand.

Acrostic- You're a cool guy, but everyone here who's been here awhile knows that I'm one of the quickest to push for acceptance for a PGer into the DH. I'm generally one of the more lenient when it comes to acceptance.

Just to clarify, the reason why I'm objecting to Freeman's acceptance is not because I have anything personal against the guy, I'm sure he means well and is genuinely interested in debate. I just take issue with his debating style, and the fact he participates in threads he's not educated about.

This isn't about him being an atheist either, I've frequently supported the admission of atheist PGers.

I don't get why you're targetting me out of all the people who've opposed his acceptance. I was merely stating why I am against his acceptance.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Perhaps calling you out was impulsive. I may have misinterpreted past statements as being conceited, which may have not necessarily been the case. I know that you are very involved in the PG and this subsection in general, as well as being generous in terms acceptance. I just don't want this thread to become too personal such as in the following instances, "When I was a PGer" or "If it's the latter, perhaps you need to have studied philosophy" which can come across to some people as arrogance. I retract my previous statement if I misunderstood your intent and apologize if my accusations bred bad feelings. I still want a Center Stage Debate before we decide on acceptance.

 

[Dre89]

"Perhaps you need to have studied philosophy" is not arrogant, and I'll explain why-

Suppose someone who has never played Brawl plays for a day or two then starts saying that every character is equal, or that Ganondorf is good etc. Now people who haven't played Brawl won't care too much, only someone who has knowledge of the competitive metagame will know how ignorant those sort of comments are.

This is my point about Freeman. Apart from his debating style being poor, he resembles Dawkins, who is unviersally despised by philosophers, both atheist and theist. I am yet to meet a philosophically educated atheist who hasn't bashed him.

Philosophers don't even want to write responses to the God Dellusion becuase they don't want to acknowledge it as legitimate academic material. Most of the responses have been written by scientists. It got terrible reviews when it first came out as well.

In fact, the God Dellusion influenced the late Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to deism, because he was so disgusted at Dawkin's arguments that he was ashamed to be a apart of a school of thought that contained those sort of arguments.



So you can see why I get annoyed when someone who emaulates Dawkins is getting praised by other DHers, particularly when there are much better atheist arguments out there.

If we're going to accept Freeman based on his ID performance, then we might as well accept Christiant fundamentalist young Earth creationists, who are just going to refer to the Bible and faith every time.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Granted you may believe that his arguments resemble an author that you personally despise as an intellectual. However, many of us are not aware of the text or the content involved. It also does not necessitate that we would feel the same way about the same content. As a philosophy student, you hold certain philosophers with a certain degree of esteem. However, there are certain logical constructs that other people may find ridiculous and absurd. Another subset of individuals may simply write off philosophy entirely. Again these stem from largely personal biases and individual opinions. In order to establish understanding, it is necessary to occasionally "dumb down" your arguments in order for other individuals to relate to common concepts and for mutual ground to be reached. It is easy to thumb down foreign opinion, especially when that opinion is presented in an unwelcoming manner. Yet that does not discredit the possibility that there could be underlying worth. The Dawkins reference was appreciated, yet associating someone else with Dawkins may be a gross generalization.

 

[Dre89]

No, this isn't just personal opinion.

I don't like David Hume, but I respect him as a philosopher.

Dawkins is universally disliked amongst philosophers. I wouldn't criticise people for resembling thinkers that I personally dislike, I object to people who resemble universally discredited thinkers.

By your logic, we should accept fubdamentalists who will base everything on faith without reason, because it's all subjective.

And I'm not generalizing by attaching him to Dawkins. He makes many similar arguments, including misunderstanding the philosophical notions of complexity and simplicity.

 

[KrazyGlue]

KG returns with his verdict!

+1!

I don't know why so many people are on the fence here. Not all of his posts are perfect, and he makes logical mistakes sometimes, but he definitely has the potential to be a solid debater.

Take this post for example:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11461177&postcount=15

Overall, he's debated quite well in the hate crimes thread; I'd like to hear El Nino's opinion there as well. And while I do see some mistakes by him in the ID thread, he has madde some logical points, he's using good grammar and SOURCES, and is making an honest effort to keep it a fair debate.

I'd like to see some of the objections to him with specific citations like Dre had provided. Although Dre has some valid points, after my review of his posts, they seem DH quality to me.

If you guys think Freeman should be let in because of his performance in the ID thread, I'm leaving this place.

I have my doubts. Dre, you're like the Brett Favre of the DH.

 

[Reaver197]

Everyone should be able to have a go at the Debate Hall.

+1 to everyone ever mentioned for approval.

 

[Evil Eye]

Seriously?

Also, that post was so much better than the ones I've seen. Changing my freeman vote to a +0, may change it to a +1 after I read some more of his posts, and if not, Center Stage will probably win me over.

I agree that if a CS debate with a non-philosophical, non-religious topic will give a clear sense of his mettle. I like what I see in this hate crime debate.

 

[Reaver197]

Yeah, I suppose I shouldn't be so jokey in here, my bad.

On a more serious note, I think that PGers (is that what we call them now?) should have some vote or say in getting into the Debate Hall proper. It only seems fair. Whether they should be able to actually vote in people, or just be able to add points for voting in people, I can't say. Hopefully it's an idea to kick around and try out though.

 

[Dre89]

Krazy, in the Proom he kept saying that theists thought God was physical until science came along, yet God was considered non physical since the Greeks.

Although I kept asking, he provided abdolutely evidence of this.

If you guys want to let in a guy who does not educate himself on issues, then makes incorrect claims without evidence, it's your choice. Just don't be surprised to find yourself getting annoyed at him in the future.

Edit: +1 to Cheeseball.

 

[Sucumbio]

yeah, that's fine with me. Let him take someone on in the CS, and we'll be decided.

Yeah, I suppose I shouldn't be so jokey in here, my bad.

On a more serious note, I think that PGers (is that what we call them now?) should have some vote or say in getting into the Debate Hall proper. It only seems fair. Whether they should be able to actually vote in people, or just be able to add points for voting in people, I can't say. Hopefully it's an idea to kick around and try out though.

lol it's cool, candor is like a fine wine, best in small doses, but definitely appreciated.

I think your idea has some merit. PG's iirc have actually done this in the past. They'll say things like "such-n-such should be in the DH" ...

I sense, and please don't take this wrong way, anyone... but I sense that there's some ... err... what's the word...

it's like, when we reformed a bit, tidied up, starting letting in droves of posters, I think the DH got ... flooded? no, blah there's no good word for this. I just get this feeling that some of us here in the DH would prefer that the acceptance standards be raised a bit from where they were say, a month ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, or feel free to weigh in with your opinions, but if this is the case, then I'm not actually opposed to it, necessarily. There's this... really fine balance that is required to keep the DH active, but not spammy, for lack of a better term. This balance is ... I think it's still eluding us, and as a moderator I take some responsibility, but as DH members, we all do. Just something to chew on for a bit.

 

[rvkevin]

+1 to Cheeseball.

I'll wait for a CS debate for Freeman.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Debate Hall standards are perpetually relative. It is impossible to have the foresight to predict whether or not certain members will apply for the Proving Ground. Thus the standard will fluctuate at times and be more or less dependent on personal taste and opinion. The quality of arguments will also vary depending on the skill of the individuals who are participating at the moment. Selection standards can never be black or white, as certain individuals value certain debate styles over others. Perhaps the best method to establish a solid status quo is for everyone to conscientiously vote according to their actual personal preference. In that sense, there is no longer any question of lowering/raising the demarcation of standards.

Succumbio I feel hurt that you're implying that my acceptance was induced during a period of low standards. That makes me feel cheap and second-rate. You really hurt my feelings.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Succumbio I feel hurt that you're implying that my acceptance was induced during a period of low standards. That makes me feel cheap and second-rate. You really hurt my feelings.

Naw, that was me. (the guy that was let in due to low standards.

Also, +1 cheeseball and pragmatic.

Also, when did we start this "+1" thing? It wasn't happening when I was being considered.

 

[Reaver197]

I have no idea. I didn't even know about this thread for a good bit after they made it.

+ 1 Cheeseball, pragmatic, freeman

Anyone else being considered?

 

[KrazyGlue]

+1 Cheeseball, Pragmatic, Freeman

I know Cheeseball and Pragmatic have at least +3 by now and no -1s. If there's no objections, I say they're good.

Now, as to raising the acceptance standards... I don't really see a need to! As long as the person has passable grammar, posts thoughtfully, and makes an honest effort to have a good, clean debate, I don't mind debating them! And I think that's the standard everyone else generally holds.

 

[Sucumbio]

aw shucks, Don't take me wrong, Dark Horse, you're good in your own right. Acrostic has this, as does KG. For now I suppose there's no reason to change things, just wanting to make sure something that needed to be said wasn't being not said. ... yeah. >.>

Pragmatic, Freeman and Cheeseball are all g2g imo. But I think a CS debate for freeman will solidify any doubts, so if that's not happened yet, we'll see what we can get done. I haven't visited the PG yet...

 

[Evil Eye]

+1 to cheeseball and I'll let him in right now if he has a join request. Haven't seen any of pragmatic's posts so I must have just missed his haunts entirely.


EDIT: Scratch that, I have seen Pragmatic around.

Didn't see that cheeseball was going to do a CS debate. I'm okay with waiting for that, I suppose. For freeman I think I'd like to see Acrostic take him on in a non-religious and non-philosophical topic. Acrostic is definitely one of my favorite debaters to watch in the PGs, he seems to be really good at dragging out people's inner potential, and really patient as well.

I'll let pragmatic in, though, +1 for him as well.

EDIT2: Aight, Pragmatic is in! Welcome!

 

[El Nino]

Overall, he's debated quite well in the hate crimes thread; I'd like to hear El Nino's opinion there as well.

I'm fine with letting freeman123 in. He's improved since that time we were debating fast food bans.

If you guys want to let in a guy who does not educate himself on issues, then makes incorrect claims without evidence, it's your choice. Just don't be surprised to find yourself getting annoyed at him in the future.

Hey, sometimes pain feels good, you know?

If nothing else, it'll be entertaining. Bring your blood pressure medication.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

+1 to Cheese

To kind of reiterate the Evil Eye - Succumbio convo., I have trouble accepting some of the analogies Freeman uses, the extent he uses them, and the reasons why he uses them. In a non-biased fashion analogies are great for establishing a common ground. To be honest, I enjoy Freeman's comments in the Current News Section of the Pool Room. In that informal type of atmosphere, I enjoy the Flying Asians and having my keys on the moon. But for some reason, when I get the impression that I'll see those same comparisons in the Debate Hall, it somehow makes me disappointed. Kind of like playing Final Fantasy 7 after you've played every other Final Fantasy game in the series and heard all the hype about the game. You just expected that Final Fantasy 7 would be something special, like the Debate Hall. If you have trouble accepting this analogy, then we're on the same page.

 

[Dre89]

I think the Freeman issue is going to set a precedent for the future.

He's been terrible in the ID thread, but from what everyone else is saying, he hasn't been too bad in other threads.

So the question is if we should let someone in if they're good in some threads, but appauling in others. By appauling I mean having no education on the issue, and presenting factually (not philosophically, I'm being objective and unbaised here) incorrect claims about things such as religion and history, and using arguments known to be used by bad debaters/thinkers.

I don't really know where I stand to be honest. I don't have an issue with Freeman being let in he's not going to debate in God threads, but then if you're restricting someone, they probably shouldn't really be in the DH. At the same time though, if he's shown he's logical and debate well in other threads, then that ocmplicates it even more.

 

[Pragmatic]

Thanks for the acceptance!

This pink name is really savvy.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I think the Freeman issue is going to set a precedent for the future.

He's been terrible in the ID thread, but from what everyone else is saying, he hasn't been too bad in other threads.

So the question is if we should let someone in if they're good in some threads, but appauling in others. By appauling I mean having no education on the issue, and presenting factually (not philosophically, I'm being objective and unbaised here) incorrect claims about things such as religion and history, and using arguments known to be used by bad debaters/thinkers.

I don't really know where I stand to be honest. I don't have an issue with Freeman being let in he's not going to debate in God threads, but then if you're restricting someone, they probably shouldn't really be in the DH. At the same time though, if he's shown he's logical and debate well in other threads, then that ocmplicates it even more.

You know, it would be really helpful if you'd just link some of his posts that you think are so unbelievably horrible. I know you've said what you think, but I'd like to see it in his own words. See the numbers in the top right corners of the posts (like the #348 for this post)? You can click on them and it will bring up a separate page with just that post on it. If you could copy a few of those links, it would be really helpful in understanding your position.

 

[Sucumbio]

behold the power of cheese. in ball form. rollin' through the DH. soon.

Ballin' for life poked his head in CS, so I bit. We'll see if it evolves enough to make a case for his acceptance here.

freeman I think needs a prod to get him to post on CS, but he may feel unready, so if this is the case we'll let him come around on his own.

 

[Dre89]

You know, it would be really helpful if you'd just link some of his posts that you think are so unbelievably horrible. I know you've said what you think, but I'd like to see it in his own words. See the numbers in the top right corners of the posts (like the #348 for this post)? You can click on them and it will bring up a separate page with just that post on it. If you could copy a few of those links, it would be really helpful in understanding your position.

The thing is, it's virtually every single post he's made in the ID thread, except for perhaps the last two.

Most of his posts are pretty much the same anyway, they're pretty much "that's a baseless assertion", then ask a question I've already given an answer to.

The last two posts he made were an improvement though.

 

[asianaussie]

danke for the acceptance, I'll enjoy the pink name while i can.

Big happenings in the 64 boards might change that :3

ballin's been my most active opponent in basically every non-CS thread I've been poking around, so I can tell you that he never concedes points :| He does, however, make good ones and uses first principles well, giving him a stable if unchanging position. Rather fixed and not too willing to accept radical ideas, but he has a steady and logical mindset that works.

Not gonna comment further, I have clear bias.

 

[Dre89]

Most people here do not generally concede points.

Very people actually compliment an opposing argument. It seems that most people here are more concerned about getting accross their personal beliefs, rather than just debating for debate's sake.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The thing is, it's virtually every single post he's made in the ID thread, except for perhaps the last two.

Most of his posts are pretty much the same anyway, they're pretty much "that's a baseless assertion", then ask a question I've already given an answer to.

The last two posts he made were an improvement though.

But could you please QUOTE them and then explain in detail why they are so horrible?

 

[Dre89]

Because he didn't make any arguments, he basically just said my assertions are baseless and didn't explain why.

That's the problem, there isn't much to quote because he doesn't give you anything to respond to.

He's also made historically incorrect
claims, such as when he said that the Church used to say God was physical.

You know I've debated atheists before and never really had an issue with them, it's just this guy in particular.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Because he didn't make any arguments, he basically just said my assertions are baseless and didn't explain why.

That's the problem, there isn't much to quote because he doesn't give you anything to respond to.

He's also made historically incorrect
claims, such as when he said that the Church used to say God was physical.

You know I've debated atheists before and never really had an issue with them, it's just this guy in particular.

Just quote the posts when he says that your arguments are baseless.

 

[Sucumbio]

This was his original premise/response to the OP. Most of it got ignored except for the side-bar on being against public schools, and BPC countered, freeman rebutted and BPC did not respond.

This was his second post, a response to ballin4life. It also went pretty much unnoticed. At this point in the thread the real debate is between Nicholas1024 et al.

This is his next real attempt at getting into a good argument. This is in response to Dre. though technically Dre. wasn't talking to him, he was talking to Bob-T.

Dre. rebutts.

and Freeman counters.

In this counter you see that Freeman does in fact play the "show your proof" card over and over. But if you read what he's responding to, in my opinion, it's warranted, and not a cop out as Dre. is implying. Anyway, take from it what you will. This is only the tip of the iceberg in that thread, freeman and dre. go on for quite a bit, and the thread's up to 19 pages.

 

[Dre89]

The post you showed of him isn't as bad as his later ones though.

When it comes to me giving him arguments for God, he provides even less arguments than he did in that post.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

The post you showed of him isn't as bad as his later ones though.

When it comes to me giving him arguments for God, he provides even less arguments than he did in that post.

Then what are his really bad ones? Can you post the links?

 

[Dre89]

Again, pretty much every single post after I started provided arguments for God, except for the last two.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The post you showed of him isn't as bad as his later ones though.

When it comes to me giving him arguments for God, he provides even less arguments than he did in that post.

THEN SHOW THEM! Why is this sooooo hard to do? I don't care if there's nothing to say, just SHOW THEM. I'd like to see his statement (the bad ones), your response, and his follow-up. I'd rather see the ACTUAL text rather than taking your word for it.