The Proving Grounds Discussion

[KrazyGlue]

Aw, shoot.

So let me guess, I have to debate here for another month to get back into the PG?

 

[Zero Beat]

The real competition begins now!

Actually we'd like for you to still lurk around the PR and be on the lookout for potential candidates.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

^^ This is more fun than it sounds. You get to read some good arguments. Then you get to read some arguments that are so ridiculous that make you lol

 

[KrazyGlue]

The real competition begins now!

Actually we'd like for you to still lurk around the PR and be on the lookout for potential candidates.

By "lurk" you mean "watch", right?

I left the PG group because I thought that's what I was supposed to do. But I can still watch them. And I guess if you wanted me to rejoin I could always apply again.

 

[Mewter]

Welcome, KrazyGlue. Now that you're here, you might as well just watch the drama film called the Proving Grounds and give your critique.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Thanks everyone.

Well, right now nobody left in the Proving Grounds really stands out to me. There are a few that have potential. We'll see.

 

[Faithkeeper]

It always bothered me that no one refuted any of this...

Let us return to the "points to consider" I posted:

Quote:
Points to consider:
*Are the debate hall members posting for the benefit of the temporary debaters?
*Are the debate hall members taking away opportunity for the temporary debaters to post? (ex: temp. debater can't post a point because debate hall member has already posted it)
*Would the proving grounds become stagnate without debate hall members?
*Is the higher skill level of the debate hall members helpful or harmful to telling the skill level of the temporary debaters?
*Does the proficiency of the debate hall members discourage temporary debaters rather than encourage them to improve? If so, does it matter?
*Would the proving grounds make reasonable progression without the debate hall members?
For this post I will use these as standards of evaluation.

Using your own points to consider as the standards of evaluation?

Are the debate hall members posting for the benefit of the temporary debaters?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLoRtEd1
Stop ****** the proving grounds :/ encourage and teach them.
With the post of delorted1, a smash debater who would very likely know the debate hall members and their debate styles better than any member of the proving grounds, it is evident that at least he thinks they are not posting for the benefit of the temporary debaters, and asks them to do so.

In fact, they were posting for the benefit of others.

I'm trying to start the debate, I don't argue what I believe here, that's for the debate hall. I'm just here to try and help/improve people

But that's how I teach them.

Teaching by ****** is very good way of teaching.

That's just the way some people do it. Does it work? I don't know, but people were excepted in to the debate hall with it going on, so it obviously didn't impede on the ability to tell who is worthy to come over.

Are the debate hall members taking away opportunity for the temporary debaters to post?

I myself have experienced this on multiple occasions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediocre
This forum exists to test potential Debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall.
How can potential debaters be adequately tested if members who have already been tested are posting in the place of them? There is no need for the debate hall members to refute an argument if a proving grounds member will do it. Even if they do not do it as well, the purpose of this room is not to have "good" debate. It is explicitly "to test potential debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall." While this is evident and posted in the stickies, debate hall members here do not give ample time for temporary debaters to refute points. I cite these examples:
(TB=temporary debater post; DH=debate hall member post; TT=total time elapsed in between posts.)

Note: I specifically left out any posts that were obviously written for the sole purpose of critique or clarification. Or posts that were not directly relating to the post before it.

Suicide Thread:
TB 04-20-2009, 07:33 PM
DH 04-20-2009, 07:53 PM
TT 20 mins

TB Yesterday, 12:35 AM
DH Yesterday, 01:27 AM
TT 52 mins


Intelligent Design Thread:
TB 04-23-2009, 10:04 AM
DH 04-23-2009, 10:08 AM
TT 4 mins

TB 04-23-2009, 01:32 PM
DH 04-23-2009, 01:36 PM
TT 4 mins

Now, these are just examples from the last two pages of two threads. Assuming I log in at three random times a day. (Many people don't have that opportunity) and am asleep 8 hours a day,(but not during the times of these posts) and I want to post in the intelligent design thread on 4-23-2009. The odds of me being able to reply to one of those posts is ~2.5%. Now yes, this was an extreme example, and yes, my math could be off, but the point is obvious, Debate Hall members are taking away opportunity for temporary debaters to refute and construct points.

I decided to take a look around some other threads... and do you know what I noticed? these are the only examples of this happening in a one hour time frame I could find. So, extreme examples indeed, but not only extreme: isolated.

Would the proving grounds become stagnate without debate hall members?

This is not a valid question. It is completely irrelevant to this debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediocre
This forum exists to test potential Debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall.
The question is not whether it would be stagnate, and this system has worked in the past anyway. The only threat of a stagnate proving grounds is the lack of one's ability to see if members are potential Debate Hall material. This post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediocre
After reviewing all the members who were nominated, I've decided to let the following users into the Debate Hall:

Vorguen
Straked
Aorist
Arcpoint
Razevex
Maniclysane
Narukari
Makes it evident this is not the case. Seven temporary debaters were found worthy of the Debate Hall, the proving grounds are doing their job correctly. So therefore, as history tells us, these boards do not stop doing their job when left alone. Since this is true, this point is null.

No real problems here... Null or not, no harm is done to the proving grounds through this point.

Is the higher skill level of the debate hall members helpful or harmful to telling the skill level of the temporary debaters?

One may assume that the best way to tell if someone can post with the debate hall members would be to have them post with the debate hall members. This is entirely true. But, this is already in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroBeat
By requirement, you are to make 3 posts within your first week to see how you fair with the veterans of the room.
Since this is already a requirement, there is no need to repeat it. So for the sake of this debate, that point is null.

Wouldn't it be nice to know if these people can "hang" with Debate Hall members before you let them in? You know, get their hopes all up and have to boot them? That could crush people. Yes, there is already a system in place, but having the debate hall members in the proving grounds only helps the situation.

Does the proficiency of the debate hall members discourage temporary debaters rather than encourage them to improve? If so, does it matter?

If a temporary debater is not doing well, it is their job, not the job of any debate hall member, to improve. If a person are discouraged by refutation, they need to learn to fix this before they are ready to enter the debate hall, and this is not the debate hall member's responsibility or problem. The purpose of these boards is "to test potential Debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall". It says noting about encouragement or improvement. So, either way, it does not matter. Therefore, if one needs to improve, it is no one's responsibility other than his or her own to make this improvement. And through this logic, this point too, is null.

Well, assuming we are all heartless, and don't want to do any good for anyone, this point still brings no harm to debate hall members being in the proving grounds.

Would the proving grounds make reasonable progression without the debate hall members?

Regardless of whether it does or not, this point is irrelevant. Again I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediocre
This forum exists to test potential Debaters before they are allowed into the Debate Hall.
Aforementioned points prove that this can be accomplished without the help of Debate Hall members, and therefore, (you guessed it) this point is null.

Again, assuming I have absolutely no will to help others, this point does nothing to actually harm the case for debate hall members being in the proving grounds.

Through looking at each point to consider individually, it can be seen that all points either support the leaving of the debate hall members or are not relevant to this debate. So, with this in consideration, Debate Hall members should not be allowed to post in the proving grounds.

Actually, when you go through and remove all the isolated or misleading data you put in there, the effect is the opposite. All points lean towards keeping the debate hall members in there, or do not present any harm in their doing so.


I had purposely set up the "points to consider" so that they could help both sides, but no one really did anything with them. I was really hoping for someone to refute all that and get a debate going, but I guess if you want to have something done, you have to do it yourself.

Spoiler

(Although I wasn't trying to mislead anyone when I posted it, and much of the stuff brought up in refutation wasn't around at the time of the post. I just really wanted to actually debate. Same thing with the human cloning thread, no one posted... until after I left. Yarg!)

Just to mention: Glad to be here everyone. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities that resulted in my being accepted here. I must say: I think you made a good choice.

 

[Mewter]

Just though I'd throw this out there:
Whenever I see a new post in the debate hall, it's usually under "Greed"
I'm fine with the topic, but the smile is just unnerving.
Also, welcome, Faithkeeper.

 

[adumbrodeus]

By "lurk" you mean "watch", right?

I left the PG group because I thought that's what I was supposed to do. But I can still watch them. And I guess if you wanted me to rejoin I could always apply again.

Nah, we can all watch the debate hall, just keep an eye the people there, and if you see anyone who you think is promising, mention them in the nominations topic or second somebody else's nomination.

That's how you got in after all.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

There's a Lion vs Tiger debate made by none other than Saget


>_>
<_<
._.

 

[Zero Beat]

Avoid targeting him so much guys, it makes us look like *******s. If you find him annoying, just move on.

Not to be an *** but come on. <_<

 

[Faithkeeper]

There's a Lion vs Tiger

For those interested:

1 tiger > 1 lion
10 lions > 10 tigers

Tigers are the better fighters, but lions can use teamwork, tigers don't.

/random off topic post.

 

[aeghrur]

Hm, I don't post here much, but...
Lions are carved a lot in china
Tigers are on the zodiac list for the 12 year calender.
Which is better? You decide.

Also, what do you guys think of SOLID?

 

[adumbrodeus]

There's a Lion vs Tiger debate made by none other than Saget


>_>
<_<
._.

Ehhh, I'd give it a chance at it's face, I remember a great debate on a previous forum about samurai vs. knights, we got into all sorts of historical information to back up our assertions, and it became a great bit of history analysis.

 

[Faithkeeper]

(edit: Lack of real point to what I said here)

I honestly haven't read much of the PG, but the one to two posts I saw from him(/her?) seemed good, I'll have to check out more to make a real opinion though.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

I wasn't really targeting him as much as I was just targeting the debate itself. But whatever, if it could turn out into something then more power to him.

On the topic of SOLID, He's starting to make clear arguments. At first he was really just critiquing what other people said instead of giving us his own arguments/thoughts. I think we should keep on an eye on him for now.

Vickey's back

 

[RDK]

I think Vickey should be allowed in just for the sake of diversity. From what I gather, she's a Christian and a decent debater. Those are hard to come by.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think Vickey should be allowed in just for the sake of diversity. From what I gather, she's a Christian and a decent debater. Those are hard to come by.

*cough cough*

It's actually pretty odd and might say something about the demographics of this site, most boards I've been to have the majority of decent debaters being Christians of some stripe.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Vickey seems to be doing well. I haven't read a lot honestly, but all of her posts seem to be well-constructed, which is a foil to most of the other posts.

@RDK: I have no idea if you consider me a decent debater, but I'm Christian. I just make a distinction between what I believe based solely on logic, and what I believe because of something more. I stick to logic here, because logic and the scientific method are what seem to have value in these boards.

Spoiler

(I can't wait to lol when RDK says "Honestly, I don't." to my first sentence. )

This seems more like a pm topic, but I didn't want to post a single, 6 word sentence. Just PM me if for some reason anyone wants to go more in depth.

 

[RDK]

*cough cough*

It's actually pretty odd and might say something about the demographics of this site, most boards I've been to have the majority of decent debaters being Christians of some stripe.

Almost all other debate boards I belong to have religious types as the minority. So I'm guessing the quality of the boards your visiting are low.

Vickey seems to be doing well. I haven't read a lot honestly, but all of her posts seem to be well-constructed, which is a foil to most of the other posts.

@RDK: I have no idea if you consider me a decent debater, but I'm Christian. I just make a distinction between what I believe based solely on logic, and what I believe because of something more. I stick to logic here, because logic and the scientific method are what seem to have value in these boards.

Spoiler

(I can't wait to lol when RDK says "Honestly, I don't." to my first sentence. )

This seems more like a pm topic, but I didn't want to post a single, 6 word sentence. Just PM me if for some reason anyone wants to go more in depth.

I don't think I've seen enough of your posts to personally say whether or not I think you're a good debater. I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying I haven't really seen you post.

In any case, this is good. We don't want the DH to become too insular, which is what it has been for quite some time now. Not that agreement is bad, but when everyone agrees on everything, there's no room for debate.

 

[aeghrur]

There's room for socratic seminar, which is good?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Almost all other debate boards I belong to have religious types as the minority. So I'm guessing the quality of the boards your visiting are low.

Again, this may be more a commentary on the demographic then anything else, specifically the demographic of the board.


I don't generally go to "debate" boards, I hang out in some message boards with a debate section, where people flow in from the main board to discuss. The ones I stuck with for any reasonable amount of time weren't really low quality (in other words, I could have sophisticated policy debates, debates about legal theory, etc and people could keep up).


Actually, I think that it has a great deal to do with demographics outside the debate hall and non-theism's status as an appeal to the intellectual. In other words, kids who can debate well tend to disproportionately be atheists. As time goes on this would tend to even out more.


That said, I would suspect that because of the "built to appeal to intellectuals" aspect, atheists would be more likely to seek out specific debate board. However Christians with an existing presence on the boards for other things could easily be drawn into debating.


That said, I do think there's a bit of confirmation bias here.


As fo here, we do have a higher then average number of non-theists in the DH, but I think whether or not they constitute the majority is an open question.



So, while I do suspect that there's a greater proportion of message board debators that are non-theists then in the population as a whole, however I suspect that the overall demographics are far more complex then you think.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Zero Beat, I think it would be appropriate to just close the gay marriage thread.

 

[Zero Beat]

I'll just delete his last post and see where the thread goes from there in terms of on-topic activity. If it doesn't, I'll close it.

This is assuming Crimson King does not close it as it is and deals with Saget.

 

[GoldShadow]

Hey, maybe you guys should ban people from the PG that are not ready for the PG? You know, give 'em a couple years to mature and then give them another shot at it?

 

[Zero Beat]

I was thinking about that and talked to Eric but he has a different idea.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Hehe what? Just letting them sit there forever while he wrecks their arguments?

 

[aeghrur]

Hehe what? Just letting them sit there forever while he wrecks their arguments?

That's just going to end up being a piss fight.

 

[GoldShadow]

Also topics like these annoy me:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=232959

Sometimes, I hate when people try to debate science. I don't suppose there's much I can do, however.

 

[aeghrur]

Also topics like these annoy me:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=232959

Sometimes, I hate when people try to debate science. I don't suppose there's much I can do, however.

Can you explain to me how Relative physics is suppose to disprove Quantum physics?
Because don't they work with different forces in physics? o_O And are very different fields of physics as well?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Also topics like these annoy me:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=232959

Sometimes, I hate when people try to debate science. I don't suppose there's much I can do, however.

Agreed, I facepalmed when I read that thread.


Just because you can't harmonize the way things actually work with one neat little theory doesn't mean that things really don't work that way...


How does he propose that we got quantum mechanics, mass hysteria?

Edit:
Granted, Nysyarc seems like a smart, well-organized kid, and seems like he'd be a good addition to the debate hall, he just needs a crash course in scientific theory and practice.

 

[Reaver197]

Can you explain to me how Relative physics is suppose to disprove Quantum physics?
Because don't they work with different forces in physics? o_O And are very different fields of physics as well?

Relativity doesn't "disprove" quantum mechanics, in fact, if there is one to fall into the category of being disproven, it would have to be relativity, since quantum mechanics has so much more experimental verification. The basis of transistors and semiconductors, both of which are now an invaluable and integral part of almost every electronic system on the planet, is from quantum mechanics. Needless to say, if our understanding of quantum mechanics was flawed or wrong, we wouldn't be enjoying this website (or videogames) right now.

The thing is, relativity works really well with explaining motion of the macroscopic, anywhere from a couple centimeters big to light years across. However, it begins to fall apart and fail miserably when applied to anything that starts to fall into the realm of atomic and subatomic particles.

Also, there is really no clean distinction between where relativity takes over or where quantum mechanics does. Like take black holes for example, something that is technically subatomic, yet has influence with, and is formed by, macroatomic forces.

 

[RDK]

Relativity doesn't "disprove" quantum mechanics, in fact, if there is one to fall into the category of being disproven, it would have to be relativity, since quantum mechanics has so much more experimental verification. The basis of transistors and semiconductors, both of which are now an invaluable and integral part of almost every electronic system on the planet, is from quantum mechanics. Needless to say, if our understanding of quantum mechanics was flawed or wrong, we wouldn't be enjoying this website (or videogames) right now.

The thing is, relativity works really well with explaining motion of the macroscopic, anywhere from a couple centimeters big to light years across. However, it begins to fall apart and fail miserably when applied to anything that starts to fall into the realm of atomic and subatomic particles.

Also, there is really no clean distinction between where relativity takes over or where quantum mechanics does. Like take black holes for example, something that is technically subatomic, yet has influence with, and is formed by, macroatomic forces.

Speaking of causality being flipped around, I read a book recently called I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter, and it was pretty interesting. It was about different levels of categorization--subatomic, microscopic, macroscopic, etc.--and how they interact with each other inside the brain. Essentially it was refuting the idea of reductionism by proposing that the evolution of the brain caused ideas to be able to influence the fundamental workup of the brain as well as vice versa.

 

[aeghrur]

Relativity doesn't "disprove" quantum mechanics, in fact, if there is one to fall into the category of being disproven, it would have to be relativity, since quantum mechanics has so much more experimental verification. The basis of transistors and semiconductors, both of which are now an invaluable and integral part of almost every electronic system on the planet, is from quantum mechanics. Needless to say, if our understanding of quantum mechanics was flawed or wrong, we wouldn't be enjoying this website (or videogames) right now.

The thing is, relativity works really well with explaining motion of the macroscopic, anywhere from a couple centimeters big to light years across. However, it begins to fall apart and fail miserably when applied to anything that starts to fall into the realm of atomic and subatomic particles.

Also, there is really no clean distinction between where relativity takes over or where quantum mechanics does. Like take black holes for example, something that is technically subatomic, yet has influence with, and is formed by, macroatomic forces.

Hm, thanks for the info and clarification. xD
I was kinda confused by his topic, lol.

 

[Reaver197]

Speaking of causality being flipped around, I read a book recently called I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter, and it was pretty interesting. It was about different levels of categorization--subatomic, microscopic, macroscopic, etc.--and how they interact with each other inside the brain. Essentially it was refuting the idea of reductionism by proposing that the evolution of the brain caused ideas to be able to influence the fundamental workup of the brain as well as vice versa.

I remember hearing about that book a while ago, and I thought it sounded pretty interesting, but (of course, being me) forgot about it. Thank you for reminding me, I shall try to get a hold of it.

@aeghrur: No problem. I'm glad I was able to give some clarification.

 

[Zero Beat]

He makes a lot of mistakes in both factual statements (IE: That General Relativity has been "proven") and fundamental misconceptions (IE: That something CAN be "proven")

But more importantly, QM is really.... REALLY accurate. There has yet to be a prediction made by QM that hasn't turned up precisely true. Research in QM has produced the semiconductor, the superconductor, and pretty much everything that any electronic device runs on.

It's not some far out theory that has no purpose. It has single handedly caused the information age revolution.

...so yea. Why would we even debate ceasing research into it?

He had something to say.

 

[RDK]

I remember hearing about that book a while ago, and I thought it sounded pretty interesting, but (of course, being me) forgot about it. Thank you for reminding me, I shall try to get a hold of it.

@aeghrur: No problem. I'm glad I was able to give some clarification.

No problem. I enjoyed it; hope you do too.

He had something to say.

Speaking of which, where the hell has Alt been? Was that an AIM convo?

 

[Zero Beat]

Probably busy with jobs and life:-p.

I finally convinced him to join the Proving Grounds to aid in discussions and keep threads from falling apart. That was a visitor's message he left me.

 

[AltF4]

Speaking of which, where the hell has Alt been? Was that an AIM convo?

Finals.

I'll be more active real soon.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

I've seen a few people posting one liners. This should probably be discouraged. I'm pretty sure I've seen a "here's my view, i'll explain later" a few times which is 0_o.