The post follows:
On the basis that whining about 'whining' is either:On what grounds? By what standard?
1. Something that should be relegated to the world of comedy
2. Evidence of a hypocritical mind.
Incorrect and deceitful.He has yielded in regards to fair, rational discussion by refusing to yield to that simple, basic condition.
Your statements claimed before that his actions implied concession to your arguments rather than an conditional statement. Of course, the former is demonstrably false and the latter is misrepresenting the actual events. Mike did not refuse to conduct fair and rational discussion, as much as you might believe that self-generated lie. When he refused to yield to your condition, Mike was rejecting this ridiculous claim on your part that rationall debate can only be conducted under the guise of false objectivity.
Moreover, your stipulated condition was for more than fair, rational discussion. Would you care to state again what its entirety was, or do you want to keep being deceptive by claiming refusal to a different claim than was actually refused.
Thus, you are a liar on both accounts in addition to other faults.
Do you have any idea how much time investment Wong puts into his site and into vs. debating in general?Uhhh . . . ever heard of StarDestroyer.net?
I'll give you a hint: infinitely less than you think he has.
SD.net has been around for several years now and is the result of arguments that he and others generated far before your time. If you had taken the care to look at the updates page, you would notice that his maintenance of the site does not correspond with how much work you believe he invests into the commentaries.
Incorrect on several accounts.No, it was meant to cause the debate to be focused exclusively on the evidence, and prevent his standard smokescreens.
1. If you truly cared entirely about the evidence, personal character should mean absolutely nothing to you in the context of a formal debate. This is not rocket science.
2. You claim that Wong's debate style ignores rational thinking. Considering that his past history incorporates high-level rational thought side-by-side with fire and brimstone, I'm afraid that the historical record is against you.
Inductive claims only work if they have evidence to support them.
Yet you propose that one can entirely remove subjectiveness from a debate. That alone is worrysome, as is the fact that you seem to switch your interpretation of reality several times a minute to prevent your possibly making a concession of any form.Subjectiveness is one thing . . . personal attacks are another.
Last time I checked, Mike has demonstrated logical destruction of other folks' arguments in debate along with flaming their ego to a crisp as a side note. The fact that his analysis of argument is the consistent feature in his writing rather than open-gun flaming, I'm afraid that you are wrong again.Character issues are Mike's primary interest in debates.
By implication, you claim that previous posted debates on SD.net have had little if any discussion of evidence.By denying him the opportunity to use that short-circuit to rational debating in this instance, the hope would be that he would be forced to engage in a debate of the evidence.
A reply and series of references need not be stated. All that is required is a mediocre ability to perceive discussion of evidence and factual concent.
Based on your opinion, I can only conclude that this ability is lacking.
It is a leap of logic unless you fully state what you stipulated as a debate condition, publically and informally.My "nonsense finagling" was the injection of the term of rational discussion. He declined. This is not a leap of logic.
Would you like to do so, or are you going to keep spouting off the same lie until others believe it as much as you do?
Wrong, again.Illogical. If he wanted to avoid PR stunts, he would not have demanded a "very public debate".
Wong's viewpoint on those that attempt to pull PR scams is to take them head-on and expose their arguments for the nonsense that they are.
He charged, and as expected, you ran away. This isn't complicated by any means.
When you contradict yourself between sentences, you lose all credibility. Moreover, the road to analysis of what is truly going on inside your head is opened to travellers.I am amazed and astounded by your ability to read facts into sentences where those facts do not appear, and are completely contrary to the sentences.
It was your stumbling over your own statements and childish attempts at distorting reality that brought this onto yourself, not a lack of perception on my part.
Bullshit.As an example, I should point out that if you and I were debating under the Wong stipulation, you would have just conceded to me. Get it, now?
My observing the fact that your statements were contradictory (on the one hand, your primarily 'desire' evidential debate; yet, your major point of contention with Wong is character-based. as the latter is self-evident and the two contradict, the former must be false.) implies no concession whatsoever. How you derive that you are able to maintain two diametrically opposite beliefs at the same time is beyond me..
Incorrect.He did not call me to argue within the standard rules of online Vs. debating . . . in online Vs. debating, no one is in absolute control of the evidence, capable of declaring victory whenever anyone else disagrees with their interpretation.
Several principles dictate vs. debating, a short list of which follows:
1. Occam's Razor [particularly in relation to probabilistic uncertainty..]
2. Definitions of canon
3. Mathematical and physical models of an event must be based entirely upon evidence at hand about the event and pre-existing theoretical structure
Now, while one may take up two different viewpoints or interpretations of the same event in debating and still follow these principles [depending on the situation], there are solid ways in which to directly create a misinterpretation of an event.
Thus, Wong wasn't calling you to his single interpretation of the events, but instead to follow the 'rules of the game.' Following those rules may allow for more than one interpretation of an event, but not infinitely many views. Your failure to understand this concept is an indicator of your familiarity with the concept of accurately modelling an event, whether it be in the vs. world or otherwise.
Nope. See above.He had already demanded full evidence control and the total command of interpretation.
Once again, you appear to be very new to the debating world to have not recognized such a simple fact as described previously..
Nope.Asking him how he liked it would have been futile . . . he could have redefined what he said at his whim, given that it, too, would have been a quote he could have claimed I had misrepresented.
His statement by no way implied that there was only one correct interpretation of an event. That assumption is merely a result of your ignorance than anything else.
They would only make no sense if I was restricted from reading between the lines of your statements.You realize that your claims make no sense, don't you?
Given a complete picture of your actions, arguments, and behaviour, they are perfectly valid and demonstrably true.
