My opinion of SB was just demolished

[Darth Wong]

And he wants to ban porn. What kind of lunatic would ban porn? PORN IS GOOD!

He never gives any reason other then that he hates it. Not exactly the best at supporting his arguments is he?

I love it when people can't support a position yet cling doggedly to it anyway. It's so easy to poke fun at them that it isn't even sporting any more

The porn situation would amuse me if it weren't for the fact that the anti-porn Thought Police have such power and influence. There is no more ridiculous violation of the US constitutional First Amendment than the anti-porn laws which are scattered around the country, yet many of the very same people who often uphold that amendment will furiously attack porn at every opportunity.

[Ender]

I wonder if DarkStar and O-T are the same person. After all, they both believe that SW humans are not in fact humans

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... genumber=3
First post.

[Eleas]

Actually, I was appalled reading it. SB really does have a shitload of idiots. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but the general consensus seems to be that DarkStar is somehow a better debater than Mike for his ability to curb his tongue.

That's fucking bullshit. Not only is DarkStar a master of the ancient Timsult arts, but he's very capable of breaking out the flames when his goads and condescensions fail. But the most damning fact is that this is a debate!

Let's take a generic VS statement just to see how a debate might be conducted.

"Lucas is dumb and doesn't know what he is talking about. That is why Turbolaser are not laser."

Now, we can answer this in any number of ways:

1. "I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong here. You're not following the guidelines for the debate. We treat the movies as documentaries, and George Lucas' intent has no bearing on the matter."
2. "I'm sorry, but you're wrong."
3. "You idiot. You're not following the guidelines for the debate. We treat the movies as documentaries, and George Lucas' intent has no bearing on the matter. What a fucking retard."
4. "You idiot. You're obviously wrong."

What am I saying here? That statement 1 and 3 are equally valid in a debate. Statement 2 and 4 differ only because the author employs an Ad Hominem in the latter. They are, however, examples of equally poor debating.

I reiterate: to confuse manners with debating skills is just pathetic, and the linked page was replete with such nonsense.

The problem is when you inflame the debate with rudness, it provides justification (valid or not) to one side proving that the other side is wrong.

Invalid, I'm afraid. Anyone unable to differentiate tone from message should think about ceasing to debate in favor of something a little easier to handle, IMO.

It is a common and well known fact that when both sides start to yell and scream at eachother, neither side will agree on much of anything. It doesn't mater who won the debate because both sides will be pissed off enough that they will stop listening to eachothers arguments (hence you will have rationale people who become hard headed once angered) and both sides will claim victory. Emotionally flammed debates might be interpreted by outside observers, but the particpants of the debate will come away from it with a poisoned opinion about eachother.

Then, of course, there are those that are able to see past the insults and to discern the core of the messages - that is, the actual debate.

I am not saying being polite with Darkstar will make him more clear headed, but that with other people being polite will make them less apt to make mistakes and acknowledge defeat or concede certain issues. That said, I typically don't concede things to people who insult me in a debate, but have condeded more then once to debaters who countered my ideas and theories rationally without heated emotion.

If a person doesn't concede to me when clearly beaten, this doesn't bother me; it is an error on that person's part, not mine.

Being polite doesn't change who wins the debate, being polite makes both participants more likely to acknowledge mistakes and be willing to debate in the future. That is not a gaurantee, but rather a stastical probability (hence you get the occassional debater like Omicron Theta who ignores everything you say that he disagrees with)

All of which has nothing to do with the fact that several debaters in that thread thought DarkStar had a more hermetical argument than Mike, because Mike presented his with profanity. What brings this from being merely amusing to absurd is that no one apparently notices how superior, condescending and holier-than-thou Scooter can get, all the while not answering the points!

Apparently, on SB, the most logical of arguments will become worthless at a single use of the word "fuck".

[Eleas]

Wouldn't mean a whole lot to me since I don't go by my real name anyway. I would assume that "converting" to SW would be a way. Though one would have to be careful. From time to time BigBryan decides he hates ST and worships the Empire, but he can still act like an idiot. He's currently the laughing stock of SB and just about everyone has harrased him at one time or another.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only thing I hate more than a troll from the other side is a troll from my side. It's no fun to be forced by team spirit to cover for a gibbering simpleton.

[Alyeska]

Eleas, most people did NOT think that Darkstar was the better debater. Some people posted from the information that had that Darkstar had a valid point about there not being any swearing in a debate.

As to the validity to arguments. Why do you think that any professional debates don't involve swearing? Why do you think that the criminal justice system in the courts doesn't have swearing? Why do you think that professional scientists trying to prove the community wrong in don't use swearing in the science journals? Because you can loose status because people will not take you serisouly when you insult someone else. If I say I believe one thing, and someone else says "NO YOU DUMB FUCK, BELIEVE THIS AND HERE IS WHY!", I am not going to pay any attention to him BECAUSE HE INSULTED ME. Just look at how normal day life goes, and just wonder why you didn't say "fuck" to that person. Sure, some people don't mind, but the majority of people in quesiton will mind extremely much, and it can hurt.

[Eleas]

Eleas, most people did NOT think that Darkstar was the better debater. Some people posted from the information that had that Darkstar had a valid point about there not being any swearing in a debate.

Sure, you're right, and I retract my all-inclusive statement. Still:

E-1701: "and to be blunt, resorting to personal attacks is the mark of a piss-poor debater..."

Vypr: "Actually from what I;ve seen of most debators it's more likely to look like this - [..] DS : Points out error or unwarranted assumption in MWs calculations. [..] MW : NO! I'm right because I'm more intelligent than you. You don't know shit and you're probably a creationist. You're arguments are shit and you are an idiot for using them. I win.""

These are both pretty ignorant statements. I've never seen Mike avoid giving evidence when asked to, and E-1701's assertion is a stupid one. Debating skills don't have anything to do with manners.

As to the validity to arguments. Why do you think that any professional debates don't involve swearing? Why do you think that the criminal justice system in the courts doesn't have swearing? Why do you think that professional scientists trying to prove the community wrong in don't use swearing in the science journals? Because you can loose status because people will not take you serisouly when you insult someone else.

Alyeska, forgive me for being blunt, but if someone approaches this silly debate as if it was a professional debate, a court session, or a scientific review, I posit they would be in need of a Prozac vacation.

If I say I believe one thing, and someone else says "NO YOU DUMB FUCK, BELIEVE THIS AND HERE IS WHY!", I am not going to pay any attention to him BECAUSE HE INSULTED ME. Just look at how normal day life goes, and just wonder why you didn't say "fuck" to that person. Sure, some people don't mind, but the majority of people in quesiton will mind extremely much, and it can hurt.

I understand that, but that has to do with perceptions and interpersonal relationships, and not facts.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Actually Criminal law nowadays comes down to dramatic arts, the man can be guilty as sin, but if you can fillibuster, and say "If the glove does not fit, you must aquitt"

[Master of Ossus]

The point is, Alyeska, that we have crushed DarkStar's points. Swearing aside, his points are often laughably stupid. Sometimes he comes up with a really good one that is slightly harder to defeat than others, but I have never once seen one of his arguments where I thought, "Yes, that's correct." He has been wrong on every point we have debated, thus far. Whether we swear at each other or not is more or less irrelevent, because the attacks on DarkStar and his site have been independent of the swearing. To me, it is impossible to believe that DarkStar has any credibility left, anyway, so ad hominem assaults on him are more or less worthless at this point. That's why I'm not even sure that swearing at him can be considered ad hominem, even when it brings up no other point. It's really impossible to attack him, because there's nothing of him left.

[Alyeska]

The point is, Alyeska, that we have crushed DarkStar's points. Swearing aside, his points are often laughably stupid. Sometimes he comes up with a really good one that is slightly harder to defeat than others, but I have never once seen one of his arguments where I thought, "Yes, that's correct." He has been wrong on every point we have debated, thus far. Whether we swear at each other or not is more or less irrelevent, because the attacks on DarkStar and his site have been independent of the swearing. To me, it is impossible to believe that DarkStar has any credibility left, anyway, so ad hominem assaults on him are more or less worthless at this point. That's why I'm not even sure that swearing at him can be considered ad hominem, even when it brings up no other point. It's really impossible to attack him, because there's nothing of him left.

Oh, I have nothing wrong with swearing at Trolls. We do it with Omicron Theta all the time. I was merely adressing the issue of profanity in a debate in general.

[Kamakazie Sith]

[quote="Eleas]

Alyeska, forgive me for being blunt, but if someone approaches this silly debate as if it was a professional debate, a court session, or a scientific review, I posit they would be in need of a Prozac vacation.

[/quote]

That's true but the result is still the same. That's why people react so harshly against Mike Wong instead of Darkstar, who lets face it deserves it.

Of course if they knew the whole truth and history of Darkstar you would see a difference.

[Eleas]

That's true but the result is still the same. That's why people react so harshly against Mike Wong instead of Darkstar, who lets face it deserves it.

Of course if they knew the whole truth and history of Darkstar you would see a difference.

Spot on.

I think the biggest reason I'm so frustrated with this entire debate is the fact that those who look at it often do so at quite a shallow level. It's like when I was debating Elim way back when. I granted him advantage after advantage. He replied by posting an argument so insanely pro-Trekkie that it was worthy of TJ himself. I flamed him and vowed to never debate him again.

Why did I do that when he didn't insult me, some might wonder. The answer is that he did insult me. By not listening to any of my arguments, some of which were carefully compiled during hours in an effort to be balanced and thorough, and being evasive and nebulous when asked to provide proof, he was in effect mocking me and wasting my time.

And DorkStar is much better at this, because he not only does the same thing, but carefully implies that it's all your fault, then lies and obfuscates to make you think he's right about that too.

[HBMC]

He never gives any reason other then that he hates it. Not exactly the best at supporting his arguments is he?

That's not quite true. Bryan says that Porn is "immoral". Why? Because he says so. That's it. That's the crux of his "argument". Because he said so. Pretty sad actually. He doesn't understand the concept of "If you don't like it, don't watch it, but leave the rest of us alone".

He's not a Fundamentalist Christian by any means, but the word "Puritan" fits very well when describing him.

Eleas: The problem with the two quotes you've put forward from SB.com is that they're from E and Vypr. E is as hardheaded as they come, and has hated Wong since day one, and Vypr is a classic example of a "hit and run" debator. He says somthing, then runs away and never comes back to look at the rebuttals. Both of them are completely off-base when it comes to debating, and their infuriating tactics make them even worse. As such, using them to describe a "general consensus" at SB.com is ludicrous. The majority of people in that thread were saying how much DipShit is a dip shit, or just saying that both DorkStar and Wong suck (such as Steve, who I told to shut up... the joys of being a Mod!).

BYE

[Cal Wright]

Hmm. I should have linked this. It seems that I have wandered into SB.com once again and am now in the midst of a debate. Funny thing, is that they are trying to twist someone's words. Whose words could those be...? Why it just happens to be our own, Lord Wong's. Yes, this BigBryan fellow I believe it is, is siding with a Sugardaddy somethingornother and claiming that when Wong flamed Ted Rogers on 'learning to kill people, others will be learning something important.' to that effect. They are now claiming that Wong ment that people that fight and die for thier country do not learn anything important other than killing people. Reading a lot into the facts if you ask me. However, to be fair I shall ask the wisened and easily agrivated Mr. Wong himself. Lord Wong, heralderererer of intelligence, mockerer of ignorant individuals and impotent, or is it omnipotent troll flamer, what the hell did you mean by your statement to Ted Rogers? Obviously to continue the debate I need more references. ¤§¤

[Darth Wong]

Lord Wong, heralderererer of intelligence, mockerer of ignorant individuals and impotent, or is it omnipotent troll flamer, what the hell did you mean by your statement to Ted Rogers? Obviously to continue the debate I need more references. ¤§¤

I meant what I said: "While you learn to kill people, keep in mind that some people in this world actually learn science." He was trying to compare his chosen military school to my university on the grounds of scientific credentials. It was a simple statement of fact that he won't learn any science at a military school; he will only learn how to kill people.

The assholes at sb.com wish to twist that into an attack upon all who fight for their countries (see my micro-review of "Saving Private Ryan" on my personal home page to see how grossly misguided their attacks are), but it is nothing more and nothing less than what it is: a smackdown of some idiot who thinks that a military education makes you a science expert.

[Cal Wright]

Thank you Lord Wong. I shall striketh down thy enemies with this sword of truth and intelligence. With this I shall smite the ignorant fuckers of the world!!!

[Darth Wong]

As to the validity to arguments. Why do you think that any professional debates don't involve swearing? Why do you think that the criminal justice system in the courts doesn't have swearing? Why do you think that professional scientists trying to prove the community wrong in don't use swearing in the science journals? Because you can loose status because people will not take you serisouly when you insult someone else.

No, it's because people are irrational. The only difference between a swear word and any other slang term is the fact that swear words have to do with bodily functions or sex, and that relates directly to the massive psychological hang-ups that our society has with sex due to the popularity of Judeo-Christian "morality". I wouldn't swear in professional activity because I recognize the inherent irrationality of most people. However, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it whatsoever, and the use of swearing does not impact on the validity of an argument. Moreover, even the use of insults does not impact upon the validity of an argument, so long as they are merely decorative rather than taking the place of rational arguments.

PS. If you're going to talk about "validity", the social reactions of people are irrelevant. You have not disproven the point that swearing and insults do not have any effect upon the validity of an underlying argument.

If I say I believe one thing, and someone else says "NO YOU DUMB FUCK, BELIEVE THIS AND HERE IS WHY!", I am not going to pay any attention to him BECAUSE HE INSULTED ME. Just look at how normal day life goes, and just wonder why you didn't say "fuck" to that person. Sure, some people don't mind, but the majority of people in quesiton will mind extremely much, and it can hurt.

I'll say "fuck" in front of anyone. I've said it in front of my kids, and I don't apologize for it. Moreover, I intend to vehemently contest my local public school's judgement if they ever attempt to discipline my boys for using so-called "swear words" in public. The word "fuck" does not hurt anyone in any way unless it's part of an insult, and it's the insult that hurts, not the use of a swear word. An insult can be just as easily constructed without swear words (as Darkstar well knows).

[Eleas]

Eleas: The problem with the two quotes you've put forward from SB.com is that they're from E and Vypr. E is as hardheaded as they come, and has hated Wong since day one, and Vypr is a classic example of a "hit and run" debator. He says somthing, then runs away and never comes back to look at the rebuttals. Both of them are completely off-base when it comes to debating, and their infuriating tactics make them even worse. As such, using them to describe a "general consensus" at SB.com is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, what part of "I retract my all-inclusive statement" did you not understand?

The majority of people in that thread were saying how much DipShit is a dip shit, or just saying that both DorkStar and Wong suck (such as Steve, who I told to shut up... the joys of being a Mod!).
BYE

Indeed, but still, there seems to be some confusion regarding what makes a good debater - oiliness or sound arguments.

[His Divine Shadow]

Bob McDob's first thread was just spam, and Bob is a little nuts.

You don't know Bob, he's more than meets the eye.

[Eleas]

Bob McDob's first thread was just spam, and Bob is a little nuts.

You don't know Bob, he's more than meets the eye.

A robot in disguise?

[Alyeska]

Bob McDob's first thread was just spam, and Bob is a little nuts.

You don't know Bob, he's more than meets the eye.

Other then how he acts in relation to Wing Commander, Bob seems to be insane.

[Bob McDob]

All I will say is that if you think SB.com and the VS forum has gone down hill then thank your living stars that it isn't STGN, remember them?

Yes, Ladiesman from over there has come to SB as of late.

Really? I thought he was Ladiesman^ from wcnews.com . . .

[Bob McDob]

[q]Other then how he acts in relation to Wing Commander, Bob seems to be insane.[/q]

You're welcome.