Darkstar Poll

[TheDarkling]

All I want to do is debate in a manner as follows.

Someone Brings evidence and their take on it.
Everyone looks at the theory and decides what they think possibly being in new evidence of relevance.
I looka t evidence at hand and decide what I think is correct (it may not be the theory benig debated but an offshoot or something comlpetely different).
I have looked at the debate and made my conclusions based on the evidence at hand.
and we are done.

I can see why you guys get upset over DS - because he will not admit defeat and claims victory.
This however doesnt really bother me I know in my own mind based on the evidence at hand if he is right or not his opinion omn the matter doesnt mtter in truth.

I will admit that sometimes I can get annoyed but I wnot go to utright flaming and I sure wont let it spill over into another thread containing this person (unless they are doing something extreme but even then I make take a personal dislike to the person but I try not to let it affect my judgement of whats going on).

Witness the strange case of the humans that arent humans - I knew Darkstar was wrnog I said as much and explained why - he came back with nothing except repeating it (he did try to shy away from that statement though, probably because he knew it was stupid but instead of admitting defeat on that one point he just tried to dogde it) so I just left it alone after all it doesnt really bother me if someone is so deluded.

[SPOOFE]

Oh, so Darkstar's pulling his "Wah! He's using naughty language! Wah!" routine?

I'd suggest, Mr. Darkstar, that you grow a spine and some thicker skin before you participate in... well... anything. Go back and read my earlier point about people not getting flamed for no reason. The consensus is pretty much that you deserve whatever abuse you get. Personally, I think people are being far nicer than you deserve.

[SPOOFE]

I can see why you guys get upset over DS - because he will not admit defeat and claims victory.
This however doesnt really bother me I know in my own mind based on the evidence at hand if he is right or not his opinion omn the matter doesnt mtter in truth.

The problem is that Darkstar doesn't know how to debate... he invents his own rules, comes up with off-base rationalizations, and pretty much refuses to listen to whatever he doesn't want to hear. You think he ignores the EU because he truly believes that the totality of evidence indicates that it has no standing? Pure bullshit on his part. He ignores the EU solely because he knows that it provides the clear, concise, and undeniable evidence that proves him wrong.

He's a smug, abrasive, arrogant whiner. I've seen a million of him before, and he's not fooling anyone. I've shat things smarter than him, for crying out loud.

[Guest]

Incidentally, DarkStar, in order for someone to take me up on my offer, they did not have to believe that you were right. They did not even have to believe that you were right on ANY point. All they had to do was:

1. Be a non-biased, third party observer to the debate.
2. Believe that there was still reasonable doubt on some of my points. In other words, they had to believe that you had not yet been utterly crushed.

The fact that NO ONE took me up on my offer is indicative of the fact that you are a lousy debater. It says that you failed to convince ANYONE that even a possibility existed that I was wrong during that little chit chat we had. Note that this was harder than a trial by jury for several reasons.

1. I had to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that you were wrong on nearly every point. In a trial, usually the prosecution need only prove a defendant guilty on a single charge, or on related charges pertaining to a single incident. Only in rare cases must a jury be convinced of a defendant's guilt on a variety of unrelated charges.
2. I had to prove this to more than 12 people who were not in communication with one another. In a trial by jury, if 11 jurors are convinced of a defendant's guilt, they can sometimes convince the 12th to follow them in voting guilty.

The fact that I was able to show this on both cases does not mean that I am obssessed with having lots of people follow me. I was showing that you had failed to convince ANYONE that you were even remotely right on that thread. If you were truly a God of debate (or half as good as you sometimes boast), then wouldn't you think it odd that no one even believed you had instilled reasonable doubt?

Master of Ossus,

Your idea for a jury trial sounds interesting, however, you should include at least six Star Trek fans to judge the debate. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a jury made up of peers. If all 12 jurors were Warsie fanatics, the outcome is obvious regardless of whatever information was presented. If all 12 juror were trekkie fanatics the outcome would be the same. An even balance of *open minded* fans would be the best composition of the jury.

[AdmiralKanos]

Oh, so Darkstar's pulling his "Wah! He's using naughty language! Wah!" routine?

I'd suggest, Mr. Darkstar, that you grow a spine and some thicker skin before you participate in... well... anything. Go back and read my earlier point about people not getting flamed for no reason. The consensus is pretty much that you deserve whatever abuse you get. Personally, I think people are being far nicer than you deserve.

Darkstar believes that he can put you down in a hundred different carefully worded ways: denigrate your intelligence, accuse you of lying, attack your character, ignore your points and then make fun of you for not making any, etc., but the minute you get fed up and say "fuck off, you lying little fucktard", he gets all haughty at your directness and cries persecution. As others have said, he's nothing but a Timothy Jones clone.

[Master of Ossus]

Master of Ossus,

Your idea for a jury trial sounds interesting, however, you should include at least six Star Trek fans to judge the debate. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a jury made up of peers. If all 12 jurors were Warsie fanatics, the outcome is obvious regardless of whatever information was presented. If all 12 juror were trekkie fanatics the outcome would be the same. An even balance of *open minded* fans would be the best composition of the jury.

That is what happened. There are at least six Trekkies, here, and all it would have taken was one to message me and say that he/she was not convinced that DS was wrong on nearly every single point. The fact that I have not yet received even a single PM proves how stupid he was during that thread. If you want, you can go back and read the thread and then decide whether or not DarkStar was wrong. Then you can message me. I've already begun attacking another page of his website in "See DarkStar get his aseroid calculations kicked." Read that, too, if you want, and see if DarkStar's theory provides reasonable doubt in that thread, too. Then PM me, DarkStar, and Mike telling us that you think DarkStar has provided enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt. I would still recommend that you explain why, but you don't have to.

[DarkStar]

it seemed to me that his reply was a challenge to Mike, even though Mike had just challenged him.

I'd already said that if I thought he could control his childish behavior, I'd tell him to bring it on. Then, he challenged me, while engaging in childish behavior. I'm amused.

But, here I am responding to a message several pages behind . . . I'll go see what Wong has said, and get back to you.

[Master of Ossus]

it seemed to me that his reply was a challenge to Mike, even though Mike had just challenged him.

I'd already said that if I thought he could control his childish behavior, I'd tell him to bring it on. Then, he challenged me, while engaging in childish behavior. I'm amused.

But, here I am responding to a message several pages behind . . . I'll go see what Wong has said, and get back to you.

I'll save you the trouble. Wong told you to shut the hell up with your stupid condition and that you would either accept his challenge unconditionally or get stuffed.

[Cal Wright]

I'm torn between saying All to Easy and imagining how the E-D would do VS the Death Star II

Well, take another look at that image posted on the Star Wars board. That's a nicer comparison.

P.S. Wong. Do us all a favor when you open the debate and yell 'Flame On!!!'

[Cal Wright]

OK Darkstar, fine. I challenge you to one-on-one debate. Face me, you little dipshit. I'm sick of you blathering on about how you could kick my ass if you only had a chance. Your chance is now.

I said: "You wouldn't know how to be a good, decent, honest debater. You have to throw up smokescreens, attack from behind, fling insults like a monkey throwing feces, and do all sorts of other bullshit. That's your definition of one-on-one debate."

Wong replies: "Face me, you little dipshit"

Thank you for proving my point.

I said: "If you had ever, even once , led me to believe for a moment that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, I'd tell you to bring it on. However, you wouldn't be able to hold your inner bastard in check for long. You have an image to maintain . . . disciples to impress . . . propaganda to peddle."

Wong replies: "I'm sick of you blathering on about how you could kick my ass if you only had a chance."

I'm really quite sorry, Wong, but I do believe I specifically mentioned that I'd tell you to bring it on, on the condition that you refrained from your childish behavior.

Do you think you can do that? Do you think you can focus exclusively on the arguments and the evidence, and not the man?

I'm not sure you can do that. Your disciples might be disappointed . . . you might even have to back off from an argument you can't win when you can't fling feces at the opposition as a smokescreen. If you want to have a proper debate, and if you are worried that you won't be able to keep the charlatanism to a minimum in a public debate, I'll even accept a private one.

But, if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on. But bear in mind that if you break that promise, it will be considered a concession.

You game?

Laying down ground rules like that? Don't use childish behavior or language that could make a sailor blush? Even though you know he uses it in his debates? Is this to lend weight to your side of the debate? I mean, if I were you I'd be grasping at straws or whatever the hell I could find. Seeing how though you tried go evac mans on this one, I'm sure I speak for many people by saying 'Concession Accepted.'

[DarkStar]

I said: "If you had ever, even once , led me to believe for a moment that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, I'd tell you to bring it on. However, you wouldn't be able to hold your inner bastard in check for long. You have an image to maintain . . . disciples to impress . . . propaganda to peddle."

Don't give me any of these bullshit conditions, you evasive little chickenshit. Yes or no. Answer the fucking challenge.

I'm really quite sorry, Wong, but I do believe I specifically mentioned that I'd tell you to bring it on, on the condition that you refrained from your childish behavior.

Do you think you can do that? Do you think you can focus exclusively on the arguments and the evidence, and not the man?

Answer the challenge and find out, asshole. Stop evading. Yes or no.

I'm not sure you can do that. Your disciples might be disappointed . . . you might even have to back off from an argument you can't win when you can't fling feces at the opposition as a smokescreen. If you want to have a proper debate, and if you are worried that you won't be able to keep the charlatanism to a minimum in a public debate, I'll even accept a private one.

Stop dancing around the fucking challenge, Darkstar. Yes or no. And it will be a very public debate.

But, if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on. But bear in mind that if you break that promise, it will be considered a concession.

Fuck off. You are setting up a condition where you can unilaterally declare victory at any time if you decide I'm not being nice to you. No conditions. No weaselling. No skirting around the issue, dancing around the bush, or style over substance fallacies. Our conduct during the debate will be judged by our peers afterwards, not used by you as an excuse to duck out whenever you're feeling overwhelmed, the way Gothmog did.

Yes or no. Answer me now.

Blah blah running away blah blah various posturing blah blah "evading" blah blah "dancing" blah blah "conditions" blah blah "Gothmog".

As per the aforementioned Gothmog's commentary on the matter, "as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic...", which you agreed with him about, in reference to a direct challenge case like this one.

So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be allowed to debate the Wong way.

(No pun intended . . . at least, not when I first typed it.)

(* see below)

Ah, yes, the Wong Way . . . you'd try every off-topic dirty trick you can get your hands on in an effort to emerge victorious, as you have done in prior efforts which you have posted on your pages (i.e. personal attacks du jour, contacting various institutions I've been associated with, et cetera) . . . also, with a "very public debate", you would therefore be using every on-topic sophistry and clever deceit imaginable (i.e. even more than usual) so that, whether I kick your butt or not, your arguments will look as good as possible for your adoring Warsie public, especially after you spin-doctor them on your "hate-mail" page.

You know, I was seriously tempted to accept your new offer with its revised demands, even though you had run away like a little girl previously, with all the proper fluff and posturing to cover this fact, of course. This message was almost much, much longer than it presently is, because I had not only typed out the various pros and cons of going ahead and doing it the Wong way, but I had also begun drawing up a revised list of terms which, I supposed, you might find more acceptable, and even a schedule and topic (the Superlaser Effect).

The cons far outnumbered the pros, and they included comments on the various habits of yours mentioned above. I also mentioned that you'd already had every opportunity to reply to any post or argument you wished while it was in progress, since I had not hidden my arguments, but instead had posted all of them right under your nose. And yet, in those rare instances when you deigned to reply, you didn't last long, and when you challenged me and I accepted, you ran away faster than Sir Robin.

Really, the only reasons I had for accepting your second challenge involved the fact that I've adapted reasonably well to the standard Wong BS and could therefore see right through your standard fare, and the fact that I didn't want any stupid spin-doctoring of a refusal to occur (This has already begun, as evidenced by Ossus's stupid post:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &start=153 ).

So, there I was, all set to deny you and your fellow Warsies the opportunity to claim, incorrectly, that I had refused to debate . . . however, as my mouse pointer dwelled on the "Submit" button, I decided to look over some of your other debates, and make sure I hadn't missed anything of import in reference to the creation of terms.

And there you were on the screen again, agreeing with Gothmog that a directly challenged party gets to set the terms. And as I switched windows, there you were, quoted at the top of my reply box, running away screaming like a little girl while trying to maintain your silly posturing.

You had your chance in the public threads, and you have consistently blown it. You challenged me to a public debate, and then ran screaming when I demanded it be a rational discussion.

I told you recently to get off your high horse. Seems like it just threw you.

(*) In anticipation of Warsie claims that I have lied about the massive edit of the message, I have posted the message-that-almost-was on a temporary page. The edit started at the point marked (*) above in the text.
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWd.html
"The second challenge reply")

Should you wish to accept the terms, you are at liberty to come crawling back. If not, you are at liberty to continue to lie and posture about it, as I'm sure you intended to do anyway.

[His Divine Shadow]

Wow, this is like the worst piece of dung I have ever seen, I never believed someone could be this false and horrible a person.

[DarkStar]

Laying down ground rules like that? Don't use childish behavior or language that could make a sailor blush? Even though you know he uses it in his debates? Is this to lend weight to your side of the debate?

YES!!! With the evidence and facts as the primary focus (and not stupid flaming and Wong Way BS) the evidence, facts, arguments, and logic would have to take center stage, and could not be derailed. That's why Wong ran away.

If he wants to come crawling back, I'll consider accepting again. But, I doubt he will.

[Cal Wright]

Ran away? LoL! Now I see why you fucked up with your 'can(n)on' screen shots of Star Wars from your webpage. Your blind. Somehow, someway you missed the BOLD emphasis Mr. Wong used when replying to you. Basically, the way I feel about making a debate the way your wanting it, is to dress up huge words, that can confuse lesser minds and casual lookers so that you will seem correct. A main reason why in my posts I say, 'The Death Star's Superlaser blasted the SHIT out of that Mon Cal Cruiser.' That was easier to understand for the working class. Who needs window dressing, this isn't a Macy's public message board. 'Concession Accepted'

[His Divine Shadow]

YES!!! With the evidence and facts as the primary focus (and not stupid flaming and Wong Way BS) the evidence, facts, arguments, and logic would have to take center stage, and could not be derailed. That's why Wong ran away.

If he wants to come crawling back, I'll consider accepting again. But, I doubt he will.

I believe you are misstaken, and delusional, and incapable of debate, and not very smart, highly annoying, oops, back on track, so easy to get lost on that other one.

You ran away, you wanted to set conditions with useless and meaningless rules that you could use to fake victory, it's apparent you could never taken him on in a straight fight so you'd require escape holes like crying like a baby when Wong calls you a "useless hatfucker" or something so you could claim victory based purely on a non-relevant point, the fact that he has completely beaten you seven ways from sunday on actual topics would be carefully hidden, all that would be pointed out is how he stepped over the "Don't be mean to me Mr. Wong" rule and therefore lost by some unknown act of god.

It's actually a rather good tactic, if you have no morals, ethics or anything, DarkStar, you are lower than a snake's balls.

[EmperorMing]

So is this guy gonna say yes or no, or is he gonna hem and haw about it?

[Ender]

hem and haw it looks like

[Darth Wong]

As per the aforementioned Gothmog's commentary on the matter, "as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic...", which you agreed with him about, in reference to a direct challenge case like this one.

And in which he used the condition as an excuse to run away even though everyone could see that I was kicking his ass. Badly. If you actually beat me, it won't matter how many insults I use; everyone will still know who won (and it won't be you). But you know that, don't you? That's why you don't want this debate, and you want to add all sorts of bullshit conditions.

So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be allowed to debate the Wong way.

No, I have issued a challenge with no conditions whatsoever. Learn to read, asshole.

<snip a huge pile of bullshit posturing>

OK, asshole. I'll make this simple. Debate me or I'll ban your worthless ass. You have 24 hours.

[His Divine Shadow]

But, but without special conditions that serve no purpose, how can he divert attention away from his failure to debate the issue at hand?

It's so UNFAIR!

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Ah, yes, the Wong Way . . . you'd try every off-topic dirty trick you can get your hands on in an effort to emerge victorious, as you have done in prior efforts which you have posted on your pages (i.e. personal attacks du jour, contacting various institutions I've been associated with, et cetera) . . . also, with a "very public debate", you would therefore be using every on-topic sophistry and clever deceit imaginable (i.e. even more than usual) so that, whether I kick your butt or not, your arguments will look as good as possible for your adoring Warsie public, especially after you spin-doctor them on your "hate-mail" page.

Provide an example hatfucker.


I don't know what I want more, you banned, or you getting a patended smackdown.

[Mr Bean]

It shall be quite
Intresting to see how this turns out

[Vympel]

I'd be very surprised if Darkstar accepts the challenge. Such a dumbfuck.


"Waaah, don't use profanity"

But he can make snide condescending remarks all he likes ...

[His Divine Shadow]

I'd be very surprised if Darkstar accepts the challenge. Such a dumbfuck.


"Waaah, don't use profanity"

But he can make snide condescending remarks all he likes ...

But thats the tactic, bait the opposition and then pretend to be a victim, and if he could further re-inforce that with an official rule that says no flaming, that way he can detract from the debate, wich he needs to since he can't debate, and leave him free to nitpick and play semantics games and then claim victory if MW even looks funny at him.

What we would be left with is an incoherent babbling session with lots of repetition and snide comments and appeals to totally irrelevant rules and then claim victory if said rule is broken.

[Lord of the Farce]

Blah blah running away blah blah various posturing blah blah "evading" blah blah "dancing" blah blah "conditions" blah blah "Gothmog".

As per the aforementioned Gothmog's commentary on the matter, "as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic...", which you agreed with him about, in reference to a direct challenge case like this one.

Actually, it is not a duel, it is a debate. While it might traditionally be the right of the challenged to their choice of weapons in duels, the purpose of debates is not to find the judgement of who's right by the "favour of God" and their fighting prowess, but to find out who's belief has the strongest foundation. Trying to set yourself up with an escape clause will only weaken your position in the eyes of others.

[DarkStar]

As per the aforementioned Gothmog's commentary on the matter, "as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic...", which you agreed with him about, in reference to a direct challenge case like this one.

And in which he used the condition as an excuse to run away even though everyone could see that I was kicking his ass. Badly.

Irrelevant . . . I am not Gothmog. I accepted your challenge, used your own stated preference to lay out terms, and you have refused the debate. This, of course, comes after all this time when I've been posting right under your nose, and you have failed to engage. That's why you now have to posture.

If you actually beat me, it won't matter how many insults I use; everyone will still know who won (and it won't be you).

Of course not. Oh, I'd win the points based on reason and evidence, but you'd throw up smokescreens, fling insults like a monkey throwing feces, and do all sorts of other low-brow bullshit. That's your definition of one-on-one debate, and those are the grounds upon which you would declare victory.

But you know that, don't you? That's why you don't want this debate, and you want to add all sorts of bullshit conditions.

I didn't add bullshit conditions, Mike. I stated terms which would limit your ability to engage in bullshit. That's why you ran. I'm sure you must've noticed my reply to DG_Cal_Wright when he asked if the ground rules were designed to lend weight to my position:

"YES!!! With the evidence and facts as the primary focus (and not stupid flaming and Wong Way BS) the evidence, facts, arguments, and logic would have to take center stage, and could not be derailed."

So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be allowed to debate the Wong way.

No, I have issued a challenge with no conditions whatsoever.

. . . After running from an accepted challenge, where all you had to do was answer yes to the question "Do you think you can focus exclusively on the arguments and the evidence, and not the man?"

As Lord of the Farce has quite rightly stated, the purpose of a debate is to determine which belief has the strongest foundation in the evidence. However, it is clear that you're not interested in the evidence . . . otherwise saying 'no' and running away from a debate of the facts and evidence as you have done shouldn't have even crossed your mind.

OK, asshole. I'll make this simple. Debate me or I'll ban your worthless ass. You have 24 hours.

DarkStar: "If you had ever, even once, led me to believe for a moment that you could refrain from such childish behavior in a debate against me, I'd tell you to bring it on."

Wong: "OK Darkstar, fine. I challenge you to one-on-one debate. Face me, you little dipshit."

DarkStar: " . . . if you really think you can keep a promise to maintain civility in a public forum, then let's get it on."

Wong: "Don't give me any of these bullshit conditions, you evasive little chickenshit."

(((http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Hat ... tions.html
Gothmog: "Actually, as the challenged party, I should, by tradition, set the terms and topic without going through such a process as we are going through."
Wong: "If I had specifically addressed the challenge to you personally, that would be the case." )))

DarkStar: "So, you have refused to debate in a more proper fashion as per the guidelines set out by the challenged party, and have effectively re-issued a challenge wherein you demand that you be allowed to debate the Wong way."

Wong: "No, I have issued a challenge with no conditions whatsoever." "Debate me or I'll ban your worthless ass."

Is that what this silly posturing of yours has been all about? Have we finally come to the crux of the issue? This thread was your attempt to test the waters and see how a banning of me would fly, but I've ended up with some surprise support, and a few votes in my favor, even on your loaded poll.

So, you challenge me to a debate, and then fail to follow your own stated beliefs, running away from an honest, evidence-based debate because that's your biggest fear. Having been caught in the act, you suddenly have to try to play off the fact that you're not just a pussy, but indeed a huge, gaping vagina. Then, the icing on the cake . . . you threaten to ban me. This is the only force you can apply in the situation . . . the only way you can hope to make me acquiesce to a debate which has nothing to do with the issues, but everything to do with ego and audience.

I've already told you and everyone else a hundred times . . . I'm not interested in ego and audience . . . I'm here for the facts and evidence.

So, I'm afraid I have to reply with the following:

GO AHEAD AND BAN ME, YA BIG PUSSY.