New page in progress

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-12 10:17pm

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/VsHowTo.html

Any suggestions? I just whipped it up a little while ago on a whim, but maybe it could use polish.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2004-09-12 10:43pm

I particularly like this bit:

While the method is not quite as insane here as it is in religion (after all, the documents of a sci-fi universe really were handed straight down from its Creator), the mentality of using semantics as standalone proof of a phenomenon (even in the face of contradictory evidence in many cases) is no better.

Overall, it's a good essay. I think the classifications fit really well with the typical SW vs ST arguments I've read in the past.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-09-13 09:51am

Actually very good. It shows from a cursory glace the differences of debating styles and gives appropriate examples.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2004-09-13 11:52am

Minor suggestion: each level of sci-fi debating methods has example, save level 6. Probably you could add an example to the scientific-level debate?

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-09-13 12:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/VsHowTo.html

Any suggestions? I just whipped it up a little while ago on a whim, but maybe it could use polish.

I think in english is just fine.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2004-09-13 12:34pm

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Minor suggestion: each level of sci-fi debating methods has example, save level 6. Probably you could add an example to the scientific-level debate?

I think the main site is one huge example for Level 6.

However, I do agree. There should be a pro-Wars and pro-Trek argument (like with the others), to show that the method is not biased towards one side.

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2004-09-13 04:06pm

I like it.

Trekdestroyer · Post by **Trekdestroyer** » 2004-09-13 04:08pm

It's about time you put up a new page!

P.S. put up another hate mail entry!

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-09-13 04:10pm

Trekdestroyer wrote:It's about time you put up a new page!

P.S. put up another hate mail entry!

1. Thank you for putting up the pointless rolling eyes.

Of Course Mike has endless time and he's asking about what do you think about it, not asking for you to present "About time retard!!!" yabbering.

2. Why? There hasn't been a worthy piece of hate mail in the longest time.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-09-13 05:13pm

Trekdestroyer wrote:It's about time you put up a new page!

P.S. put up another hate mail entry!

Yes, I couldn't agree more.

Really good page, lots of insight.

Lex · Post by **Lex** » 2004-09-13 05:25pm

new poll anyone?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-09-13 06:37pm

We want hate mail! We want hate mail!
It's the best part of the page in terms of laughs...

But yeah, excellent article. I do agree that #6 should have an example, though.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-09-13 10:28pm

Ghost Rider wrote:1. Thank you for putting up the pointless rolling eyes.

Of Course Mike has endless time and he's asking about what do you think about it, not asking for you to present "About time retard!!!" yabbering.

2. Why? There hasn't been a worthy piece of hate mail in the longest time.

Come on. Even Mike knows he's going real slow on that page (though nobody blames him, we know he has a life other than entertaining us with that page). And Hate Mail is always fun, though of course some would always be better than others.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-09-13 10:33pm

Trekdestroyer wrote:
P.S. put up another hate mail entry!

Only if its you.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-09-15 05:05am

It is a good page for debating reference. I am bookmarking it.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-09-15 05:43am

It's good page, but I think there's minor error in "normal distribution" function (there should be an nother integral symbol after "=", the possiblity being the "area" or the value of the integral). The error is not fatal, but it just bothered me.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-15 09:26am

Lord Revan wrote:It's good page, but I think there's minor error in "normal distribution" function (there should be an nother integral symbol after "=", the possiblity being the "area" or the value of the integral). The error is not fatal, but it just bothered me.

The function is the curve, not the area under it.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-09-15 10:43am

Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:It's good page, but I think there's minor error in "normal distribution" function (there should be an nother integral symbol after "=", the possiblity being the "area" or the value of the integral). The error is not fatal, but it just bothered me.
The function is the curve, not the area under it.

As far as I can remember the curve itself has never been written as an integral.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-15 10:46am

Lord Revan wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:It's good page, but I think there's minor error in "normal distribution" function (there should be an nother integral symbol after "=", the possiblity being the "area" or the value of the integral). The error is not fatal, but it just bothered me.
The function is the curve, not the area under it.
As far as I can remember the curve itself has never been written as an integral.

What are you talking about? There's no integral system anywhere in that equation! Are you confusing the "f" in f(x) with an integral symbol?

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-09-15 10:49am

Darth Wong wrote:What are you talking about? There's no integral system anywhere in that equation! Are you confusing the "f" in f(x) with an integral symbol?

yeah I did just that, well then there's no problem.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-09-15 04:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/VsHowTo.html

Any suggestions? I just whipped it up a little while ago on a whim, but maybe it could use polish.

I'd suggest three more possible types:

- "Guerilla"-style debating method. This largely centers around nitpicking the arguments of your opponents while obscuring/avoiding stating your own position openly as much as possible. Lord Edam is a notorious example of this style of debate.

- "Common sense" debating method - these people aren't always common, but some are the exact opposite of the "author's intent" types. They are largely characterized by the mentality that "Authors/special effects crews/creators of a given universe/series are scientific incompetents and only concerned by making things look good, not practical." - they also tend to believe that fan knowledge is superior to the knowledge the creators may or may not have (often regardless of whether this is objectively true or not.) These are the sorts of people who like to 'ignore' potential scientific problems or limitations if they are inconvenient to a particular point of view (often citing "common sense" as a reason for this.)

In a sense, these sorts of people do not adapt their thinking/logic/arguments to the sci fi universe in question. Rather, they alter, eliminate, or even distort the universe to fit what they think it should be. I suppose a good example of this might be the more rabid of the Star Wars "canon p urist" mentality.

- "Dopplegangers" style debating method: They tend to be people who lack their own ability to analyze/debate, so they usually (often mindlessly) imitate the methods, arguments, or even writing/debating styles of more capable people. As alreay mentioned, alot tend not to think very much for themselves (if at all.) and largely avoid any attempt at doing so. Some of this category go beyond simple imitation, but actually seem to "mutate" the arguments to suit them better... which ironically creates a more grotesque parody of the person they are copying (and because the imitation is so inept, its also easily spotted.)

Those that mindlessly repeat the arguments of others could be described as mere "parrots" (Legions of darkstar's fans can fall into this category.) while those who poorly-imitate more capable debators can be called mutants or caricatures (Darkstar himself is an example of this - much of his website and his own efforts have been a pathetic attempt to imitate Mike, after all.)

- "Stealth" or "sleepers" - this is a "so-so" category, so I am not sure if it really belongs. What I was thinking of was someone like Stewart, or Stilgar. These are people who have an "agenda" of sorts, often a very well hidden one. They join boards or discussions in a fairly innocuous way, and generally use their responses to steer debates towards "disproving" somethign (Stewie's disproval of SW firepower involving the Death Star and the ISD in TESB, for example.) - often, their methods become more apparent later on, as an argument progresses.
(this might belong as a subclass under "Guerilla" debators, though.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-09-15 04:08pm

Also, Mike, I think you neglected the impact of egotism, pride, outright stubbornness/bias, and emotional involvement in the debates and how it affects the "level" of debate you're at. Someone who refuses to admit error (Stilgar) or excessively prideful (Virus-X), or just is plain obsessed (darkstar.) will resort to dishonest and irrational tactics just as easily as someone who is less knowledgable. In fact, the person might be very knowledgable and still end up on a lower "level" simply because they are dishonest or irrational or stubborn.

Post by **Kuja** » 2004-09-15 05:38pm

fgalkin wrote:
Trekdestroyer wrote:
P.S. put up another hate mail entry!
Only if its you.

Are you kidding? Trekdestroyer isn't capable of sending hate mail. Two paragraphs into the first exhange, he'll be gushing over how gosh darn cool his enemy is.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-15 07:07pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:Also, Mike, I think you neglected the impact of egotism, pride, outright stubbornness/bias, and emotional involvement in the debates and how it affects the "level" of debate you're at. Someone who refuses to admit error (Stilgar) or excessively prideful (Virus-X), or just is plain obsessed (darkstar.) will resort to dishonest and irrational tactics just as easily as someone who is less knowledgable. In fact, the person might be very knowledgable and still end up on a lower "level" simply because they are dishonest or irrational or stubborn.

Well, that's kind of a different subject. There are dishonest and emotion-driven tactics you could use at all of those levels, but the page isn't about debating technique, but about the context in which the debate takes place. When someone wants a debate to take place under a set of rules where it turns out that the fictional universe is not even considered to have any intrinsic validity except as a loose interpretation of the real subject matter (the author's thoughts), that is a "level" of debate. One could actually engage in such a debate without being dishonest, but the context of the whole debate is simply on a lower level. You could be scrupulously honest and logical yet produce nothing of value because the debate takes place in the context of a stupid set of rules.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2004-09-15 11:05pm

Quit yer whining guys, and start writing in the hate mail letters!

About the page: An important thing to mention (if you haven't already) is that setting up the "rules" of a debate beforehand is important. I've read a few of those online debates where the "debate" is rather two people arguing about the "rules" and no actual content on the subject itself (wars vs. trek).

Then there's the debator who tries to "change the rules" mid-debate, and how silly that is. ; )

Setting rules is important because it prevents the debate from spiralling out of control with the "shotgun argument" and changing the subject, etc.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

New page in progress

New page in progress

Re: New page in progress

Re: New page in progress