Visa Versa

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:34 am

OBJECTION

(So CE you not only have a cruel streak you are also very competitive.)

Mr Sleep ref sir. I have to complain about CE’s behaviour. She is trying to set me up as some kind of super debater so she will look better when she knocks me down. She claims I am a professional philosopher when I have in fact never been paid. Further more she tries to make out in a series of posts that having philosophical knowledge will be an aid in debates - nothing could be further from the truth. Philosophy students sit in libraries reading obscure tomes getting paler and more under nourished as the years pass, we hardly ever see real people and so are completely unsuited to debate anything with people who are not also in similar bad conditions.
Arguing about obscure technicalities muddles the brain so much so that one start to think that Hegel actually makes sense - clearly a ridicules proposition.
Mr Sleep ref your honour I object to the vicious ad hominem from CE before the game has even started. This is a particularly disingenuous attack since she is both a scientist and a psychologist (the latter being a byword for mental trickery). She by her own admission started reading when she was three, the most I had managed when I was seven was drooling on and eating most of my dads spiderman comic albums - I was then thrown in the basement for two years. Yes its all true.

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:38 am

LMAO!!!!!

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:47 am

ROFL @Tom

BTW @ Sleepy, I get the impression that you are going to be scoring us on the logicality (real word?) of the arguments we use. However, us all being rational people (OK, count Ode out

) it is clear that all our opinions are going to be based on sound rationality. When we are forced to argue for something which is not our opinion, by very definition we are arguing for something which is not deducable by sound reasoning. Therefore I maintain my right to use false logic and bad premises to make my points.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed Jul 24, 2002 5:07 am

Tom's right, I'm afraid. Philosophers are not so suited for debating as psychologists, and it took me until I was 6 to learn to read...
Don't worry Tom, you are not alone...

@Frogus-Moi? Not rational? I assure you I am completely sane, just ask this nice pink elephant on the unicycle who just rode by...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 5:34 am

Originally posted by frogus
BTW @ Sleepy, I get the impression that you are going to be scoring us on the logicality (real word?) of the arguments we use. However, us all being rational people (OK, count Ode out ) it is clear that all our opinions are going to be based on sound rationality. When we are forced to argue for something which is not our opinion, by very definition we are arguing for something which is not deducable by sound reasoning. Therefore I maintain my right to use false logic and bad premises to make my points.

You have the wrong impression, speculatively I and Yshania will be marking it from how convinced we are by the arguement, not necessarily how logical it is. I will post the rules/idea when i get home (i only have them on home comp) at which point you can come up with different ideas that you think might work and we will debate what is and is not viable...

@Tom, appealing to the adjudicator by way of sob story is also questionable, at least CE can convincingly wear lycra

Fickle, me?

So who would be your ideal arguing partner, if you feel like it you could argue against yourself?

We not have a full set of contestants (thanks to Georgi) so once i get the rules posted and we all agree me and Ysh will assign some subjects and it will all be under way.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:16 am

Originally posted by C Elegans
I think it would be most fair to match me or HLD to Tom since I figure neither I nor HLD are used to loose an argument and it would be a good exercise...

I think that if he's going to participate, then you and I should form Team Dave Elegans to combat the philosophical engine of argumentative destruction that is Tom.

@Mr Sleep:
I think Tom's post about four spots back is pure sandbagging. In fact, I think that Tom, being a semi-professional philosopher (we all know they're trained to do nothing but construct arguments and destroy others), should be limited to 1000 characters per argument and be constrained from using the words "the", "if" and "and".

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:20 am

I will agree with everything as long as i am not debating against HLD, TOM or CE. Then i will surrender with my ego intact

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:22 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think Tom's post about four spots back is pure sandbagging. In fact, I think that Tom, being a semi-professional philosopher (we all know[/i ] they're trained to do nothing but construct arguments and destroy others), should be limited to 1000 characters per argument and be constrained from using the words "the", "if" and "and".

Hmmm sounds like a plan, rational, well thought out, i will definately consider it.

@All whoever you are chosen against is final, so you lose a debate, who cares you aren't in it to win or lose you are in it for the fun

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:27 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
*sigh* I'll go get Beldin to give Dottie 'that talk'...

Did you just find a sound alternative to either schools or parents having to do that kind of education?

On no account should CE and HLD be allowed to team up...

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:32 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave

@Mr Sleep:
I think Tom's post about four spots back is pure sandbagging. In fact, I think that Tom, being a semi-professional philosopher (we all know[/i ] they're trained to do nothing but construct arguments and destroy others), should be limited to 1000 characters per argument and be constrained from using the words "the", "if" and "and".

LMAO! *hmmm...handicaps?*

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:33 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

Hmmm sounds like a plan, rational, well thought out, i will definately consider it.

@All whoever you are chosen against is final, so you lose a debate, who cares you aren't in it to win or lose you are in it for the fun

If you team me against CE and or HLD, i will resign and stuff

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:36 am

If we are at it.
I suggest we limit CE and HLD to the extent that they are forced to make the points in a 20 word para. No more. Less is even better. That is to give us normal people a decent chance of debating

Oh yeah they both arent allowed to use Psychology and other such dirty tricks

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:36 am

Originally posted by CM
If you team me against CE and or HLD, i will resign and stuff

Well if it's gonna be in an all-against-all format, you're gonna have to play against one of them eventually - both if neither of them is in your team

Oh and that "handicapping" post of HLD's was definitely another example of an ad hominem attack...shame!

Or did you decide that was alright...Well Done!

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:37 am

We may have done, @Georgi. I'm sure a talk from Beldin on the topic would be most informative...

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:39 am

Originally posted by Kameleon

Well if it's gonna be in an all-against-all format, you're gonna have to play against one of them eventually - both if neither of them is in your team

*whacks Kam on the back of the head with a rubber Sledge Hammer*
That is what happens when people give me bad news

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:40 am

Umm as i stated previously, i will be posting some rules and gumpf later today/tonight, at which point you can dissect them to your hearts content

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:43 am

Originally posted by CM
*whacks Kam on the back of the head with a rubber Sledge Hammer*
That is what happens when people give me bad news

Rubber? Don't make me laugh...After surviving having the scales shaved off half my face by BS, I think I can stand up to a little rubber punishment.

Oh and Sleep, it's so much more fun arguing about the rules before they've been set...

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:43 am

Originally posted by Kameleon
Oh and that "handicapping" post of HLD's was definitely another example of an ad hominem attack...shame!

I am shocked that our friend Kameleon has made these accusations against me. I categorically deny everything. I am not attacking anyone, but rather I am attempting to ensure that the playing field is level and that someone who makes his living as a semi-professional debator/philosopher does not have a comptetitive advantage over the rest of us.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:44 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I'm sure a talk from Beldin on the topic would be most informative...

Though educational may not be the right word...

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:46 am

So to cap, who do we have participating then?

CE
Dottie
HLD
CM
Georgi
Ode
Tom
Frogus