And to people thinking like that PMer--let me tell you, one of the most exhilerating experiences possible is admitting when you're wrong.

Ok, well that was fun wasn't it? Crushed, flattened and absotively posilutely disproven! Ok, this can be closed now.

Well, I doubt that feeling of being proved wrong is really that good....And I don't know why, but I sort of feel that being proved right can bring us closer to the truth than being proved wrong; there can be infinite wrong theories/points, but there can only be one truth. A wrong theory only gives us an example of a misconception, but a correct theory brings us the truth, and facts. So, what's so great about being proved wrong? Of course, my post has many flaws(compared to bones' blog entry, lol), but still, I think that being proved wrong isn't great.

If someone were to lose a debate, would that person lose his pride in himself? If this were so, then that person would not be able to combat in another debate as well as in the previous one. On the other hand, if that person were to win the first debate, then his pride would be able to be exploited in the debate to come.

Now, if the debator were to win the first and lose the second, then he would, in theory, 'lose face' and not want to partake in a debate for a long time. This is a natural occurence (one that I am familiar with, too) and is a symbol of 'natural selection; the debator was not good enough to proceed to the next debate.

So in short: A debate is a fight for honor and should be treated accordingly. A debate is to win, although, like you said, if you are obviously wrong, it is time to bail out.

As an extra measure to my reply, I believe in debating or arguing for a couse or meaning. Any debates I enter are because I have a reason to doubt the other's judgement. One example is in a religeous debate; if I have reason to enter, or if the other's belief is dissagreeing with mine and I believe that my logic is superior, I will fight to the death. Almost all the debates I enter are either for a greater good or for honor. I am a duelist, and I adore an honor-related fight. If honor is the prize and I have the advantage, then I will duel 'till the end.

Now, some debates and duels are for fun -- one example of this is the 'Downfall of Bionicle' topic, in wich I was directed to this blog entry, that I join for pleasure. I enjoy the action of a debate, and just love a debate or arguement in wich I think I can contribute somewhat.

So I actually agree with the PMer in most areas, but not all. I suppose there is not much I can say about his thinking, as you have already covered it.

~EW~

Before I reply, I want to clear up part of what I meant, as I just said in a PM:

...what I meant about feeling better [when proven wrong] was this: To me, understanding reality is very important, and cool. I like science, for example, and philosphy, theology, all that kinda stuff. I enjoy trying to understand the world (among other things). So to me, if I find out that I was "wrong" about something, all it means is there was something I didn't, in the past, understand very well, and being proven wrong and being able to admit it, and accept the more realistic opinion means that now I understand the world a little better. To me that's really cool, and that's why it pleases me. I don't mean to say that being "owned" makes everybody feel better--it definately doesn't. I guess, to me "truth-seeking debate" has nothing to do with "owning" so if both sides see debate this way, there's no risk of feelings being hurt.

And to people thinking like that PMer--let me tell you, one of the most exhilerating experiences possible is admitting when you're wrong.

Ok, well that was fun wasn't it? Crushed, flattened and absotively posilutely disproven! Ok, this can be closed now.

Well, I doubt that feeling of being proved wrong is really that good....And I don't know why, but I sort of feel that being proved right can bring us closer to the truth than being proved wrong; there can be infinite wrong theories/points, but there can only be one truth. A wrong theory only gives us an example of a misconception, but a correct theory brings us the truth, and facts. So, what's so great about being proved wrong? Of course, my post has many flaws(compared to bones' blog entry, lol), but still, I think that being proved wrong isn't great.

I don't think you understood quite what I am saying, DQ... Let me quote something that ccso said in an older version of the S&T rules from before I was a staff member, and that I've kept around in my version of those rules, that I think helps explain:

This is also a forum where we can post our ideas and theories about Bionicle and where others can agree or disagree with them. Just because someone disagrees with you about your theory or idea doesn't mean they are attacking you. The discussion helps us make better theories. So if someone is saying they don't believe you or that you are wrong, read what they posted and then respond with your own arguments, not names or other flaming. As always, flaming will not be tolorated.

Now, as I've said in the Debate Terms Guide, "opinions" are also like theories, except not about Bionicle or a storyline, but about reality itself (see the Dictionary.com definition provided in the "Opinion" section in the guide, orange link in sig). Debate is all about different people with different opinions talking amongst each other about those opinions. I really think if we look at debate the way ccso is saying about theory discussions, it's a better experience, and even being proven wrong "helps us make better" opinions. And at the same time, it helps avoid flame, which is also something that's important to me when I'm posting in a debate topic, especially being a moderator.

Does that make sense?

Now to be clear, I'm not talking about taste, or preferences, or likes and dislikes. That stuff isn't a matter of logic, but just of preference. When it comes to Bionicle, I'm talking about figuring out what actually helps or hurts Bionicle's health as a franchise.

If someone were to lose a debate, would that person lose his pride in himself? If this were so, then that person would not be able to combat in another debate as well as in the previous one. On the other hand, if that person were to win the first debate, then his pride would be able to be exploited in the debate to come.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "pride", Emperor? Do you mean "self-esteem"? Or do you mean "ego"?

If you mean self-esteem, then what I'm saying is, if you look at debate my way, then that isn't a problem. Because losing a debate is just as good as winning--and either way, debate helps sharpen our logical skills, and helps us be more confident in the next debate. If you look it as defensive debate, and you look at it as important not to "lose", then yes, it can hurt your self esteem--but my whole point is that if you look at it my way, it can't.

If you mean pride in the negative sense, in terms of egotism, I've already talked about that in the blog entry--hopefully you understand why that is a bad thing...

Now, if the debator were to win the first and lose the second, then he would, in theory, 'lose face' and not want to partake in a debate for a long time. This is a natural occurence (one that I am familiar with, too) and is a symbol of 'natural selection; the debator was not good enough to proceed to the next debate.

Again, this looks at debate as a "game"--almost like football seasons, lol. It just doesn't work that way, at least not on a forum like this. You are not banned for losing a debate, lol, and you still have the right to speak your mind, as long as it's done respectfully. Who wins or loses debate depends (or it should) on logic, so if I was wrong once, but now I come to a new debate, and logic is on my side in this one, what possible problem could I run into? What could stop me from speaking my mind there too? And how could having lost one debate have anything to do with my logic in the new debate?

In fact, I would counter that being able to admit when I'm wrong shows that I am, in a sense, better able to approach a new debate. If I come into debate, and everybody knows I can admit when I'm wrong, then they must work doubly hard to debate me--because they cannot just pretend that I say things despite knowing I'm wrong. Does that make sense?

So in short: A debate is a fight for honor and should be treated accordingly. A debate is to win, although, like you said, if you are obviously wrong, it is time to bail out.

Okay, then let me put it to you this way. I say that I am right on this (just as a hypothetical, I mean). I think that I have strong logical reasons to back me up; for example, years of experience with debates on BZP and seeing the results of the "defensive" way of looking at it (it often ends up in flame wars). Now, if that be the case, to me, a "defensive debater" is "obviously wrong", as it were. Do you see how I'm looking at it?

I'm not being 100% serious with this hypothetical, though, because I understand the view of debate as a fight for honor. This is a little better than plain old defensive debating, but see, you still need to realize that there can only be two basic kinds of debate--truth-seeking or defensive. I view debate as an activity demanding honor as well, but I do not view it as a "fight." That attitude is what leads to flame, in my experience, and that is bad. To me, making sure I'm being logical is the matter of honor. It doesn't seem honorable to me to just defend my view no matter what, which is what defensive debaters seem to do. So I think you're basically seeing this the same way, but I'm just not clear on if you agree that defensive debate isn't good?

As an extra measure to my reply, I believe in debating or arguing for a c[a]use or meaning. Any debates I enter are because I have a reason to doubt the other's judgement.

I agree. Nothing wrong with that. What I'm saying is, I think it's also important to be clear in your mind that you could actually be wrong. For example; the cause in a typical Bionicle debate might be to show that removing gears was actually a good decision for the health of Bionicle, because I believe that logic supports that view better than the opposite. The meaning being that the goal in that debate is to figure out what is actually helping and what isn't.

One example is in a religeous debate; if I have reason to enter, or if the other's belief is dissagreeing with mine and I believe that my logic is superior, I will fight to the death. Almost all the debates I enter are either for a greater good or for honor. I am a duelist, and I adore an honor-related fight. If honor is the prize and I have the advantage, then I will duel 'till the end.

Nothing wrong with all that--I am simply suggesting that if it can be shown that you were wrong, then the honorable thing to do is admit it. And that there is no dishonor in being wrong, if you can admit it. (Especially because once you admit it, and take up the more right opinion, you become right!)

Instead, in my mind, there is dishonor in sticking to an opinion that is clearly wrong, as shown in logical debate. To be clear--this doesn't mean we should not have "faith", whether in the religious sense of that word, or just in the sense that we might run into a situation where someone seems to have disproved the idea, but you sense that something is off and that you're missing something. In real life, this happens all the time--a person might feel intimidated by someone they're debating, and simply not be able to think of the right response fast enough. Usually, if you hold your ground in cases like this and think it over afterwords, you think of what you should have thought of, and realize you were right--that is, that the opponent was using a logical fallacy. "Faith" in that sense and in the religious sense is very good. Again, logic there is the key as well.

But online debates are different--we have time to proofread, to analyze more in-depth, and think of those things to say. It's not like spoken debate--and we can even analyze the exact structure of the opponent's logic and find the fallacies. That's why it's doubly important to understand logic well, really whether spoken or not.

Now, some debates and duels are for fun -- one example of this is the 'Downfall of Bionicle' topic, in wich I was directed to this blog entry, that I join for pleasure. I enjoy the action of a debate, and just love a debate or arguement in wich I think I can contribute somewhat.

Okay, but I hope you see why such a complaint topic/debate should not just be for fun. I understand that debating is fun and all, but are you implying that it doesn't matter in that topic who's right and who's wrong? That would be unwise... I don't want to presume that I understand what you mean by this, however, so I won't overthink this too much...

So I actually agree with the PMer in most areas, but not all. I suppose there is not much I can say about his thinking, as you have already covered it.

 

~EW~

Pretty much it appears I agree with you, actually, and I don't think you're agreeing with the PMer as much as you might think--you based your view on reasoning, as you said. I just think that you're still looking at it partly in terms of "defensive" debate, which isn't as good. You recall for example what I said about that in the "Debate" section in the Debate Terms Guide, for example? About how defensive debate can be used to justifcy flaming, and other lesser things like that? We agree that that is bad, right?

Kraggh--you appear to have misunderstood a lot of what I'm saying, and I've PMed you about this. It's difficult to compose a coherent reply to your comment without clearing up what I am saying first, so I'll hold off until you reply to my PM (my second one, that is).

As far as human emotions go, see here:

This isn't a dry, boring, robotic life, being a logician.

I think that we have brains for a good reason (the reasons I think this get into religion, which we cannot discuss here, but regardless of that, we do have brains, not just emotions). Emotions aren't there to rule us--but then perhaps you did not intend it that way anyways. In terms of taste, I've talked about this a lot, but you really need to read the Debate Terms Guide to understand what I'm talking about.

If you read that and still don't understand what I'm saying, Kraggh, then my question to you is, if I "don't feel human emotions", then why exactly am I a fan of Bionicle? Bionicle is entertainment--why exactly am I here talking about entertainment in the first place if I don't feel emotions? I hope you see how... strange... that idea is... (No offense. )

I good way to sum up how I look at it is to compare to the old Star Trek idea of Vulcans--aliens who, being unhuman, tried to suppress all emotion and lived as robotic-like logicians (hence the I am not Spock joke, if you didn't understand that, lol). The vulcans often stated that humans were defined by emotions, and vulcans by logic.

That is not my view in the slightest--though the general goal of being logical is of course good. I believe that logic and emotion are both vital to humanity. Emotions are like a sense, like vision, like hearing, and they can help you understand the intent of what someone says (though this gets confusing, unfortunately, on the 'net), as one example (among hundreds). Yet, we cannot let our emotions rule us, because that would make us less than human (IMO)--it would basically make us animals--in fact, that would be like a form of robotism. We would only be able to do what our emotions programmed us to do. Emotions are really just chemical reactions, you know. Also, because different people have different personal tastes, and because by definition no one taste is better or worse than others, different things would please different people--and they would be "ruled" to do radically different things. That can get dangerous, because if we cannot control our actions, what happens when we get violent?

A healthy human mind has a balance of the two, in my opinion. When it comes to debate, logic must be central. When it comes to viewing/reading entertainment, emotion should be central (as two examples). To me, logic really means nothing without emotion, because if we can never feel pleasure or pain, then what point is there in logically figuring out things like right and wrong in the first place? And in the same way, emotion means nothing without logic--it's really just chemical reactions that if allowed to rule us uncontrrollably can cause a lot of harm. So we need to balance the two. You get the idea?

Anyways, this is getting really deep here, XD. The way we balance them is by choosing to like what we like, and not apologizing for that--but at the same time, respecting others' ability to like different things, and accepting that, logically, companies must appeal to majority tastes (for example). In other words, by seperating our emotions and tastes from our "should" opinions.

Again, I can't really respond to the rest of what you say without making sure you understand first where I'm coming from, and understanding where you are coming from too... The main mistake you seem to be making appears to be that you don't think truth exists as an absolute, which I can easily disprove, but I do not want to presume that that is what you meant, and it doesn't sound like it, from your first PM...

*long comment, lol*

Ahh, felt I couldn't leave this comment out...

From all I've seen, all I've gathered from friends, and based on my own view, I think many people enter debates with no intent of finding any truth, because they are debating tastes merely. Their, and my opinions are based on what we like -- not the dictionary definition of it, p'raps, but the commonly used one -- and that is all we want to discuss. Make others see why we like what we do, pointing out things we don't think make good stories / sets, and trying to understand why other people see matters the way they do.

I, for one, am intrigued with the ways of the world, knowing how it works, all such stuff -- but I see those debates as discussion of preferences, not ways to find out what's best for the health of Bionicle. That is an honourable goal, bones, one which I greatly admire, but it is not one I am interested in including in debating. From what I see, these debates are outside the realm of Right and Wrong. They serve to exchange points of view and tastes.

P'raps this gives some insight in the ways of many people, p'raps not... but that's how I view it. Your way of 'Truth-Seeking Debates' is great, but not to be confused with casual discussion of tastes, I think.

[PS: Lookin' forward to you-know-what tonight... if you are there! B) ]

-Ikk

Your way of 'Truth-Seeking Debates' is great, but not to be confused with casual discussion of tastes, I think.

I agree. (I explain this very clearly in the Debate Guide.) I think that confusion is what causes most of the problems in debates, actually--that's why it's important for us to be clear about what we mean.

This was part of what I felt caused problems in your "Downfall" topic, Kraggh, for example--that word doesn't, to most people, mean that you're talking only about tastes. You posted recently that you meant more of "downhill", but that word has the same meaning to most people, from what I've seen. Just one example, but it's a good one, I think, of the kind of confusion that makes a lot of "taste-discussion" posts look like "opinion-discussion" posts.

If someone were to lose a debate, would that person lose his pride in himself? If this were so, then that person would not be able to combat in another debate as well as in the previous one. On the other hand, if that person were to win the first debate, then his pride would be able to be exploited in the debate to come.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "pride", Emperor? Do you mean "self-esteem"? Or do you mean "ego"?

 

If you mean self-esteem, then what I'm saying is, if you look at debate my way, then that isn't a problem. Because losing a debate is just as good as winning--and either way, debate helps sharpen our logical skills, and helps us be more confident in the next debate. If you look it as defensive debate, and you look at it as important not to "lose", then yes, it can hurt your self esteem--but my whole point is that if you look at it my way, it can't.

 

If you mean pride in the negative sense, in terms of egotism, I've already talked about that in the blog entry--hopefully you understand why that is a bad thing...

Yes, self-esteem. As you have already said, the ego is a bad guy in you. Kind of reminds my of Evil Lord Survurlode inside BZP.

Now, if the debator were to win the first and lose the second, then he would, in theory, 'lose face' and not want to partake in a debate for a long time. This is a natural occurence (one that I am familiar with, too) and is a symbol of 'natural selection; the debator was not good enough to proceed to the next debate.

Again, this looks at debate as a "game"--almost like football seasons, lol. It just doesn't work that way, at least not on a forum like this. You are not banned for losing a debate, lol, and you still have the right to speak your mind, as long as it's done respectfully. Who wins or loses debate depends (or it should) on logic, so if I was wrong once, but now I come to a new debate, and logic is on my side in this one, what possible problem could I run into? What could stop me from speaking my mind there too? And how could having lost one debate have anything to do with my logic in the new debate?

 

In fact, I would counter that being able to admit when I'm wrong shows that I am, in a sense, better able to approach a new debate. If I come into debate, and everybody knows I can admit when I'm wrong, then they must work doubly hard to debate me--because they cannot just pretend that I say things despite knowing I'm wrong. Does that make sense?

As I am a duelist, literaly, I am the kind to see things as a game and sport. This is just the way I am. I know this is not in concordance with your 'teachings', Master Jedi, but I find it rather effective when I use it. You may dissagree, or state that I have only fought weak debators, but I find the view of the debate as a sport (And ,henceforth, use defensive stances in debates.) as a rather good means of debating. It allows me to calm down my nerves; to realise in my mind that the world is not going to explode (Hehehe, ) in my face in the form of the opponents replies.

I am sorry, but the teachings that I recieve with my sword make me use defesive strategy, even though it does not seem realistic to you.

So in short: A debate is a fight for honor and should be treated accordingly. A debate is to win, although, like you said, if you are obviously wrong, it is time to bail out.

Okay, then let me put it to you this way. I say that I am right on this (just as a hypothetical, I mean). I think that I have strong logical reasons to back me up; for example, years of experience with debates on BZP and seeing the results of the "defensive" way of looking at it (it often ends up in flame wars). Now, if that be the case, to me, a "defensive debater" is "obviously wrong", as it were. Do you see how I'm looking at it?

I'm not being 100% serious with this hypothetical, though, because I understand the view of debate as a fight for honor. This is a little better than plain old defensive debating, but see, you still need to realize that there can only be two basic kinds of debate--truth-seeking or defensive. I view debate as an activity demanding honor as well, but I do not view it as a "fight." That attitude is what leads to flame, in my experience, and that is bad. To me, making sure I'm being logical is the matter of honor. It doesn't seem honorable to me to just defend my view no matter what, which is what defensive debaters seem to do. So I think you're basically seeing this the same way, but I'm just not clear on if you agree that defensive debate isn't good?

As an extra measure to my reply, I believe in debating or arguing for a c[a]use or meaning. Any debates I enter are because I have a reason to doubt the other's judgement.

I agree. Nothing wrong with that. What I'm saying is, I think it's also important to be clear in your mind that you could actually be wrong. For example; the cause in a typical Bionicle debate might be to show that removing gears was actually a good decision for the health of Bionicle, because I believe that logic supports that view better than the opposite. The meaning being that the goal in that debate is to figure out what is actually helping and what isn't.

Now, some debates and duels are for fun -- one example of this is the 'Downfall of Bionicle' topic, in wich I was directed to this blog entry, that I join for pleasure. I enjoy the action of a debate, and just love a debate or arguement in wich I think I can contribute somewhat.

Okay, but I hope you see why such a complaint topic/debate should not just be for fun. I understand that debating is fun and all, but are you implying that it doesn't matter in that topic who's right and who's wrong? That would be unwise... I don't want to presume that I understand what you mean by this, however, so I won't overthink this too much...

I am not implying that I enter a debate for the sake of being in there, not caring who is right or wrong, but in the following: I will, once again, use my entering the 'Downfall' topic. I am a rather formidable and powerful force in the many debates I entered in, but this is a curse/blessing to me. After a while, debates do not come in a steady collumn, like now. I am a rather lax individual, but I just love a debate I can have insight in. After a while, I start prowling around for a debate to join and if I like the subject and/or think I have some wisdom to give, I join.

This is one thing I want to emphasise on: The difference between wisdom and knowlege. Now, as you are a logician, most likely do not need my stating this, but I must point out that you use too much knowlege and not enough wisdom in your debates. I was in an arguement with a psychologist a while ago who used the defensive manner of the debate. He lost; miserably. I kept showering him with my wisdom and challenged him with my wisdom. (If you wish, I could send to you the entire conversation that we had so you can analize them and say your thuinking in them. But, only if you want.) He had run out of stem and the arguement was over at that.

Now back to what I was saying: In my opinion, your use of facts is a bit much. Facts are based on knowlege and does not allow the investigation of opinions, but wisdom does, and it gives a user of wisdom an edge, as he can come close to the other's thinking. This can be used to a great extent to corner the other's thinking. Of course, this is only my opinion of your style...

So I actually agree with the PMer in most areas, but not all. I suppose there is not much I can say about his thinking, as you have already covered it.

 

~EW~

Pretty much it appears I agree with you, actually, and I don't think you're agreeing with the PMer as much as you might think--you based your view on reasoning, as you said. I just think that you're still looking at it partly in terms of "defensive" debate, which isn't as good. You recall for example what I said about that in the "Debate" section in the Debate Terms Guide, for example? About how defensive debate can be used to justifcy flaming, and other lesser things like that? We agree that that is bad, right?

I am glad we are mostly in the same concordance. I only regret that your teachings do not comply with my beliefs and strategies. But as I imly wisdom, and not knowlege, to my debates and disscussions, I will investgate your thinking.

And yes, I am aware that spam in debates = bad. But I do not remember a single debate I have entered that turned into flame, however. (Do you see that holy ring above my head?)

~EWwwwwwwwwwaitamunute!

JEDI

Arghhh! I cannot get the stupid quotes to line up. But I think that you can identify my words among yours. I will try to make it more translatable.

Legend: bold = me in this reply

underlined = me in the past reply

italics = you

As I am a duelist, literaly, I am the kind to see things as a game and sport. This is just the way I am. I know this is not in concordance with your 'teachings', Master Jedi, but I find it rather effective when I use it. You may dissagree, or state that I have only fought weak debators, but I find the view of the debate as a sport (And ,henceforth, use defensive stances in debates.) as a rather good means of debating. It allows me to calm down my nerves; to realise in my mind that the world is not going to explode (Hehehe, ) in my face in the form of the opponents replies.

 

I am sorry, but the teachings that I recieve with my sword make me use defesive strategy, even though it does not seem realistic to you.

Again, nothing wrong with all that--what I'm disagreeing with is the idea there there is "elimination" with debates. You understand that? I mean, when you lose debates, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to debate again, especially if you can admit when wrong.

And I know you're joking, but I'm not really saying this is "teachings" -- it's just my opinion, and I don't claim it's 100% fact. It's just that everything you're raising, I've already considered in-depth years ago, and I really think that in some ways, I'm seeing this issue a little more clearly. But you probably think the same thing, lol--this is why logic is the key, because even when figuring out issues of logic, wisdom, and everything, logic is the key.

This is one thing I want to emphasise on: The difference between wisdom and knowlege. Now, as you are a logician, most likely do not need my stating this, but I must point out that you use too much knowlege and not enough wisdom in your debates.

Lol. Well, I'd disagree, of course, but to debate that point would require us to define "wisdom." I'm not sure how you're using the word; it may be different from how I use the word. To me, logic is the key to wisdom, as well as understanding; I do not, actually, see knowledge as the most important thing. This is why I'm a logician, lol. Knowledge without wisdom can be very dangerous, actually--just as one (very extreme) example, a lot of the senior staff of Nazi Germany had a lot of knowledge. But they lacked wisdom, and believed things that were just plain rediculous, logically speaking. And it got waaaay out of hand, deadly out of hand.

When it comes to "Bionicle wisdom", I see my view as the wise one. Not for egotistic reasons, but because countless debates have gone on about the issues such as the ones in Kraggh's topic, and logic always supports the opinions I now hold in the end. Of course, that's because I have been wrong many times, and have changed my mind, as I described in the blog entry. And so far, nobody's ever been able to show logically that I'm wrong now, though they have tried, oh how they have tried. To me, this means that it's "wisdom".

However.

I would agree that I have not been as "wise" as I could be in presentation. (As I said.) One of the main problems is that each different person responds better to a different presentation style, but still, I could do better in ways that aren't related to that; trying my best. But despite these flaws that I admittedly have, the challenge I can always raise is this: "Regardless of what you think of me, look at my logic. Unless you can show that I have made a logical mistake, I believe anybody can see that I am right, if they have an open mind." Logic is the key to wisdom, whether it is me or my opponent who needs wisdom, or both, lol.

Now back to what I was saying: In my opinion, your use of facts is a bit much. Facts are based on knowlege and does not allow the investigation of opinions, but wisdom does, and it gives a user of wisdom an edge, as he can come close to the other's thinking. This can be used to a great extent to corner the other's thinking. Of course, this is only my opinion of your style...

Well, I think I do that, actually. Again, though, I think in terms of wisdom, the most important thing to make clear is that I am basing my opinions on sound logic, because that is what matters in the end, regardless of debate style.

Arghhh! I cannot get the stupid quotes to line up. But I think that you can identify my words among yours. I will try to make it more translatable.

I blame Survurlode. Yes, it was understandable.

Absolute truth is far more important then one or two people's egos. If someone's feelings must be hurt for a great understanding to be had, then so be it. I for one agree with your thoughts. If you want to battle for honor, then get two pistols and walk ten paces before turning around and shooting faster then the other man.

I hate losing debates. that's why i never get into them. My mantra (or one of them )is never argue.

DAT

Again, I can't really respond to the rest of what you say without making sure you understand first where I'm coming from, and understanding where you are coming from too... The main mistake you seem to be making appears to be that you don't think truth exists as an absolute, which I can easily disprove, but I do not want to presume that that is what you meant, and it doesn't sound like it, from your first PM...

 

*long comment, lol*

Just wondering, did you mean "disaprove"? Anyway, I meant that as a fact about the human mind and nothing outside of that. I think that it takes more than just looking at it your way, I think you have to ]i]want]/i] to look at it your way and truly feel it. I'm trying to keep this post short, as I usually get confuciong and end up making less sence when I make them long, unlike you do.

By the way, what's the code for that Spock emote? Oh and your not him? Blast, there goes my theory .

Again, I can't really respond to the rest of what you say without making sure you understand first where I'm coming from, and understanding where you are coming from too... The main mistake you seem to be making appears to be that you don't think truth exists as an absolute, which I can easily disprove, but I do not want to presume that that is what you meant, and it doesn't sound like it, from your first PM...

 

*long comment, lol*

 

 

Just wondering, did you mean "disaprove"? Anyway, I meant that as a fact about the human mind and nothing outside of that. I think that it takes more than just looking at it your way, I think you have to ]i]want]/i] to look at it your way and truly feel it. I'm trying to keep this post short, as I usually get confuciong and end up making less sence when I make them long, unlike you do.

 

 

By the way, what's the code for that Spock emote? Oh and your not him? Blast, there goes my theory .

Lol. Well, Kraggh, that's a good point, and that's why I try so hard to help people see why it's desirable. Of course, I don't always do a great job of it, XD. But look at me--I'm a pretty happy guy, and it ain't 'cuz I'm well off or anything in ways people usually think of it. A lot of people go through life miserable, blaming their misery on outside bad luck and the like. Financially, my family ain't doing suh well, ya know, but I am not miserable--not to make a sob story, XD, but my point is, I really think this is a recipe for a better outlook on life. Really, I think it's how humans are supposed to be.

Code for any image can be found, BTW, by right-clicking, clicking Properties. At least on PCs XD. Specific code for old Vulcy:

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bonesiii/Emot/iheartlogic2.gif

And no, I meant "disprove." I mean, if you did think that there are no absolutes, I disagree, and I could easily show why I disagree, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In case you're curious, it's because that statement is an absolute--"There are no absolutes" contradicts itself. Heh. Disprove means to do the opposite of prove--to show that something cannot be true. Hope that helps...

Pretty much it appears I agree with you, actually, and I don't think you're agreeing with the PMer as much as you might think--you based your view on reasoning, as you said. I just think that you're still looking at it partly in terms of "defensive" debate, which isn't as good. You recall for example what I said about that in the "Debate" section in the Debate Terms Guide, for example? About how defensive debate can be used to justifcy flaming, and other lesser things like that? We agree that that is bad, right?

I just thought I'd let you know this: it was Emperor Whenua who sent that PM to me. Here's everything else he said.

Just to let you know, in the Dowfall of Bionicle topic, you said that Bones is very hard to argue with. I must let you know that he is a logician, and he analyzes every move. He is almost impossible to beat in an arguement or debate. I myself am a veteran with him, and I tell you this with experience.

 

If you make a mistake in strategy, you will most likely fail. Just look at the link in my sig, and you will se how well-versed he is in debating. wink.gif

 

~EW~

Facts are his only feakness. He does not pay attention to opinions, but if you can make up a team to oppose him, he will fall. Bonesiii is a debating monster, and can hold his ground with great cunning.

 

I always wanted to enter a debate with him again and win, as the last one I had with him was a tie. It seems that he is currently in a tie with you and those who side with you (like me). If we can base a large opiinion to oppose him and use a fact to battle his, he will most likely cesede.

 

Do you have any debating background?

 

~EW~

By the way, next time you get into a depate with him again I'd be more than willing to join you. For two reasons: I want to get my number of posts up and probably for the same reason you would be argueing with him in the first place. Just PM me when you need me.

 

If I get into a public debate with him, I will do so. I prefer private debates in one-on-one discussions. But I would be more than happy to use any help possible in debate topics.

 

~EW~

And that's the whole "shabang" as my algebra teacher would say. You can make comments if you want.