Registered: Jun 2016
Location: At the forefront of Sheev's armies
Keep in mind these are my thoughts after only a since read, so my opinion may be altered upon further introspection, but as of now this is my general impression.
I might be a bit unfair to him as debating ability is not solely defined by logical acumen, but looking back, Ant's entire career has been plagued by lapses in logical reasoning and these latest posts merely reaffirmed my position. Yes, Ant makes a valid point here and a keen insight there, but overall, many of the arguments he made were utter tripe - and not because it can be countered with as-of-yet-unveiled evidence from the source material, but rather due to the aforementioned amateurish logical blunders among other poor debating tactics.
Where Ant and his last two posts have excelled at is the rhetoric and the overall aesthetical appeal of the formatting. On the surface, those posts are gems and an absolute pleasure to read through if one isn't thinking analytically. In fact, so excellent has been this aspect of his arguments been that they have succesfully concealed the lackluster mess that lies beneath to the untrained eye or the unthinking mind, to the point that I think - at the moment - he is winning.
It is virtually the polar opposite of Ell's posts. Ell's rhetoric and formatting have ranged from god-awful to passable but never great as far as I recall. The actual substance of the arguments far surpasses that of Ant's, however, which is why I would pick him as the winner if it came down to my judgement. But alas, it does not, and judging from the reactions of other people, Ant is indeed winning this.
Ell's lack of proper rhetoric is killing his chances. Ant is a master at wooing the rabble to his side and his way with words has seemingly convinced even some of the greater intellects of this community. He can - like Nai (the two share profound similarities upon reflection) - make ridiculous positions and horrible arguments seem plausible due to his rhetorical expertise, but when Ell tries it with deductions that are perfectly valid academically, his bare-bones rhetoric inhibits his efforts to the point of near impossibility. Neither of his posts raised the same amount of fanfare that Ant's did, because many members here are gripped by bias, incredulity and/or simple stupidity.
It is for this reason I am so glad this debate is decided by judges elected based on merit rather than a democratic vote where every kbro, LeGenD and Nephtard can participate in. I hope they can see through Ant's word tricks and judge the debate on the basis of the substance of the arguments. And for the record, if they do give Ant the nod despite the criticisms I have outlined above, then there may be more to his arguments than I give credit for. As a reminder, these were simply my general thoughts upon first reading which are subject to change, and I am not a Tempest or a Silver; I am, to my great dismay, a simple human being so admittedly my judgement may be off right now, but we'll see.
__________________ "Go worth, my child, and impale your enemies with the banner of Sheev." - The_Tempest, Grand Vizier to His Imperial Majesty Sheev Palpatine
Ant has made some logical blunders in the past. And I largely agree that when it comes down to precise logical argumentation in metrics that share a common denominator, no one has keener eye for detail, or sifting through BS than Elli. However, the mistakes Ant has made have mostly regarded the somewhat inconsequential points - an example being the supposed absence of electric towers. The main victories however, do stand up nicely. And unless i'm swayed in the other direction:
- Vader is no longer carried by the awesome theatrics of starkiller
- Vader has a few limitations himself when it comes to environmental feats
- The scope Malak's power is greater than most have pinned him down
These are subjects where Ant's better research of the topics at hand, really shine through. Ex - Starkillers showings are the only thing that carry carried Vader in a feats argument. Regardless, Starkiller II was utterly exhausted in the fight. Probably impeding his skill to a great degree. The rebuttals Elli had to that point based on Maul and Dooku's respective methods of combatting exhaustion didn't really work regarding what he wanted starkiller to represent. Ant could not only refute those exmaples specifically, but also had an example of his own that gave a broader perspective to how one views force reserves and exhaustion to jedi in general. He was better equipped to tackle that point, and it's a pivotal one.
The formatting is nicely done and it's easy to read. But it's not exactly a visual masterpiece that strays one from sober thought. The readability is actually something that encourages people to analyse the substance of a post, and allows them process the information more easily. This way we can understand exactly premises are being stated and the conclusions that are being made. Likewise well formatted points that don't make sense can be spotted a mile a way. Ant's post being easy on the eyes is a point in favour of him. But it's aesthetics aren't compensating for a lack of reasoning. More they help readers peer into his line of thinking, and decide for themselves wether they agree or not.
Eli's rhetoric is absolutely fine. In fact, he has a way of turning people's premises against them that make him truly terrifying to argue against. Ant's rhetoric in battling some of the Vader scaling may look fancy yet lack substance, but here's the thing... the scaling itself is so inconsistent with the rest of material all one has to do is point out the implications to rebuke it. Ant did that in his last post by demonstrating the kind of people that gave Vader trouble in his early career, and there are too many numerous examples of this happening to just be deemed lowballing.