Registered: Mar 2014
Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
So you're saying Hitler did nothing wrong and that we should organize our societies along the line of the lobsters?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
OK, to articulate the "canon" policy DarthAnt66 and I seem to have agreed on privately:
For this debate the events and characters in Legends are treated as though they are real, and the events and characters in Canon are treated as an alternative universe. Canon events do not count as "real" unless if they also happen in Legends (but the Canon version is still not applicable). How we resolve different Legends sources is up for debate.
Barring DarthAnt66 disagreeing before my next post, this stands (not relevant to my next post, that deadline is just to prevent either of us from suddenly arguing for a different policy at the end or something).
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
Since Ant posts second, in my final post I still get to respond to Ant's third post. Ant, however, cannot produce new rebuttals to arguments I made in my third post in his final post, as he has an opportunity to do this in his third post.
The standard for "new argument" is either a new source or some concrete line of logical reasoning about a previous point that hadn't appeared earlier in the debate. Compositions or high-level framings of the discussion are OK (e.g. "I have multiple lines of scaling for this...Vader won on these points given..."), but anything that is not a product of organization or too low-level is not (e.g. "Vader is more powerful because this source suggests <new idea>").
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
Last edited by The Ellimist on Feb 21st, 2018 at 06:46 PM
We discussed the third post - fourth post dynamics in hangouts and your reply to my clarification was "obviously.". The clarification re: definition of a new argument seems pretty self-evident to me and mirrors what is done in competitive debate and other avenues.
Regardless, if you have concerns, reach out to me in private.
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
So if Ant finds a new source that directly contradicts you, or thinks up a "concrete line of reasoning" that proves you wrong he can't post it in his final post?
I assume because you wouldn't be able to respond to it.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Feb 21st, 2018 at 07:52 PM
Why not let the judges decide if its ok? If it actually disproved your argument it seems silly not to allow it. Otherwise you could make any ridiculous claim and he wouldn't be able to respond.
Feb 8th, 2018 04:05 PM
x 1000
