Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by Burning thought
It was his entire argument, if he was just pulling out this random theory just to show me it then I am going to be very amused, youve prob given him a back entrance to escape from admitting he was wrong about trying to use it against me.

GK was trying to claim that just because of assumptions, there are more assumptions that I am making, than they are, thing is this is untrue as I pointed out, see his point:

He is trying to use amount of assumptions, not the amount of people....

Thing is...both in your example, have 50 assumptions each, 50 that the 50 people are wrong from me, 50 that ime wrong from them.

It makes complete sense because regardless of this situation, it sheds light on the fact that even if GK was right about his little probability theory and it worked for him, its irrelvent because it cannot shed light on facts. And now your just assuming.

How wrong I am is an opinion, not a fact, I could be perfectly right, just because a majority disagree would not change this.

In my example every individual gets just one assumption as to the validity of the statement. Everything else would be silly, or what would stop you from just saying that the one person gets 500 assumptions.

That is also why I said we choose the participants at random, so we have to assume that each of them is equal in judging capabilities.

I mean, you do understand what I am saying, right?

[edit] And yes, just because many disagree with you does not mean you are wrong. But, barring any further indiciations, shouldn't such a complete disagreement make one at least re-evaluate ones position, and possibly shake the faith one puts into their assumption, at least to some degree?

i think youve got the wrong end of the stick, GK is debating amounts of assumptions in determinig the probable winner. He is trying to say that me assuming 50 people are wrong, as opposed to a single assumption of me being wrong is far fetched, he did not take into account ,that those 50 people, each have a seperate assumption, so they are also making 50 assumptions, just like I am, 50 assumptions as a whole, not 50 each.....

From what you seem to be saying, I get the feeling your claiming number of people, e.g. popularity of a view..50 people vs 1?

GK was bringing along assumptions. Obviously he will now choose which one sounds more credable, regardless of what he was saying before, since he was completly wrong before, he may now choose your approach, in which case he will have to still admit he was wrong in trying to use it against me, and that its utterly useless to find a factual end to the argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42

And yes, just because many disagree with you does not mean you are wrong. But, barring any further indiciations, shouldn't such a complete disagreement make one at least re-evaluate ones position, and possibly shake the faith one puts into their assumption, at least to some degree?

Depends on the actual criticism of those people, if they said you are wrong, because A, B and C, and show some good examples but nobody does. I think i know why.

But i dont ever recall him saying this is going to prove you wrong, he just said that "it is much more probable that you are wrong"
which he is correct.

There is a higher probablitity that 50 people who say your wrong are right, even if some of those reasons are wrong.

There is a lower probablitiy that the 1 person who is claiming that each and every single one of those 50 people are wrong is not right, which is what gk was trying to say iirc.

What i want to know is do you actually think that there is a higher chance that all 50 people would be mistaken and that the 1 person is right over all 50 people?

Originally posted by Burning thought
i think youve got the wrong end of the stick, GK is debating amounts of assumptions in determinig the probable winner. He is trying to say that me assuming 50 people are wrong, as opposed to a single assumption of me being wrong is far fetched, he did not take into account ,that those 50 people, each have a seperate assumption, so they are also making 50 assumptions, just like I am, 50 assumptions as a whole, not 50 each.....

From what you seem to be saying, I get the feeling your claiming number of people, e.g. popularity of a view..50 people vs 1?

GK was bringing along assumptions. Obviously he will now choose which one sounds more credable, regardless of what he was saying before, since he was completly wrong before, he may now choose your approach, in which case he will have to still admit he was wrong in trying to use it against me, and that its utterly useless to find a factual end to the argument.

Depends on the actual criticism of those people, if they said you are wrong, because A, B and C, and show some good examples but nobody does. I think i know why.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
thats what we get for trusting resident black man Kaliero Yoshi nemebro as gatekeeper. 🙄

Originally posted by NemeBro
...I'm white.

Not if I have anything to say about it, you aren't.

you are?! @.@

I think that was the joke, sir.

Originally posted by k1Lla441
But i dont ever recall him saying this is going to prove you wrong, he just said that "it is much more [b]probable that you are wrong"
which he is correct.

There is a higher probablitity that 50 people who say your wrong are right, even if some of those reasons are wrong.

There is a lower probablitiy that the 1 person who is claiming that each and every single one of those 50 people are wrong is not right, which is what gk was trying to say iirc.

what i want to know is do you actually think that there is a higher chance that all 50 people would be mistaken and that the 1 person is right over all 50 people? [/B]

Not if hes using assumption per assumption, if hes using person per person e.g. 50 vs 1, then he is correct if we were not in a debate with many loops.

Not necessarily, as I said above, there is more to a debate or argument, and finding the truth in it than simply amount of people, which is why my example of the professor vs school children came up, do you still think its more probable in that scenario?

what I am saying is, they may not have a clue what they are talking about, they may be massively bias, they may just be sore because of previous problems they have had with me, they could be upset because of previous defeats in debates, all these things would contribute to them choosing I am wrong, so probability cannot really come into it at all.

It is in this case, because this 1 person will actually debate and give reasons, the 50 will simply state "wrong" regardless because of their dislike and bias towards the person.

BT, it's interesting to see that you utterly missed my point. I am not, for the moment, arguing that you are wrong. To use probability theory to try to prove anything is ridiculous.

My point, dear, mistaken child, was that the number of people believing you to be incorrect presents a certain reasonable probability that you are, in which case you should cease being so cocksure of your stance and re-evaluate your opinion.

I was not (for the moment) saying you were wrong about any opinion you hold, but rather that you possess enough ability to be that it's ridiculous to hold yourself up as infallible.

Especially when the way you misconstrued my point shows to everyone reading this that you did, indeed, just make a mistake.

Originally posted by Burning thought
what I am saying is, they may not have a clue what they are talking about, they may be massively bias, they may just be sore because of previous problems they have had with me, they could be upset because of previous defeats in debates, all these things would contribute to them choosing I am wrong, so probability cannot really come into it at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I would again argue that you are not making 50 separate assumptions, but one saying "Those 50 people are wrong", which would bring me back to my point, though, I don't intend to argue GKs point, I was just trying to explain what I gathered he said, as well as what I think does make sense.

Well...I think in that case, from his point of view of the argument, the probability would swing in my favour since there would be more facts than assumptions, I think that was his argument then although your one is better, which is why he may pretend this was his argument all along regardless of how true it was or not.

Although technically, my assumption would have to be a judge on each person, I would have to assume for each individual, so in technicality, I would be making 50 assumptions, I would be assuming person A was a liar/bias/not savvy on the subject etc as well as person B, C, D, E etc etc etc

Originally posted by General Kaliero
BT, it's interesting to see that you utterly missed my point. I am not, for the moment, arguing that you are wrong. To use probability theory to try to prove anything is ridiculous.

My point, dear, mistaken child, was that the number of people believing you to be incorrect presents a certain reasonable probability that you are, in which case you should cease being so cocksure of your stance and re-evaluate your opinion.

I was not (for the moment) saying you were wrong about any opinion you hold, but rather that you possess enough ability to be that it's ridiculous to hold yourself up as infallible.

Especially when the way you misconstrued my point shows to everyone reading this that you did, indeed, just make a mistake.

Your post says otherwise....

So your point, dear mistaken child, was that the amount of assumptions made, or as I quote "a level of probability based on the number of assumptions that must be made" was wrong, the amount of assumptions are irrelvent and will be pretty much te same anyway.

Although in the end, this is also a pointless argument because until those opinions are worthwhile and actually have some meat other than "your wrong" (because you kicked my butt in another debating thread or were mean to my buddie on another forum)

BT, you...really, really don't know what you're talking about.

Think of it this one.

Fifty people think someone is wrong, for a variety of reasons.

One person believes he is right.

Which is more likely to possibly be true?

...pretty sure it can't be simplified more than that.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not if hes using assumption per assumption, if hes using person per person e.g. 50 vs 1, then he is correct if we were not in a debate with many loops.

Not necessarily, as I said above, there is more to a debate or argument, and finding the truth in it than simply amount of people, which is why my example of the professor vs school children came up, do you still think its more probable in that scenario?

what I am saying is, they may not have a clue what they are talking about, they may be massively bias, they may just be sore because of previous problems they have had with me, they could be upset because of previous defeats in debates, all these things would contribute to them choosing I am wrong, so probability cannot really come into it at all.

It is in this case, because this 1 person will actually debate and give reasons, the 50 will simply state "wrong" regardless because of their dislike and bias towards the person.

Not in that scenario, no, but some people here who are claiming that your debating is flawed arent all that stupid.

Probability can come into it, for you to sit there and say that each and every person who says your debating is flawed has a personal vendetta against you or is just mad is ridiculous. Now your assuming that is going to be a problem with each and every person.

For the last part, i already said this. Maybe a lot of the people who are crying and complaing just dont like you, but there are some, like jaxx, that dont really hold grudges and say shit just because he doesnt like you. Not all people are going to have a grudge against you; they may just be telling there honest opinion about it.

And to address your previous edit, before you edited again Peach, if 50 people were against one person and we made many many assumptions, e.g. that everyone was truthful, everyone had the right end of the stick, everyone knew what they were talking about then this probability would be less foolish and may make some sense.

But because we cant make all those many many assumptions about the people in question, its a worthless test of probability, because half of them may simply be lieing for silly reasons. Backing up their friends, etc etc, more assumtions that can be made so eventually, youll have so many assumptions that the probability is not worth doing at all and still, the very theory is worthless because it cannot evaluate fact.

Also, its a higher probability that more people out of 50 are going to have all those assumptions levied against them in a negative way, rather than the 1, simply because there is more people.

Originally posted by k1Lla441
Not in that scenario, no, but some people here who are claiming that your debating is flawed arent all that stupid.

Probability can come into it, for you to sit there and say that each and every person who says your debating is flawed has a personal vendetta against you or is just mad is ridiculous. Now your assuming that is going to be a problem with each and every person.

For the last part, i already said this. Maybe a lot of the people who are crying and complaing just dont like you, but there are some, like jaxx, that dont really hold grudges and say shit just because he doesnt like you. Not all people are going to have a grudge against you; they may just be telling there honest opinion about it.

You would not know that, how can you make this evaluation? and how is them being stupid the only factor? they could be bias, petty, bored etc etc, there could be 100 reasons why they would rather go against me , than with me, not all of them to do with how annoying I debate.

Ime not assuming everything, whats funny is I know a lot of these people from other forums and actually know their reasons and why they could be against me which unfortunatley cannot be shown or evaluated here.

The thing is, you mentioning Jaxx as the less bias one towards me shows how little you really know, and ill actually go further towards their line of thinking in this instance and simply claim "your wrong" without further argument or reason.

...you're aware that it doesn't work that way, right?

If the one person is insistent that they are right, then they are making one assumption. It does not matter how many are believing they are incorrect, they are still making only one assumption. It's not fifty different assumptions.

I would love to see how you'd fare, faced with a real debate.

Originally posted by Burning thought
And to address your previous edit, before you edited again Peach, if 50 people were against one person and we made many many assumptions, e.g. that everyone was truthful, everyone had the right end of the stick, everyone knew what they were talking about then this probability would be less foolish and may make some sense.

But because we cant make all those many many assumptions about the people in question, its a worthless test of probability, because half of them may simply be lieing for silly reasons. Backing up their friends, etc etc, more assumtions that can be made so eventually, youll have so many assumptions that the probability is not worth doing at all and still, the very theory is worthless because it cannot evaluate fact.

Also, its a higher probability that more people out of 50 are going to have all those assumptions levied against them in a negative way, rather than the 1, simply because there is more people.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Your post says otherwise....

So your point, dear mistaken child, was that the amount of assumptions made, or as I quote "a level of probability based on the number of assumptions that must be made" was wrong, the amount of assumptions are irrelvent and will be pretty much te same anyway.

Although in the end, this is also a pointless argument because until those opinions are worthwhile and actually have some meat other than "your wrong" (because you kicked my butt in another debating thread or were mean to my buddie on another forum)

If nearly everyone here thinks you're wrong, there is enough possibility that you are wrong to bear getting off your high horse and accept the fact that you could be wrong.

Once the logic centers of your brain have acknowledged that insoluble fact, then we can begin discussing whether or not you actually are wrong.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
...you have absolutely no idea how this works. The standard behavior, as a baseline, is that each individual is a person of average intelligence, speaking truthfully from their viewpoint. To believe them to be lying for silly reasons is an assumption.

So your admitting your talking nonsense? because that cannot be evaluated, you cannot evaluate each indivudal like that, so your just blabbering without actual reason? ...by assuming everyone is of average intellect and speaking truth for the right reasons you may as well change the entire scenario...

Originally posted by Peach
...you're aware that it doesn't work that way, right?

If the one person is insistent that they are right, then they are making one assumption. It does not matter how many are believing they are incorrect, they are still making only one assumption. It's not fifty different assumptions.

I would love to see how you'd fare, faced with a real debate.

I would probably do better than you by far since you cannot take into account the fact that I would be judging each of these people on their views, not just all of them as a group.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I know them all and fully understand what they mean, and you have used them in your argument countless times, including the arguments in this thread although your worse in others.

You dont bring up any points to discredit arguments, you make some fallacies, then flee..

There is a bandwagon fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Learn your fallacies 🙂

You goofed [b]again I admitted I was wrong about what a fanboy does in a debate a few pages back, read posts, then make evaluations on them.

Your intellect grand? you blunder into threads, state something stupid and when you realise it you flee, thats not a grand intellect....

You have participated, several times and blundered in every one of them, at which point you flee or commit one of the aforementioned fallacies. [/B]

If you are an idiot I can see why you would think that. I have pointed out the fallacies in a post of your's before. There was 11. Be thankful I do not do it every time you post because you would look like a fool if I did.

It is the same thing as an appeal to majority/popularity fallacy, it is the same Goddamn thing, only with a less widely known name(I assume). Why did you bring both up as if they were separate fallacies?

When was this? I do not recall this. And regardless, that was one example out of the many others. There will always be exceptions, that does not change the norm.

I may not stick around to debate you, but it is mostly only you. Why do you think that is BT? Not because you are more intellectually or logically adept, oh no, but because you are so pitiful in the logic department that arguing with you has roughly the same effect as trying to shove my head through a foot of reinforced steel. I have had many debates with people I consider worth debating, you are not worth that kind of time and effort.

Nope, afraid not. Your use of fallacies and just plain bad logic is far worse than my own. The No-Limits fallacy for instance is your trademark. Hyperbole is also a tool you use on occasion.

Also, I must give a tip of the hat for General Kaliero's argument emphasizing on Occam's Razor. Good show my good man, I hope one day you can think of me as a son like I look at you as a father. 🙂

hey lana theres a thread in the otf called something like demotivational posters: GO! or something along those lines. i tired to find it in search but it doesnt show up. when i did the search i told it to search titles only and to show results as threads but i get nothing. what am i doing wrong?

Originally posted by WO Polaski
you are?! @.@

I mean, I kinda am your cousin's E-Bro lol.