Everything. For instance it was never mentioned that when Jack got into the plane crash in Day 2, he was embedded in the leg, and yet hours later ran up a wall to snap someone's neck. Bauer has multiple feats which were never mentioned here. You know, since you've seen all 8 seasons. So let's lay out everything here. I have 24 in another tab on Netflix, so you can provide accurate detailed info of Bauer's feats, and I have the 4 Die Hard films on my Windows Media Player, so you can reference any feat in the Die Hard films.
You know what, you are right, everything has been settled, because we can just do this by vote.
Me, Darth Martin, DDM, Odekhan, Placidity,Darth Truculent, RJ, and Mindset vote Bauer, while you, Rob, Sadako, Focus, Lord Shadow Z, Bardock42, ragesRemorse, and Quincy vote McClane. And since Rob, Sadako, and Focus haven't seen the whole show, they get excluded.
That makes it an 8 to 5 vote in favor of Bauer. Bauer wins. I guess everything already has been settled 🙂.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Focus
hold on now, i never voted for anyone. i only defended mcclane in the face of quanchi's trolling and downplaying when pitted against a feat-less basketcase like van zan. i am not fluent 24 so im not qualified to vote. just think of what a blessed (or dead) forum this would be if everyone adopted the same ethic.
Isn't relying on a vote to determine a victor simply relying on argument ad populum fallacy to win the debate there Les?
Re: Battlezone: Jack Bauer vs John McClane
Originally posted by Lestov16
Thats right motherphuckers. We're doing this, to settle this once and for all, because both have new projects coming out (Live Another Day and Die Hardest), and because we're all bored.I will represent Bauer. I ask the challenger be familiar with all 8 seasons of 24 (and 24: Redemption), as well as the 5 Die Hard films.
Let's go.
1) Unarmed H2H deathmatch in Mr. Miyagi's karate dojo
2) Gunfight in empty Penn Station; Both get Berettas with unlimited ammunition
3) Melee brawl in the Initech Office Building
4) Jack Bauer must complete the 5 Die Hard films. McClane must complete 24. Who has an easier time beating the other's franchise?
5) Who has saved the most lives?
1. Bauer, but not easily. He has to work for it. He does get 9 out of 10 wins.
2. Bauer, 6 out of 10 times. But that's barely a win.
3. Bauer, 7 out of 10. McClane is better when he has things to use. But...so is friggin' Bauer. McClane's McClane factor is stronger than the Bauer factor which is why the gap from scenario 1 is shortened.
4. Bauer has a far easier time of completing the Die Hard films because those scenarios are closer to what he does for a living (dealing with terrorists, world destruction anarchists, and megalomaniacs). McClane fails to complete of all Bauer's troubles because he simply lacks the training, expertise, and experience to complete Bauer's tasks. That much should be obvious.
5. lol, Bauer, easily.
I have Bauer winning all of those with the closest fight being in scenario 2.
Originally posted by Lestov16
You're a bit of a douchebag. People usually get labelled as a troll and banned for spam-trolling threads with multiple auto-playing (you admitted you do this intentionally) videos like you do. Maybe you have some kind of impunity because of your longevity here, but yeah, it makes you look like a dick.
I do not support your interweb illiteracy. I don't see a single auto-playing youtube vid on this page. That's because I've used "ad block plus" to filter them out a while ago.
Learn to internetz. uhuh
Edit - So is this BZ going to happen? I'll offer to objectively judge the BZ. I've seen all DH Films and all 8 seasons of 24.
Bauer clearly has more impressive feats(not exactly fair due to eight 24 episode seasons compared to five 2 hour films).
I don't think Bauer is, say, on par with Bourne, Bond, or Mills(really only difference is H2H fighting ability). But he definitely is more impressive than McClane when it comes to all things fighting. He's extremely intelligent(very much more so than McClane), is the superior H2H combatant, and IMO has more damage soak. All the seasons span 24 hours and in them he goes through what McClane would do in a Die Hard film atleast 3 times over. The better marksman title is up for debate. I've seen Bauer make shots that were more impressive, personally.
Tactically, this guy is just on a different level. Anyone who isn't biased, doesn't have an agenda, and has watched 24 can admit this. McClane kinda started the whole "place ordinary guy in a stressful situation" but trust me 24 takes it to completely different levels.
Originally posted by Darth Martin
Bauer clearly has more impressive feats(not exactly fair due to eight 24 episode seasons compared to five 2 hour films).I don't think Bauer is, say, on par with Bourne, Bond, or Mills(really only difference is H2H fighting ability). But he definitely is more impressive than McClane when it comes to all things fighting. He's extremely intelligent(very much more so than McClane), is the superior H2H combatant, and IMO has more damage soak. All the seasons span 24 hours and in them he goes through what McClane would do in a Die Hard film atleast 3 times over. The better marksman title is up for debate. I've seen Bauer make shots that were more impressive, personally.
Tactically, this guy is just on a different level. Anyone who isn't biased, doesn't have an agenda, and has watched 24 can admit this. McClane kinda started the whole "place ordinary guy in a stressful situation" but trust me 24 takes it to completely different levels.
Well, shit...
List off some of Bauer's accuracy shots (season, episode, and time, if you can pull that off). I'm willing to amend my position if you can provide some impressive enough feats.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroNo.
Isn't relying on a vote to determine a victor simply relying on argument ad populum fallacy to win the debate there Les?
Oh well Im not fussed.
Its as obvious to me as anything that after seeing 3 seasons of 24, and having seen the clips that Lestov put out as evidence of Bauer's best abilities that McClane utterly takes it.
Particularly after seeing DH5. (Which Lestov and Quanchi hadnt seen for ages whilst debating against McClane making the current stand a bit childish and hypocritical.)
They will do anything for what they percieve as a win, but as you can see they're having to embarrass themselves greatly by stooping so low for even a chance that they will most certainly fail at.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Isn't relying on a vote to determine a victor simply relying on argument ad populum fallacy to win the debate there Les?
✅
Originally posted by Mindset
No.
Please elaborate. Because the very definition of Ad Populum is the reliance of superior numbers of people agreeing with supposition A despite the fact that supposition A is a complete abortion of any logical thought. People seem to forget that debates are not democratic processes.
In fact, here is a little history lesson for ya, blind faith in a "truth" supported by the majority led to people believing that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, and the world is flat. It took the few smart cookies to discover actual truths and prove it for those false truths to disappear or be ridiculed as the primitive ways of thinking that they were.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
✅
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Um, yeah. This is nothing like the scenario you are discussing. The reason that the majority of people thought the Earth was flat is because they were ignorant of the knowledge of Earth's true shape unlike we are now, and thus just made guesses. They didn't have all of the objective evidence, which is why their decision was an illogical one.
Here, we DO have all of the objective evidence. We've seen all seasons of 24, and all DH films. An "Earth is flat" type situation only arises if all of the facts have not been presented, which isn't the case here. When the aggregate sum of objective evidence gets weighed, and a vote is taken, that's not a argumentative fallacy. It's a logical conclusion.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Please elaborate. Because the very definition of Ad Populum is the reliance of superior numbers of people agreeing with supposition A despite the fact that supposition A is a complete abortion of any logical thought.
So basically you're just biased and think support for Bauer is "an abortion of logical thought". You don't know the evidence, but you're sure support for Bauer is illogical. LOL. What a biased hypocrite.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Um, yeah. This is [b]nothing like the scenario you are discussing. The reason that the majority of people thought the Earth was flat is because they were ignorant of the knowledge of Earth's true shape unlike we are now, and thus just made guesses. They didn't have all of the objective evidence, which is why their decision was an illogical one.Here, we DO have all of the objective evidence. We've seen all seasons of 24, and all DH films. An "Earth is flat" type situation only arises if all of the facts have not been presented, which isn't the case here. When the aggregate sum of objective evidence gets weighed, and a vote is taken, that's not a argumentative fallacy. It's a logical conclusion.[/B]
It all boils down to a subjective viewpoint in a theoretical debate however.
Originally posted by Lestov16
So basically you're just biased and think support for Bauer is "an abortion of logical thought". You don't know the evidence, but you know support for Bauer is illogical. LOL. What a biased hypocrite.
No, I am saying using ad populum as an excuse is not wise on it's own. Aaaand now your jumping down my throat with ad hominem, so I guess we are done here.
I used such words as "Supposition A" with the intentional purpose of NOT actually stating your support for Bauer was this, hence why Supposition A is in my example instead of "any and all pro Bauer support." Remember to watch your assumptions before flying off the handle at me Lestov...
But it's subjective viewpoint of all objective facts, rather than an "Earth is flat" scenario, where all objective facts are not known.
But this isn't an ad populum debate, where all of the evidence isn't being presented and illogical guesses must be made. We have seen all the objective evidence, analyzed it, and made a vote. Like I said, it's not a fallacy, it's a logical conclusion.
You originally seemed sure I was using an ad populum fallacy here in your initial post, which means you thought my support of Bauer was indeed "an abortion of logical thought", even though you didn't have knowledge of the evidence yourself. Why would you accuse me of using ad populum, whose definition requires one's opinion to be illogical, if you didn't think my opinion was illogical?
Originally posted by Lestov16
But it's subjective viewpoint of all objective facts, rather than an "Earth is flat" scenario, where all objective facts are [b]not known.[/B]
For them, those were the facts of the time, and those that thought otherwise were killed as heretics.
Obviously Ad Populum on it's own does not work, which is my entire point.
Originally posted by Lestov16
You just said support for Bauer is "an abortion of logical thought", even though you have no idea what evidence the Bauer supporters have. Why would you say that unless you were being biased?
No, I did not Les, I want you to reread what I actually said. Did I say anywhere in that line you quoted "support for Bauer", or better yet, did I even use the words "Support" or "Bauer" at all? You will find that no, I did not. You have automatically assumed that Supposition A = "Support for Bauer" with no basis, and the only thing your assumption has led you to do is throw some untrue insults and pissing off one of the few people who actually talks to you as a person and has always done so.
EDIT: Because you ninja edited on me.
Originally posted by Lestov16
But it's subjective viewpoint of all objective facts, rather than an "Earth is flat" scenario, where all objective facts are [b]not known.[/B]
Unfortunately, there is still the subjective question of how these two react to eachother as enemies. No amount of own-universe objectivity can possibly answer this question.
Originally posted by Lestov16
But this isn't an ad populum debate, where all of the evidence isn't being presented and illogical guesses must be made. We have seen all the objective evidence, analyzed it, and made a vote. Like I said, it's not a fallacy, it's a logical conclusion.
And that is precisely the problem, right there. The voting. That in itself is the fallacy, because in the end, the result of the debate ends up not in who makes the best arguments, but who gets the most numbers. Do you see my point yet?
Originally posted by Lestov16
You originally seemed sure I was using an ad populum fallacy here in your initial post, which means you thought my support of Bauer was indeed "an abortion of logical thought", even though you didn't have knowledge of the evidence yourself. Why would you accuse me of using ad populum, whose definition requires one's opinion to be illogical, if you didn't think my opinion was illogical?
I asked a question Les, that is a WHOLE different kettle of fish than stating a claim to fact.
Case-in-point: My question was not even remotely in relation to who would win or lose between the two, but more along how you thought the debate was to be decided. I stepped up, because it seemed to me that it was your sole reason for knocking several people out of the debate and for no other reason, so you could get the numbers up.
\At that point, it was no longer about Bauer winning or losing in a theoretical fight, it became a clash of egos once again. You want to disqualify certain individuals because their knowledge is not complete, and yet you have confessed that your own knowledge and memory had gotten more than a little rusty reguarding certain movies including the Die Hard series. Do you see where I am going?
Again, how is an Earth Is Flat scenario, where all of the objective evidence is not presented, similar to this situation, where we do know all of the objective evidence? Your key point about them having limited evidence they had is precisely what differentiates that scenario from this one. I understand what you are saying about such an argument not being relevant here.....but it isn't relevant here, so why even bring it up unless you thought it was being practiced?
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroYeah, that's what I thought.
So you do think that I am using an ad populum argument, and thus, by your own definition, my support of Bauer is "an abortion of logic", even though you haven't analyzed the evidence yourself. That's you agreeing with Sadako, so don't act like you've been objective in all of this.