Battlezone: Jack Bauer vs John McClane

Originally posted by Lestov16
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 edited above.

Because the people your excluding from having a say have probably the most up to date knowledge for at least one side of the debate. AND, as I said, Vs Matches are not simply a cut and paste jobs of their own respective in-universe perspectives (Despite Quan's obvious objections to this). Much of a vs debate boils down to how the characters actually have to fight eachother. No amount of in-universe objectivity can give you this.

However, Bauer does have the advantage of more screen time Les, so, my question to you is this: I want you to write out, based on YOUR knowledge alone, how you think the battle will be played out, start to finish. That will give everyone a firm basis on were you stand.

And remember boils and ghouls: Feats are only one part of the whole process.

Originally posted by Lestov16
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.

Ok, this is the 3rd and final time I am going to ask you. P-R-O-V-E Your f**king accusation, because it's certainly not in the quotes you bloody used. You have a persecution complex.

F**k it, we are done.... I cannot handle dealing with your paranoia any further. Unless your next post proves your assertion conclusively, or at the very least an apology to me, Les, you can consider this conversation, and any respect I had for you to be gone.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero

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?

I do understand your point, but IDK if it is applicable here. There are indeed variables that go into this theoretical fight that none of us KMCers can predict, but that's why we're forced to judge based on the evidence that's presented to us.

If 13 people view the same objective evidence and are forced to make an inference, and 8 agree while 5 disagree, the opinion of the 8 would be taken into account because the majority agreed with it. And again it's not like an "Earth is flat" scenario, because besides the variables we will never be able to account for, we have all of the evidence.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I edited above.

Because the people your excluding from having a say have probably the most up to date knowledge for at least one side of the debate. AND, as I said, Vs Matches are not simply a cut and paste jobs of their own respective in-universe perspectives (Despite Quan's obvious objections to this). Much of a vs debate boils down to how the characters actually have to fight eachother. No amount of in-universe objectivity can give you this.

Again, I agree we can't account for every single variable, but that's why we make inferences based on what we do have

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
However, Bauer does have the advantage of more screen time Les, so, my question to you is this: I want you to write out, based on YOUR knowledge alone, how you think the battle will be played out, start to finish. That will give everyone a firm basis on were you stand.

OK. You'll have to give me a moment though.

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 Sadako of Girth
✅

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
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.

It speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Lestov16
It speaks for itself.

Right, that's it.... I can't deal with this crap.

You are chasing ghosts. I never inferred your F**KING opinion in my example anywhere, but because Sadako answers in the affirmative to my query, that means I am suddenly against you? How does that logic work? Because Sadako is not in agreement with your views?!

Suddenly everything he says must CLEARLY be wrong, yeah?

YouTube video

That only makes you the biased hypocrite. You couldn't answer a simply question despite the link, and when I called you on it you throw a tantrum because Sadako may have actually agreed with what I was saying. And now your seeking to JUSTIFY that name calling shit even though you agree the logic IS infact faulty....

WTF man?

Anyways, I would say that about does it for me, you are clearly too paranoid to even answer a simple question, much less a theoretical debate. I am thoroughly disappointed in you Lestov, I had hoped that with a little bit of a helping hand, I could have doe something to make you debate more instead of sniping and hurling the flame stick. it appears that effort was in vain...

LOL. You are acting like your original query was supposed to be this broad topic which covers a variety of scenarios, when in reality you were only talking about this particular thread.

You asked if this particular debate was a logical fallacy. Sadako said yes, and you agreed with him. Unless you were asking if any reliance on a vote in any situation to determine a victor is illogical, which is just a stupid question considering political elections and what not, and you're not stupid. It means you referred to this debate specifically.

We'll end the convo here if you want. It's not problem if you can't recognize your own bias.

Originally posted by Lestov16
LOL. You are acting like your original query was supposed to be this broad topic which covers a variety of scenarios, when in reality you were only talking about this particular thread.

Was I? Are you a psychic now?

Here is the news flash: I was talking about using votes to determine a winner lestov. The Ad Populum Fallacy. You denied it, Sadako didn't. You claim me biased because I can actually see it occurring, and you even pointed it out, and when I call you on it, you want to call me biased? Define Biased for me Lestov. Do it now.

Originally posted by Lestov16
You asked if this particular debate was a logical fallacy. Sadako said yes, and you agreed with him. Unless you were asking if any reliance on a vote in any situation to determine a victor is illogical, which is just a stupid question considering political elections and what not, and you're not stupid. It means you referred to this debate specifically.

I asked if this was following a track to Ad Populum Fallacy. As I said, theoretical debates are not a democratic process. No different than science is not a democratic issue in the search for truth. you made several assumptions and leaps of logic simply because I asked a question of your method. Me questioning your method must have pissed you off, and so you go on the offensive and everyone else goes "WTF Les?!"

Originally posted by Lestov16
We'll end the convo here if you want. It's not problem if you can't recognize your own bias.

It is your problem if you are seeing phantom bias through your Bauer beer goggles.

I see. I must ask that if voting is not a logical way to debate these threads, then what is the point of polls?

I understand what you are saying. We can never know the "true" outcome of this thread, because there are variables we can never account for, and I'm not saying that if the majority vote Bauer that he has a 100% chance of winning. I would say that it proves that it is more likely that Bauer wins than McClane, as probabilities are the best we can ask for.

Polls are used for subjective questions, such as Who is your favourite such and such. It's more for general discussion than actual theoretical vs debates such as these.

No matter the theoretical debate, subjectivity always plays a role, hence the theoretical. The numbers of people against a correct view does not make that view any less correct. Here is the thing you need to do, In a debate like this, you need to explain HOW the side your on would win an out-of-context fight such as this, with actual thought out logical explanations and preferably backed by the objective evidence you have. No amount of numbers in a vote will provide you this.

This is an actual requirement of any side of a debate, so I'm sure the pro McClane side will do theirs, as soon as you loosen the shackles you have on half their camp.

In about 2 weeksI'll check to see if either side has taken my advice and actually done detailed write-ups.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Uh-oh. Shit idea alert...

jICExt08qmU&autoplay=1

bcuKTheCcsE&autoplay=1
8LQftYK2n8o&autoplay=1

Yawwwwwn.

McClane wins.
He saved the world from econmic turmoil and widespread nuclear terrorism and did it with less help from Bauer, and didn't die once.
End/Thread, cue Lizzie crying lots and lots and lots.

Looks like I was right.
Been nothing but clownpoop since.
✅

I'm closing this.

Until someone legitimately accepts the battlezone challenge, this is going to be nothing except the same, tired back & forth frothing of the crotches at each other.

If somebody wants to defend McClane while Lestov defends Bauer, shoot me a PM and I'll allow the match.