Originally posted by Rao Kal El
It does to people who actually are interested in serious debate, instead of getting butt hurt with other posters over several threads.
You can have a serious debate here. Just as much as you can there. The only difference is in thematics. It's a game there that you can exists in such a way that you can "win."
Then there are rules in each battlezone which may restrict what a person can argue or whether they can use scaling at all.
And no It doesn't make you a coward if you don't want to do it, what it makes you a coward is not having the balls to accept it and giving excuses instead of saying: "no i cant" or "no i don't want", which carver was doing until now.
Accept that it's the only place you can have a serious conversation? You can have a serious conversation here. The difference is that it's less about us versus them, and about me versus you. Since here people can participate in larger groups. Which gives you a bigger sample size, and more different opinions.
Whereas in the latter case it's just one person arguing against another, two people arguing each other, or the three ways.
That makes it less reliable. The smaller the sample size you have the less accurate your results are going to be.
Now, I hope that answers your questions and you will finally leave with your butt hurt or stay here but with out your butt hurt.
I am not the one who is acting as if they were a tough guy because of a hobby on a subforum. This wasn't about butt hurt. You guys were giving Carver a hard time over nothing.
Btw a BZ will be a great way to take revenge over Delta's or Abhi's butt hurt or you might end up getting a bigger butt hurt.
I already made my points in the other threads, and as I said before it's time-consuming. It's not something I would enjoy in the long run either.
Just a thought
Sorry no, I wouldn't find it enjoyable in any way.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Someone is white knighting carver?😂
Someone has to actually give him the benefit of the doubt instead of making digs at things he has done in the past.
Originally posted by Delta1938
You just said you're a little kid.....
You know that he could have meant that sarcastically in response to how he was being treated?
If he wasn't being sarcastic you just tried to start something after he conceded.
Originally posted by Sharivan
Someone has to actually give him the benefit of the doubt instead of making digs at things he has done in the past.You know that he could have meant that sarcastically in response to how he was being treated?
If he wasn't being sarcastic you just tried to start something after he conceded.
You don't know about what this is about. Leave, while you can.
Originally posted by Sharivan
You can have a serious debate here. Just as much as you can there. The only difference is in thematics. It's a game there that you can exists in such a way that you can "win."Then there are rules in each battlezone which may restrict what a person can argue or whether they can use scaling at all.
Accept that it's the only place you can have a serious conversation? You can have a serious conversation here. The difference is that it's less about us versus them, and about me versus you. Since here people can participate in larger groups. Which gives you a bigger sample size, and more different opinions.
Whereas in the latter case it's just one person arguing against another, two people arguing each other, or the three ways.
That makes it less reliable. The smaller the sample size you have the less accurate your results are going to be.
I am not the one who is acting as if they were a tough guy because of a hobby on a subforum. This wasn't about butt hurt. You guys were giving Carver a hard time over nothing.
I already made my points in the other threads, and as I said before it's time-consuming. It's not something I would enjoy in the long run either.
Sorry no, I wouldn't find it enjoyable in any way.
I disagree. In a bz you get judges and those judges pick a winner.
In here you basically get people writing walls of text regurgitating the same argument over and over with out having a judge telling them "no dude, your argument is invalid" or "you are committing the following fallacies"
Which is what a lot of trolls do. Have a confident position on something? Then take it to a bz, btw Abhi has open challenges on Silver Surfer vs Superman if interested.
For me there is no better way to shut up a loud mouth than with a bz. Unfortunately Personally I can't do BZ or serious debates at the moment because of my health but I know Delta and Abhi can, so I encourage BZ.
Now if you disagre cool, we don't have to agree on everything.
Originally posted by abhilegend
]And what he continues to do.
You mean like how you have behaved except you're the one who hasn't gotten any better.
You don't know about what this is about. Leave, while you can.
It's about having a differing opinion on an internet forum, and saying something that was idiotic. It everyone treated each other as social lepers because of that the whole world would hate each other.
It's such as minor offense that it boggles the mind the way you hold onto to it.
Sure, I will get angry and confront someone if I feel they were doing something stupid. However, I wouldn't do so years later. I would do it then in order to get it off my chest. That, or as soon as I can if I am indisposed or busy.
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
B disagree. In a bz you get judges and those judges pick a winner.In here you basically get people writing walls of text regurgitating the same argument over and over with out having a judge telling them "no dude, your argument is invalid" or "you are committing the following fallacies"
Which is what a lot of trolls do. Have a confident position on something? Then take it to a bz, btw Abhi has open challenges on Silver Surfer vs Superman if interested.
For me there is no better way to shut up a loud mouth than with a bz. Unfortunately Personally I can't do BZ or serious debates at the moment because of my health but I know Delta and Abhi can, so I encourage BZ.
Now if you disagre cool, we don't have to agree on everything.
Which isn't perfect either because those judges are not omniscient, and we can't know where their opinion lies. In order for this to be objectively better those judges would need to be correct all the time.
That regurgitation is the same on both sides, and any outside observer who is smart enough can tell who is being right or wrong within a certain context.
There are different standards of debate, and there is no wrong way of debating. It's about what is considered the best option. Which is subjective. There are people who consider statements and established limitations as set by databooks to be better. Whereas there are others that go what they see.
Then there's variations of that. There are some people who put more value in individual showings rather than fights. While the opposite also exists.
There's a lot of them.
It's matter of convincing someone else that your way of thinking has a point. Admittedly that's what I want to truly achieve as a debater but I don't always succeed. I don't think a lot of people do.
At the end of the day it's not about winning. It's about discourse, and having a discussion. Yet, every single one of us myself included wants to be "right."
That's the human condition.
Yeah, agree to disagree I suppose.
Originally posted by Sharivan
Someone has to actually give him the benefit of the doubt instead of making digs at things he has done in the past.You know that he could have meant that sarcastically in response to how he was being treated?
If he wasn't being sarcastic you just tried to start something after he conceded.
Lol...I was being sarcastic.