Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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?

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4400000/Jack-Bauer-wallpapers-jack-bauer-4443494-1024-768.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3300000/John-john-mcclane-3307218-800-1203.jpg

http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u561/focus4chumps/pimp-pimp-137039743740993_zps0b21849a.gif

Mother of God.

I foresee 50+ pages of nonsensical frothing of the mouths.

I know Robbie won't ever have he guts to do this. Maybe Saddie might be a man for once and step up. Doubtful though.

Originally posted by Impediment
Mother of God.

I foresee 50+ pages of nonsensical frothing of the mouths.


i was thinking the same damn thing..

Uh-oh. Shit idea alert...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-976oplM2nWE/Tc1-HW4rmLI/AAAAAAAAANc/-H4Vo8bqaBo/s1600/pile+of+shit.jpg

jICExt08qmU&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.

That's really disgusting, Sadako. Please put the picture and youtube video in a link or something. Please. That's the exact kind of nonsense Imp was speaking of.

And there will be no vitriol since there will be a purely objective debate between two people who have a full knowledge of both character's feats. Who would wish to step forward?

No its not.
This thread of yours is, though.
(The sounds are of you being a clown, and Jack Bauer sitting in a fly infested shithouse on hearing that he has to face McClane.)


bcuKTheCcsE&autoplay=1
8LQftYK2n8o&autoplay=1

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.

Hey you're the one setting up a bait thread out of butthurt with all douchey talk like "lets settle this once and for all"... and trying to bowl around all puffed up for people to 'be a man for once and step up' etc..

You therefore asked for what a load of old shit it is to be pointed out.

Its not spam. Unlike your 731st butthurt McClane Bauer thread.

You're not the person I'll be debating with. You clearly don't qualify. Matter of fact, since your 24 ignorance disqualifies you, I'll be putting you on ignore in about 3 seconds. So peace to da east.

Well given your past ignoring of McScreenfeats and evidence and over-amping of Bauer that means nothing coming from you.

3 seconds too long.

I'll let you get back to your butthurt rage and tears, then.

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.

Originally posted by quanchi112

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
man up and accept his challenge. I know you never will but self respect would make you feel good.

How can this be a battlezone when two debaters (and judges) haven't been announced yet to argue what has already been done a hundred times before?

Originally posted by the ninjak
How can this be a battlezone when two debaters (and judges) haven't been announced yet to argue what has already been done a hundred times before? Someone needs to accept fist and then the rest can take place.

Bauer is clearly better.

Originally posted by quanchi112
man up and accept his challenge. I know you never will but self respect would make you feel good.

I'll always has self respect as long as I'm not you.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I'll always has self respect as long as I'm not you. I knew you would not accept. You can't ever talk smack to Lestov on this matter since you backed down.

I backed down from nothing and noone.

McClane wins.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I backed down from nothing and noone.

McClane wins. Then accept his challenge.

Yeah Quan, um, Sadako's not applicable to debate here, as reasons stated in the OP. It's clear he wants to, but he can't. So why are you asking him to accept the challenge.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Yeah Quan, um, Sadako's not applicable to debate here, as reasons stated in the OP. It's clear he wants to, but he can't. So why are you asking him to accept the challenge. You won't ever do one of these either. Most of you are all talk.

I'll do it if somebody applicable accepts the challenge.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'll do it if somebody applicable accepts the challenge. Won't happen. You let Saddie off the hook and everyone knows Robbie won't ever do anything which holds him accountable.

Neither of them have seen all 8 season of 24, so I really don't care.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Neither of them have seen all 8 season of 24, so I really don't care. So they are ignorant iyo.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Neither of them have seen all 8 season of 24, so I really don't care.

I've seen the 1st three seasons. And seen all the 'evidence' presented in the other threads form later happenings.
None convinced me.

And you guys debated against McClane without having seen DH5 for a fair while....and had real shady interpretations of screenfeats on the other movies too.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I've seen the 1st three seasons. And seen all the 'evidence' presented in the other threads form later happenings.
None convinced me.

And you guys debated against McClane without having seen DH5 for a fair while....and had real shady interpretations of screenfeats on the other movies too. He got his ass kicked by the guy on the wing of the plane in DH 2.

Not really. That guy was fresh too, McClane had been McClaneing all night and he still killed the guy anyhow and he took no significant damage from the guy also.
He got better at combat too as he went along, as evidenced by DH5 with his insta-night-night straight shots.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I've seen the 1st three seasons. And seen all the 'evidence' presented in the other threads form later happenings.
None convinced me.

And you guys debated against McClane without having seen DH5 for a fair while....and had real shady interpretations of screenfeats on the other movies too.

I'll admit I may have overhyped some things, but you would be lying if you said you didn't as well. And I recently watched DH5 on Netflix, so I have seen the film. You've only seen 3 seasons of 24 though, and Jack has way more feats than the ones I listed. That's why I would like to debate with somebody who has seen the entire show, so I don't have to explain 192 hours worth of feats to them. At least with McClane, it's fairly simple to gather his feats because they are in a contained 2 hour film. With Bauer, you would have to go fishing through 24 hours of footage to find his feats for just a single season.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Not really. That guy was fresh too, McClane had been McClaneing all night and he still killed the guy anyhow and he took no significant damage from the guy also.
He got better at combat too as he went along, as evidenced by DH5 with his insta-night-night straight shots. He lost. He a older now so not tougher than his younger self. More experienced but an older man nowadays. Newer feats don't reckon older feats.


You're backing down.

No Ive beaten the thread already.

McClane wins.

Nothing to back down from.
I see that once again: you let grammar beat your ass, in your rage.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
No Ive beaten the thread already.

McClane wins.

Nothing to back down from.
I see that once again: you let grammar beat your ass, in your rage. You are still backing down and admit to not seeing an entire season. Irony.

Nope. You clearly are imagining things again.

I never said that.

And its "...and are admitting to.."

But as I said I never said that.
And Ive seen all the evidence you clowns put forth and it was still doom for Bauer.

McClane wins.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope. You clearly are imagining things again.

I never said that.

And its "...and are admitting to.."

But as I said I never said that.
And Ive seen all the evidence you clowns put forth and it was still doom for Bauer.

McClane wins. You missed an entire season and won't accept the challenge. Yellow is your color.

No evidence was put forth to warrant my concern.
McClane wins.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Neither of them have seen all 8 season of 24, so I really don't care.

I have seen all 8 seasons of 24, yet McClane still wins

So you accept the challenge then?

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you accept the challenge then?


nothing to really accept.. what has been said has already been said..

so what more can be said about it

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.

You were excluded from the vote anyways for the exact reason you stated. I completely understand your objectivity.

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 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?

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4400000/Jack-Bauer-wallpapers-jack-bauer-4443494-1024-768.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3300000/John-john-mcclane-3307218-800-1203.jpg



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 Zero
Isn't relying on a vote to determine a victor simply relying on argument ad populum fallacy to win the debate there Les? No.

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 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.

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 not known.

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 not known.

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 Zero


Yeah, 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.

He can be objective and happen to agree with me also. If he agreed with you, by your rationale, he'd cease to objective then too...

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?

WrjwaqZfjIY

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...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-976oplM2nWE/Tc1-HW4rmLI/AAAAAAAAANc/-H4Vo8bqaBo/s1600/pile+of+shit.jpg

jICExt08qmU&autoplay=1

bcuKTheCcsE&autoplay=1
8LQftYK2n8o&autoplay=1



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.