Subject:
|
Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:23:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
801 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I have a firm grip on reality. I'm not so sure you do. I'm not the only one
> > who thinks that either.
>
> Should we take a poll on who has a firmer grip?
> Or perhaps on who is a more valuable contributor?
> Or perhaps on who is more annoying?
> Or more clueless?
>
> Heck, I'd even accept the outcome of a poll with these three choices:
>
> - Ban Scott from .debate, he is low value add and annoying
> - Ban Larry from .debate, he is low value add and annoying
> - Ban neither of them, they're both fine enough
>
> (although I won't accept "ban both", sorry, it's me OR you that has to go)
I doubt most o-t-debators would choose seriously from any of the above
options other than the 3rd, though maybe that's just me. I can't see
actually wanting to ban either of you based on your previous content.
A poll to the first set of questions would perhaps be more interesting-- but
still perhaps somewhat weighted. After all, perhaps someone would rate Larry
as a 9 on cluelessness and rate Scott as a 10, yet be forced to say Larry
was less clueless, despite their obvious view that Larry was also highly
clueless.
-------------------------
Larry
Debating skill: 9
Cluelessness: 2
Stubbornness: 6
Openness: 7
Humility: 2
Annoying: 6
Notes:
Larry seems to usually have a good grip on what his position is, and is able
to back up his point sufficiently well. When he doesn't have a firm grip on
his position, he's occasionally been known to fluctuate, and typically
doesn't back his position up well-- only because these times are when basic
philosophic principles are at stake. The bonus to Larry is that he is fairly
open to changing his mind-- it just doesn't happen much if at all.
The largest fault of Larry's is probably his occasionally quick-to-judge
attitude towards points he feels he's already addressed. Sometimes Scott
(for example) will have a perfectly valid point and Larry will gloss over it
calling it a non-issue without giving it a 2nd thought. It doesn't happen
often, but it happens.
He's also got an ego. He treads on ground confident that he's done the best
possible job of defending it that there can ever be, which often isn't the
case. However, he does have reason to think so. As far as debating goes,
there aren't many who can get Larry to the itchy point. Most of his
convictions stand firm and can be well backed up.
------------------
Scott
Debating skill: 4
Cluelessness: 3
Stubbornness: 9
Openness: 4
Humility: 5
Annoying: 8
Notes:
Scott's generally got some work to do on debating form. This is quite
possibly his largest issue. He seems to take o-t-debate as a very fast-paced
forum, paying little time towards each reply. Replies are often quickly put
out, with little organization or thought involved. They do not seem to
follow the general debating format wherein one would state one's
assumptions, the problems with the proposed theory, then propose a new
theory, admitting any weaknesses it had.
But don't assume too quickly. Scott often has a point, even though it's not
stated well. It's merely that he doesn't put the time/effort into voicing
it. When forced (upon occasion), Scott has proven that he is fully capable
of being less clueless, more open, and more insightful.
He also suffers from stubbornness. He doesn't let an issue drop very easily,
and often prods and prods and prods until a response is given. Further, when
cornered, he doesn't like admitting his faults. The one upshot to Scott over
Larry is that Scott is typically less assuming of his own position being
"right". You'll seldom hear Scott defending his own stance, and more often
hear him attacking others'.
----------
My suggested action to Larry is to ignore Scott, until/unless he has a
well-formed point. And don't *TELL* him he's got a malformed point, just
ignore it. Rewarding ill-formed points with responses will only get you more
ill-formed points.
My suggested action to Scott is to spend some real *time* in examining and
writing your debate points. Re-read Larry's posts a couple times to make
sure you know where you stand. Ask yourself questions that you think Larry
will ask of you in response and respond to those in your initial post, or
structure your response so that those responses are invalid/useless. Or, of
course, if you don't want to spend the time, then don't presuppose as much
as you do. Admit your shortcomings and attribute them, rather than
dismissing them.
And to all of you, re-examine your position when it's been challenged. The
typical response to a challenge is to defend it all the more instead of
re-examining it. You shouldn't need others to *force* you to that point,
unless you actually can't do it yourself.
Of course, this is all just me talking from the sidelines. I haven't read
everything, and if I had, I'm sure I'd still have my own warped view of things.
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) I'd disagree on this one. I'd say his largest fault is his tendency to attack a person's stature rather than defend his position or respond to theirs. The title of this sub-thread is a case in point. He has done the same to others and me. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) <snip> Nice analysis, Dave. Indeed, I wouldn't want any of the options listed; my preference is for each to ignore the other, but that's beyond my power (and apparantly, their power). Lacking my favorite choice, I have pretty much chosen to (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) (snipped) (...) (snipped) ROTFL! They were almost reduced to the status of "Pokemon" playing cards! Anyway, I do not know these two guys long enough to make such a deep analysis of their debating skills, so I won't. However, I partially agree (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| I like this. I may get a t-shirt made. :) (...) I live in a tiny little country called Scotland. The time differnce between my lovely little land and you great hulk mass (I'm talking about the USA, not you :) ) means that most of the posting goes (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | voodoo (Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered)
|
| Be carful Dave Larry may not like some you comments. I remeber you offer advise to him before: ==+== Larry (...) Scott This sounds almost threatening. You must be pretty thin skinned Larry. Do you keep a little black book of all of those who "no (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) My basis for "not being convinced that we didn't get snookered" is lingering doubt that maybe, just maybe, bin Laden actually *was* the owner or part owner of that plant through some twisted chain, whether or not it was completely harmless or (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
