# MMAF's Great MMA Debate Tournament: Registration



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Come one, come all! MMA Forum is holding it's first ever Debate tournament. The brain child of Jdun11 and myself, we are looking for 16 knowledgeable MMA posters to compete in this tournament. The tournament will have topics from all talks of Mixed Martial Arts, and is definitely not for the noob-at-heart. Do you think you have what it takes?

*Entrance Requirements: * 
Minimum 500 Posts (less posts will be considered on a case-by-case bases)
Displayed good understanding and knowledge of different aspects of MMA.
GOOD GRAMMAR. 

Now you might be wondering, how is this all going to work? We will split our 16 competitors into tournament brackets. There will be a judging panel, made of myself, Jdun and one more person. The judges will critique based on Opening Statements, Rebuttles, Originality of Arguments(not just Fedor is the greatest, Tito is a *** etc.), Control of Debate and Closing Statements. There will also be a poll for each debate, where the public can vote on who they think won, and that may influence the judges as well. Winners will advance, losers will be eliminated. Each round will last the course of a week. At the end of the week, the judges will render there decisions. Swearing, personal attacks or anything else that is against forum rules will result in a lost point, and then a DQ. 

You might now be asking, "Damn, what do I win?" Well, if you make it past the first round, you will be awarded a nice $5000 points, as well as a + rep from each of judging team. If you make it the final four, you win an additional $10000, + Rep and a Gift from the judges. The Final two get an additional $20000, + rep and a free customization of there Usernames and Usertitles. The Winner gets another additional $50000, another gift, a sig customized by yours truly so they can boast their victory, as well as another special treat.

So if you are interested in participating, either PM me or Jdun, or post below. Thanks!

*Update:*

We'd like to welcome fellow mod and great poster Onganju as our third and final judge! 

Here are our Opening Matchups with each participants seeding
*ROUND 1*

(1) pt447
(16) slamnbam88

(2) Damone
(15) IcemanCometh

(3) WL2FU
(14) plazzman

(4) P-101
(13) Hollywood6655

(5) asskicker
(12) liveson777

(6) Kameleon
(11) Asian Sensation

(7) jasvll
(10) dutchsauce

(8) Judokas
(9) Wise


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Not sure if I am the first, but I love a good argument/discussion/debate. I would like to be considered.

Any chance of seeing what the debate topics will be or that considered bad etiquette?


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

IcemanCometh said:


> Not sure if I am the first, but I love a good argument/discussion/debate. I would like to be considered.
> 
> Any chance of seeing what the debate topics will be or that considered bad etiquette?


Debate topics will range from individual fighters, to discussing the organizations to discussing the rules, training and fighting aspects of MMA. It will require knowledge of the sport, a bit of time to write thoughtful responses and a knack for presenting good arguments. Hope that helped. :thumb02:


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

IcemanCometh said:


> Not sure if I am the first, but I love a good argument/discussion/debate. I would like to be considered.
> 
> Any chance of seeing what the debate topics will be or that considered bad etiquette?


No chance of that iceman, but you will def be considered as a canidate :thumbsup:


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes, yes it did. The ball is in your court as to who you guys pick. I think I could handle those topics.
Thanks.


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Alright cool Iceman, you are certainly a good candidate.


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

I'm in!


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

I will watch this thread with interest, see who enters and what they write.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

yo BP ,I think we might wanna un sticky this. Noone can probably see it


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

im in! bring it Kameleon:fight02:


----------



## e-thug (Jan 18, 2007)

Should be interesting to watch this. Im contemplating joining.

Wouldn't mind meeting Jasvil on the way...he always brings the damn argument!


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Great to see the participation! We'd love to see you all in it!


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

If anyone out there would rather be a judge, shoot me or BP a pm and we will make it happen :thumb02:


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

jdun11 said:


> yo BP ,I think we might wanna un sticky this. Noone can probably see it


yea I wouldn't have ever noticed this thread if it wasn't on the main page because it had the most recent post in it. I never pay attention to stickies.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

I guess i will join if accepted.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Judokas said:


> I guess i will join if accepted.


Thata boy, ur in bro!!


----------



## Uchi (Oct 15, 2006)

i'll go ahead and nominate Damone to enter in this...

but if i had to place bets...i'd have to go with Trey, damone, or jdun11 to win.


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

If you're looking for judges, I wouldn't mind. I would have a hard time participating in the actual debate as posting things in length tend to be habitual for me already, and it would decrease my post count even more if I had a stearn argument to rally behind. But I digress...

When do the competitors need to be "registered" by?


----------



## CashKola (Jul 7, 2006)

brownpimp88 said:


> *Swearing*, personal attacks or anything else that is against forum rules will result in a lost point, and then a DQ.
> 
> You might now be asking, "*Damn*, what do I win?"



^^ Now thats ironic. 

Anyway, this sounds like a great idea and I will be very interested to see some debating.


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

Im in

I think pt447 should automatically be in since he was 2006 debater of the year


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

So far this is what we have got so far that are in.

WL2FU
Asskicker
Damone(forum nominated)
Judokas
Asian Sensation
Hollywood6655
Iceman Cometh


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Onganju is going to be the 3rd judge. So now more PM's about the judges position. There are several spots for the debate. Keep em comin!!


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

Thats what im talkin about.......im in.........ready to sling those words........lol


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Check out the first post for all of the updates!


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

jdun11 said:


> Onganju is going to be the 3rd judge. So now more PM's about the judges position. There are several spots for the debate. Keep em comin!!


Hehe... I see an avatar and a title change a comin'!


----------



## T.B. (Jul 4, 2006)

Sure, why not. I'll participate in 'dis.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

I'm digging this concept.


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

jdun11 said:


> So far this is what we have got so far that are in.
> 
> WL2FU
> Asskicker
> ...


What about pt? Cant I forum nomiante him? Hes a great debater


----------



## buo (Oct 15, 2006)

ok, 1st topic of... debate.... is...:confused02: .:

_a peanut is either pea or a nut...:smoke02: _

discuss...



just kidding :thumb02: Good luck to the participants. This could be pretty interesting:thumbsup:


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

This is starting to fill up guys! If you want in get @ us!



asskicker said:


> What about pt? Cant I forum nomiante him? Hes a great debater


Check first post bro.

And welcome to TREY.

Damone, would you like in? You've been forum nominated.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

asskicker said:


> What about pt? Cant I forum nomiante him? Hes a great debater


yea he is, I still remember him and BP battling for days over Pride and UFC. Great battles :thumb02:


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

jdun11 said:


> yea he is, I still remember him and BP battling for days over Pride and UFC. Great battles :thumb02:


Ah, yes. The good 'ole days. If I remember correctly, PT and I were battling for Pride whilst other were telling us that Royce Gracie would KO Fedor.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

brownpimp88 said:


> Ah, yes. The good 'ole days. If I remember correctly, PT and I were battling for Pride whilst other were telling us that Royce Gracie would KO Fedor.


hahah I know right, old school. That was like right around this time last year


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

brownpimp88 said:


> Damone, would you like in? You've been forum nominated.


Oh yeah, I'm in.


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

jdun11 said:


> hahah I know right, old school. That was like right around this time last year


Yeah. Man I feel old! I've been here for over a year. I remember those days. We got in good discussion, but the only problem is it would take days for people to reply. Now we get replies within seconds.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Damone said:


> Oh yeah, I'm in.


Atta boy Michael, make Mr. Hand proud!!


----------



## mma_rulez (Jun 6, 2007)

can i nominate???


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

It wouldn't be a debate without jasvll and I'm not jasvll without a debate. 

My only ground rule is, no kittens.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> It wouldn't be a debate without jasvll and I'm not jasvll without a debate.
> 
> My only ground rule is, no kittens.


???


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

jasvll said:


> It wouldn't be a debate without jasvll and I'm not jasvll without a debate.
> 
> My only ground rule is, no kittens.


This is starting to look stacked.

If we get too many worth while contenders, we might have a prelim round, but that is only if we get a large over flow.


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

sounds fun are there any rulez???


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

liveson777 said:


> sounds fun are there any rulez???


 Yes, no kittens. That's why judokas has been DQ'd. :bye02:


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Yes, no kittens. That's why judokas has been DQ'd. :bye02:


lol

sign me up im down


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

so where are we at so far?? Who is in?


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> so where are we at so far?? Who is in?


WL2FU
Asskicker
Judokas
Asian Sensation
Hollywood6655
Iceman Cometh
TREY B.
Damone
jasvll


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

So we need 7 more...hmmmm. Anybody we haven't thought about that would be good for it, I thought e-thug said he might do it. What about about bjjd7, Fedor>all, southpaw?

Edit: What is the timeframe? As in when do you guys hope to get it started?


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

plz put me down this sounds fun ..but i just need to know the rules first........ i have some mad agruement game


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> So we need 7 more...hmmmm. Anybody we haven't thought about that would be good for it, I thought e-thug said he might do it. What about about bjjd7, Fedor>all, southpaw?


There is a few members "pending" but there is also many good members that would be good for this.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Judokas said:


> There is a few members "pending" but there is also many good members that would be good for this.


ok cool. Just let me know when I need to put on my thinking cap. LOL


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

liveson777 said:


> plz put me down this sounds fun ..but i just need to know the rules first........ i have some mad agruement game


Your in bro, and I am looking to get this started ASAP. BP, Wanna shoot for 7:00 PM Eastern Time tomorrow night??


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> ok cool. Just let me know when I need to put on my thinking cap. LOL


Check the first post for the edited updates, thats the only reason i know this.


----------



## benny (May 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> WL2FU
> Asskicker
> Judokas
> Asian Sensation
> ...



I would like to participate. i hope you can consider me i have been an mma fan for about 8 years and a fight fan all my life my views are often unique but i do know the fight game and could hold my own with anybody. thanks for your consideration.


----------



## Suvaco (Mar 31, 2007)

I know I don't have 500 posts quite yet, and I might not be on the same level as some of the other debaters, but would it be possible for me to be considered?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

brownpimp88 said:


> Ah, yes. The good 'ole days. If I remember correctly, PT and I were battling for Pride whilst other were telling us that Royce Gracie would KO Fedor.


lol. i miss that shit. where have all the great MMA debates gone???

so, i am obviously in. not because of my previous accomplishments, but because i sure as hell want to. 

i take it, it will be only on MMA topics? der...

when does the whole shin-dig start??? 

and keep in mind folks... people work, so some posts might come at longer intervals than others!

on a serious note, i'd have to say the only two ground rules are, no deviating from the official topic at hand, unless it directly relates. and abosolutely no personal attacks.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Do we have to be on at the same time? because i'm Australian and we have a very different time zone.


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

I'd like in


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

Judokas said:


> Do we have to be on at the same time? because i'm Australian and we have a very different time zone.


this might have to go slow... like, 1 topic... and ether a few days, to maybe even a week. don't forget, a lot of the best debates on here get going after the innitial arguments have already come out. plus, i assume stuff like records and other relevant research would be necceary. but whatever they decide, i'm sure it's gunna be nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> Do we have to be on at the same time? because i'm Australian and we have a very different time zone.


 Don't the clocks turn counter-clockwise in Australia?


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Not trying to talk out of my ass but I would the maxium of three days for work, time differences/zones, life would be sufficent for a rebuttal. I am sure BP, Jdun, and Organju will fill us in on all that when the time comes.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Don't the clocks turn counter-clockwise in Australia?


We don't have clocks we watch how the Kangaroos are acting and we tell the time from there, it is quite effective.


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

i'd still like imn


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Me and BP will try to have the brackets ready for tomorrow night. I want to start this tourney tomorrow at 7:00 PM Eastern Time. But I am not sure if the brackets will be ready.

I agree with PT that 3-4 days is long enough for a debate. I figure we could have all teh debates taking place at the same time in their own seperate threads. Let me and BP know if you guys think of ways we can improve the tournament. Make it quick cuz I want this madness to begin :thumb02:


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jdun11 said:


> Me and BP will try to have the brackets ready for tomorrow night. I want to start this tourney tomorrow at 7:00 PM Eastern Time. But I am not sure if the brackets will be ready.
> 
> I agree with PT that 3-4 days is long enough for a debate. I figure we could have all teh debates taking place at the same time in their own seperate threads. Let me and BP know if you guys think of ways we can improve the tournament. Make it quick cuz I want this madness to begin :thumb02:


I say 4 days should be fine.


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

*I'd like to join. :thumb02: *


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Kameleon said:


> *I'd like to join. :thumb02: *


Kam ur in :thumbsup:


----------



## Wise (Oct 8, 2006)

Eh, I guess Im in. Ill just have to crush like 15 beers before it to make things interesting.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Wise said:


> Eh, I guess Im in. Ill just have to crush like 15 beers before it to make things interesting.


ur in :thumbsup:


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

3 spots left, they will go next 3 solid posters


----------



## plazzman (Mar 29, 2007)

am I solid?


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Who will the last 3 be?

***Suspenseful music***:sarcastic01:


----------



## plazzman (Mar 29, 2007)

Id love to join but I know Im gonna get my dreams crushed


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

plazzman ur in playboy, Now u bettha do the damn thang :cool03:


----------



## Slamnbam88 (Oct 23, 2006)

meh...as long as i can have a 16th seed with no expectations


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

slamnbam88 was the last member of the tournament, I will have the brackets out either late tonight or early tomorrow. The topics will be posted sometime before tomorrow night at 7:00


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

The first round brackets are set up, me and BP and Onganju will think up Debating topics and you all will know by 7:00 on 7/11


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Good luck to my opponent Kameleon.


----------



## Slamnbam88 (Oct 23, 2006)

pt447
slamnbam88

thanks..im gonna go play in traffic now



YOU AND ME PT447...two men enter one man leave

:thumbsup:


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

*Will each bracket get a different question? It would be unfair if everyone got the same question because then someone could just take someone elses arguement as their own.*


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

I was wondering this last night and maybe its foolish to ask. Do we pick a side or are we given our stance as in For or Against?

Edit: 
IcemanCometh(15)
Damone(2)
_Looks like I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue._


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

Slamnbam88 said:


> pt447
> slamnbam88
> 
> thanks..im gonna go play in traffic now
> ...


let's do it. this should get interesting!!!!


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

IcemanCometh said:


> I was wondering this last night and maybe its foolish to ask. Do we pick a side or are we given our stance as in For or Against?
> 
> Edit:
> IcemanCometh(15)
> ...


good question. because what if there's a topic, and the two people agree on it? 

also, will it start officially at 7 tonight, or is that just when the brackets will be releases?


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

pt447 said:


> good question. because what if there's a topic, and the two people agree on it?
> 
> also, will it start officially at 7 tonight, or is that just when the brackets will be releases?


Brackets are up on the first page bro. 

I had another couple questions. What is the format? Will be argument, argument then rebuttal, rebuttal and maybe re-rebuttal and then decision? I wasn't on the debate team in HS so I am just wondering how its going down, and what is the time frame for rebuttals? As in if I don't post a rebuttal in three days I am DQ'ed?

Thanks guys, cannot wait till tonight, I am assuming times are Eastern Standard? or what?


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Kameleon said:


> *Will each bracket get a different question? It would be unfair if everyone got the same question because then someone could just take someone elses arguement as their own.*


I think it will be the same question but 2 side to it.

For example Me and You are in the debate which were are but...

Jdun or Brownpimp says "The topic is, is Fedor the best in the world" they will then say "Kameleon your side is yes and Judokas your side is no, we will probably have to argue the point even if we don't agree with it ourselves but it is part of a debate.

I may be wrong but i think that is what it will be and has been in my previous debating history.


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

Judokas said:


> I think it will be the same question but 2 side to it.
> 
> For example Me and You are in the debate which were are but...
> 
> ...


*No I mean same question per bracket. Me and you are in one brackett and Pt447 and slambam88 is in another bracket. I know we get a question and we get to chose for or against. 

Example: we get the Fedor question and pt/slambams bracket get another different question maybe about Shamrock.*


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Kameleon said:


> *No I mean same question per bracket. Me and you are in one brackett and Pt447 and slambam88 is in another bracket. I know we get a question and we get to chose for or against.
> 
> Example: we get the Fedor question and pt/slambams bracket get another different question maybe about Shamrock.*


Oh i see, sorry for the misunderstanding but i have no idea.

Does anyone know how long(approx.) in hours it will be until the start, i have no idea what the time differences are.


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

this sounds good........I cant wait to see how this unfolds.......should be good


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Judokas said:


> I think it will be the same question but 2 side to it.
> 
> For example Me and You are in the debate which were are but...
> 
> ...


Yup, that is how I think we will do it. I wanna double check a few things with BP but he hasnt been on.

Kam, each debate will have their own topic. For instance pt and slam's topic will be #1 MW in the world. One has Silva the other has Lindland. *That is just an exmple that isnt really the topic*


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

To clarify for all:

Each pairing will get their own topic.

One of the judges criteria is originality of arguments, so "ripping" or re-using worn out ideas won't score you many points. 

The "under-dog" will get to choose either who goes first, or who takes which side of the argument. 

Rules will be further explained when the first round starts!


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

how is this going to work because i have class at 8 and have to leave by 7:30 latest so i really only have time to write an opening arguement or whatever


----------



## raymardo (Jun 21, 2006)

*Participation*

I'd like to participate.


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

yea......good point........how long is the debate going to be open for.......sorta makes me wish I was working the night shift........I get off at 6......lol I am already tired........


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Asian Sensation said:


> how is this going to work because i have class at 8 and have to leave by 7:30 latest so i really only have time to write an opening arguement or whatever


U will have 4 days to go back and forth so if ur not gonna be there that is fine. That is one reason why we are giving 4 days. Dont worry about it :thumbsup:


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

Fantastic........... I will be back up here bright and early at 0600........so I will have plenty of time to handle business


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

jdun11 said:


> U will have 4 days to go back and forth so if ur not gonna be there that is fine. That is one reason why we are giving 4 days. Dont worry about it :thumbsup:


how are you going to stop other people from posting thier opinions during the debate and what not?


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Delete posts and state it in the OP. Don't worry AS, it will all be well organized, and all you guys got to do is debate it out. Once again, everything will be further explained once we get our judging criteria and topics finalized by all judges.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

i have a small problem with this... as late in the prep as it is. but how, for example, would i even consider arguing that fedor isn't the greatest fighter in the world. i know that's what debate teams do, but this is sorta different. i mean, Fedor IS the best fighter in the world, and there' s no way to present a contrary argument to that fact... 

like, how would i argue that ken shamrock is the best fighter of all time?

i just don't see how this is going to work because if anyone get's the "FEDOR Question", nobody will be able to present any sort of coherent argument against him. see what i mean???


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

pt447 said:


> i have a small problem with this... as late in the prep as it is. but how, for example, would i even consider arguing that fedor isn't the greatest fighter in the world. i know that's what debate teams do, but this is sorta different. i mean, Fedor IS the best fighter in the world, and there' s no way to present a contrary argument to that fact...
> 
> like, how would i argue that ken shamrock is the best fighter of all time?
> 
> i just don't see how this is going to work because if anyone get's the "FEDOR Question", nobody will be able to present any sort of coherent argument against him. see what i mean???


I doubt we will get that question.


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

pt447 said:


> i have a small problem with this... as late in the prep as it is. but how, for example, would i even consider arguing that fedor isn't the greatest fighter in the world. i know that's what debate teams do, but this is sorta different. i mean, Fedor IS the best fighter in the world, and there' s no way to present a contrary argument to that fact...
> 
> like, how would i argue that ken shamrock is the best fighter of all time?
> 
> i just don't see how this is going to work because if anyone get's the "FEDOR Question", nobody will be able to present any sort of coherent argument against him. see what i mean???


I kinda get what you mean and I was wondering that myself. I doubt we will get any topics THAT lopsided, but I mean, if I'm on the side I disagree with or that is just plain factually WRONG, then how can I win? 

Hopefully they will come up with some good debate topics that could go either way.


----------



## e-thug (Jan 18, 2007)

pt447 said:


> i have a small problem with this... as late in the prep as it is. but how, for example, would i even consider arguing that fedor isn't the greatest fighter in the world. i know that's what debate teams do, but this is sorta different. i mean, Fedor IS the best fighter in the world, and there' s no way to present a contrary argument to that fact...
> 
> like, how would i argue that ken shamrock is the best fighter of all time?
> 
> i just don't see how this is going to work because if anyone get's the "FEDOR Question", nobody will be able to present any sort of coherent argument against him. see what i mean???



There not gonna have questions like that obviously.

The mods here are fairly smart and will come up with some great questions that will have a great argument for both parties.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

e-thug said:


> There not gonna have questions like that obviously.
> 
> The mods here are fairly smart and will come up with some great questions that will have a great argument for both parties.


i have confidence. it's just that this is going to be real tough, and i'm excited. i can't wait to see how it goes down!!!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> i have a small problem with this... as late in the prep as it is. but how, for example, would i even consider arguing that fedor isn't the greatest fighter in the world. i know that's what debate teams do, but this is sorta different. i mean, Fedor IS the best fighter in the world, and there' s no way to present a contrary argument to that fact...


 Sure you could:
If Fedor was the greatest fighter in the world, then it would be impossible for any fighter to beat him, by definition. Fedor has been beaten. Therefore, Fedor can not be the greatest fighter in the world.*

If in doubt, rely on logic. 

Personally, I don't feel he's been legitimately beaten, but the fact is, no logical argument can be made that he hasn't, without throwing every win, loss, and no contest ruling out the window along with Fedor's one loss.

*copyright 2007 jasvll logical productions.


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Sure you could:
> If Fedor was the greatest fighter in the world, then it would be impossible for any fighter to beat him, by definition. Fedor has been beaten. Therefore, Fedor can not be the greatest fighter in the world.*
> 
> If in doubt, rely on logic.
> ...


greatest and unbeatble are not the same thing though as far as accomplishments go no one to date has done what fedor has done if someone were to beat him tomorrow it might not nessarily mean fedor is no longer the greatest it would just mean he is beatable unless that person beating him has amassed accomplishments equal to those of fedor


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

pt447 said:


> i have a small problem with this... as late in the prep as it is. but how, for example, would i even consider arguing that fedor isn't the greatest fighter in the world. i know that's what debate teams do, but this is sorta different. i mean, Fedor IS the best fighter in the world, and there' s no way to present a contrary argument to that fact...
> 
> like, how would i argue that ken shamrock is the best fighter of all time?
> 
> i just don't see how this is going to work because if anyone get's the "FEDOR Question", nobody will be able to present any sort of coherent argument against him. see what i mean???


We are deciding on topics that have logical arguments from both sides. 

Ah, and I see the debating has already begun. I can't wait to start the first round. It should start soon guys.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

brownpimp88 said:


> We are deciding on topics that have logical arguments from both sides.
> 
> Ah, and I see the debating has already begun. I can't wait to start the first round. It should start soon guys.


How has the debating begun? we haven't even got the proper threads up which means by logic our debating has not already started.............:confused05:

Seriously, good luck to all competitors and judges, this tournament should be very interesting both to compete in and read.


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Judokas said:


> How has the debating begun? we haven't even got the proper threads up which means by logic our debating has not already start?.............:confused05:


I meant by jasvll and AS arguing. Calm down bro. LOL.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

brownpimp88 said:


> I meant by jasvll and AS arguing. Calm down bro. LOL.


I was joking mate, i knew what you meant.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Asian Sensation said:


> greatest and unbeatble are not the same thing though as far as accomplishments go no one to date has done what fedor has done if someone were to beat him tomorrow it might not nessarily mean fedor is no longer the greatest it would just mean he is beatable unless that person beating him has amassed accomplishments equal to those of fedor


 According to a strict definition of the word, it is, which is the point of the argument. The 'greatest' is a thing which no other thing can be greater than. Emeliananko is disqualified, by definition.

That is irrelevant to the actual argument, though, which is that it would be impossible to argue that Fedor was not the greatest fighter in the world.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

brownpimp88 said:


> We are deciding on topics that have logical arguments from both sides.
> 
> Ah, and I see the debating has already begun. I can't wait to start the first round. It should start soon guys.


 We're warming up. :thumb02:


----------



## Punishment 101 (May 4, 2006)

too bad i wasnt matched up with the 'asian sensation' right off the bat

anyways this tourny looks very interesting , im looking forward to taking some names starting with my pal hollywood


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Yea guys, so far there are no Fedor questions. But all of the topics can be argued from both sides so dont worry.


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

haha......should be good punishment.......I hope we get something good......im ready to slang those words........lol


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

Punishment 101 said:


> too bad i wasnt matched up with the 'asian sensation' right off the bat
> 
> anyways this tourny looks very interesting , im looking forward to taking some names starting with my pal hollywood


and then hopefully we could argue if tito is washed up cause im sure you'd win :thumbsup: hahahaha


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

jasvll said:


> According to a strict definition of the word, it is, which is the point of the argument. The 'greatest' is a thing which *no other thing can be greater than.* Emeliananko is disqualified, by definition
> 
> That is irrelevant to the actual argument, though, which is that it would be impossible to argue that Fedor was not the greatest fighter in the world.



well then you'd have to tell me about someone who is greater than fedor in terms of fighting that is


----------



## Punishment 101 (May 4, 2006)

sorry if it was mentioned/asked already guys but theres about 11 pages too scroll through, *when does the tournament start ?* thx


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Sure you could:
> If Fedor was the greatest fighter in the world, then it would be impossible for any fighter to beat him, by definition. Fedor has been beaten. Therefore, Fedor can not be the greatest fighter in the world.*
> 
> If in doubt, rely on logic.
> ...


he wasn't beaten, he was given a loss, due to an illegal elbow strike. he had to be given a loss because the fight was part of a tournameant, so a no contest wouldn't have sent someone to the next round. 

and besides, a loss, or more than one loss doesn't mean a fighter isn't the best. it just means the've been beaten. i didn't say invincible. even someone with the best record could have lost, and they would still be considered the best fighter.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> According to a strict definition of the word, it is, which is the point of the argument. The 'greatest' is a thing which no other thing can be greater than. Emeliananko is disqualified, by definition.
> 
> That is irrelevant to the actual argument, though, which is that it would be impossible to argue that Fedor was not the greatest fighter in the world.


but "greatest" is relative. if something, as part of it, has to have an element of "loss" inherent to it, like a fight record, you can still have a "greatest" with a loss. besides, if you just use the word "best" it negates "greates". best doesn't have any inherent implications other than, "among the rest, A is the "best". 

and again, when talking about something like MMA, you do take record into account, as it obviously helps determine rank, and therefore "greatness", but you can have two fighters, one witih one less win than the other, but that guy could still be the "best" in terms of overall skill. in MMA, you can lose, but not be beaten. a disqualification or no contest doesn't involve ability or talent, and therefore while affecting record, doesn't factor into "greaness".


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

pt447 said:


> he wasn't beaten, he was given a loss, due to an illegal elbow strike. he had to be given a loss because the fight was part of a tournameant, so a no contest wouldn't have sent someone to the next round.
> 
> and besides, a loss, or more than one loss doesn't mean a fighter isn't the best. it just means the've been beaten. i didn't say invincible. even someone with the best record could have lost, and they would still be considered the best fighter.


It can be argued that the strike was an illegal blow which should not have resulted in a no contest but disqualification and therefore sending Fedor to the the next round, so it is a bad loss.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Asian Sensation said:


> well then you'd have to tell me about someone who is greater than fedor in terms of fighting that is


 Proving something isn't does not require a proof that something else is.


----------



## Punishment 101 (May 4, 2006)

Punishments 1st Rd predictions in *BOLD*

(1) *pt447*
(16) slamnbam88

(2) Damone
(15) *IcemanCometh*

(3) *WL2FU*
(14) plazzman

(4)* P-101*
(13) Hollywood6655

(5) *TREY B.*
(12) liveson777

(6) asskicker
(11) *Asian Sensation*

(7) *Kameleon*
(10) Judokas

(8) *jasvll*
(9) Wise​


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> he wasn't beaten, he was given a loss, due to an illegal elbow strike. he had to be given a loss because the fight was part of a tournameant, so a no contest wouldn't have sent someone to the next round.


 I'm well aware, but like I said, that decision can't be thrown out anymore than any other decision can be. We don't get to pick and choose, no matter the circumstances. In other words, Nick Diaz hasn't beaten Takanori Gomi.



> and besides, a loss, or more than one loss doesn't mean a fighter isn't the best. it just means the've been beaten. i didn't say invincible. even someone with the best record could have lost, and they would still be considered the best fighter.


 I never argued that he wasn't the best.


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Proving something isn't does not require a proof that something else is.


Absence of evidence does not have to mean evidence of absence.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> but "greatest" is relative.


 If that were true, my argument would be made for me. 


> if something, as part of it, has to have an element of "loss" inherent to it, like a fight record, you can still have a "greatest" with a loss. besides, if you just use the word "best" it negates "greates". best doesn't have any inherent implications other than, "among the rest, A is the "best".


 Losing isn't an inherent part of a fight record. Floyd Mayweather just retired undefeated.



> and again, when talking about something like MMA, you do take record into account, as it obviously helps determine rank, and therefore "greatness", but you can have two fighters, one witih one less win than the other, but that guy could still be the "best" in terms of overall skill. in MMA, you can lose, but not be beaten. a disqualification or no contest doesn't involve ability or talent, and therefore while affecting record, doesn't factor into "greaness".


 All that proves is that 'greatest' is not an appropriate term to use when describing MMA fighters. In other words, 'greatest' isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> I'm well aware, but like I said, that decision can't be thrown out anymore than any other decision can be. We don't get to pick and choose, no matter the circumstances. In other words, Nick Diaz hasn't beaten Takanori Gomi.
> 
> I never argued that he wasn't the best.


oh i know, and i wasn't really saying you were. but, again, just because he has one loss, no matter the circumstances, doesn't make him "not" the "greatest". greatness has relativity. and besides, you could make the claim that Bas is one of the top 5 fighters of all time, and he had losses.

is someone who fights only 10 times and has no losses, a better fighter than someone who fights 15 times and has 1 loss? that's my point.


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

^ Damn, I think we have some top contenders emerging here.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

WouldLuv2FightU said:


> Absence of evidence does not have to mean evidence of absence.


 My statement requires that there be no absence of evidence.


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

so when are we starting?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> If that were true, my argument would be made for me.
> Losing isn't an inherent part of a fight record. Floyd Mayweather just retired undefeated.
> 
> All that proves is that 'greatest' is not an appropriate term to use when describing MMA fighters. In other words, 'greatest' isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.



but without the possibility of defear, his record would be meaningless. but yeah, i understand your point. i guess we just seem to havae contension with the word "greatness". i mean, is fedor not "great" because of his one loss, no matter the circumstances? and would "best" be a better word?

and i'm just curious... is that definition you gave for "greatness" official? not doubting, just never really heard the "official" definition of "greatness". just assumed it was interchangible with "best" and "awsomest" and "superest". lol...

anyway, as one of the judges said--i forget whom--that would be too much of a subjetive question anyway. we'd get into arguing about the definition of the phrasiology rather than the facts of his actual "greatness". 

man, this is gunna be fun!!!


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> My statement requires that there be no absence of evidence.


tricky tricky:confused02:


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

pt447 said:


> oh i know, and i wasn't really saying you were. but, again, just because he has one loss, no matter the circumstances, doesn't make him "not" the "greatest". greatness has relativity. and besides, you could make the claim that Bas is one of the top 5 fighters of all time, and he had losses.
> 
> is someone who fights only 10 times and has no losses, a better fighter than someone who fights 15 times and has 1 loss? that's my point.


It is about performance, if that fighter that fought 10 times and had no losses with the fighter that had 15 fights and 1 loss and the fighter with 0 losses won that does not mean he is a better fighter, it is performance based but if that fighter beat the other fighter 3 times then it is safe to say that one fighter is better then the other.

Lets say Fighter A(10 fights/0 losses) and Fighter B(15 fights/1 loss) have a fight but fighter A is mainly a Muay Thai fighter but Fighter B is mainly a Jiu Jitsu fighter then who is the best overall? even if one fighter wins the match it, the other fighter is better at something that the winner is not. 

Fedor can be called the great, 1 bad loss does not mean he is not great and in my opinion he is the best.


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

well im off work and to bed.....will be back at 0600 to handle my business with P-101...........


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> oh i know, and i wasn't really saying you were. but, again, just because he has one loss, no matter the circumstances, doesn't make him "not" the "greatest". greatness has relativity. and besides, you could make the claim that Bas is one of the top 5 fighters of all time, and he had losses.
> 
> is someone who fights only 10 times and has no losses, a better fighter than someone who fights 15 times and has 1 loss? that's my point.


 I understand your point completely, and I agree with it, until you start using the word 'greatest.' That word has an absolute meaning. It is not relative. 'Great' is relative. 'Greater' is relative, but 'greatest' is absolute, by definition. It requires that not only is nothing else greater than it, but that nothing else has the potential to be greater than it, as well.

The only way to use that word in this context is to disconnect it from its true meaning. In other words, it's an exaggeration.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> but without the possibility of defear, his record would be meaningless. but yeah, i understand your point. i guess we just seem to havae contension with the word "greatness". i mean, is fedor not "great" because of his one loss, no matter the circumstances? and would "best" be a better word?


 I didn't say Fedor wasn't great. 


> and i'm just curious... is that definition you gave for "greatness" official? not doubting, just never really heard the "official" definition of "greatness". just assumed it was interchangible with "best" and "awsomest" and "superest". lol...


 Anything that ends in '-est' has the property of being insurpassable. 'Fattest' means that not only is nothing else on Earth fatter, but that nothing else on Earth has the potential to be fatter. You would have to qualify the statement in some way to weaken the power of '-est.' For example, you could say something is 'Currently the fattest,' or 'The fattest we've seen.'



> anyway, as one of the judges said--i forget whom--that would be too much of a subjetive question anyway. we'd get into arguing about the definition of the phrasiology rather than the facts of his actual "greatness".


 Exactly my point. Words with absolute meanings can't be used to accurately describe things of a relative nature.



> man, this is gunna be fun!!!


 :thumb02:


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> I understand your point completely, and I agree with it, until you start using the word 'greatest.' That word has an absolute meaning. It is not relative. 'Great' is relative. 'Greater' is relative, but 'greatest' is absolute, by definition. It requires that not only is nothing else greater than it, but that nothing else has the potential to be greater than it, as well.
> 
> The only way to use that word in this context is to disconnect it from its true meaning. In other words, it's an exaggeration.


and i agree with you sir... i just think that even with "greatests" set definition, when applying it to varioius things, the uniquness and idiosyncracies of the field must apply. 

in other words, a fighter can be the "greatest" even if he has losses. 

no?

i mean, is greatest synonomous with perfect, or is it relative to the variences (sp?) of each application?

the greatest NASCAR racer could still haved crashed his car...


by the way, it's so refreshing to have a debate with someone intellegent and well equipped! this is gunna be a great little tourny!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> It can be argued that the strike was an illegal blow which should not have resulted in a no contest but disqualification and therefore sending Fedor to the the next round, so it is a bad loss.


 'Should have' is irrelevant when talking about what 'is.'


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

We are still making adjustments. It will def be ready tomorrow. Maybe we can get it going later tonight. I am not sure yet.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> I didn't say Fedor wasn't great.
> Anything that ends in '-est' has the property of being insurpassable. 'Fattest' means that not only is nothing else on Earth fatter, but that nothing else on Earth has the potential to be fatter. You would have to qualify the statement in some way to weaken the power of '-est.' For example, you could say something is 'Currently the fattest,' or 'The fattest we've seen.'
> 
> Exactly my point. Words with absolute meanings can't be used to describe things of a relative nature.
> ...


well, now that i know "greatest" is an absolute... lol

but the thing is, is fattest and greatest the same thing?

someone who is the fattest needs to actually be the largest out of everyone, but the greats doesn't imply not-losing, right? the greatest fighter could still have a loss because being a great fighter, or the greatest has to do with skill, as well as record. but if you compare, like i said, those two people with 10-0 and 15-0 records, who's the best out of the two? is it the 10-0 guy who won every fight by decision, or the 15-1 guy who won ever fight in the first round by sub or ko?

that's why, at least in this example, "greatest" is relative. 

i'm sorry if you covered that, i'm at my friends house, on a laptop and watching TV... i might have missed something...


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jdun11 said:


> We are still making adjustments. It will def be ready tomorrow. Maybe we can get it going later tonight. I am not sure yet.


take all the time you need. the more you hone it, the better this will be. i don't think any of us are going anywhere... lol

by the way, with all the time and effort they're putting into this, is anyone else really getting excited???


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> 'Should have' is irrelevant when talking about what 'is.'


It is a loss but i should have been a win by disqualification by Fedor, it counts as a loss and he was out of the tournament but a bad decision by officials to say Fedor lost does not take anything away from his stature it just puts a bad mark on his record but it does not stop him from being great.

As said before Bas Rutten is considered one of the best ever and he has had losses, Fedor has won every match except one and it was a bad decision to award the fight to the other fighter but that tells you that he is a great fighter and it puts evidence behind it when you look at the fighters Fedor has beaten.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> 'Should have' is irrelevant when talking about what 'is.'


true, but i think he was trying to present a point in hypothetical terms. taking it out of context and discussing it in more unlimited forms.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> and i agree with you sir... i just think that even with "greatests" set definition, when applying it to varioius things, the uniquness and idiosyncracies of the field must apply.
> 
> in other words, a fighter can be the "greatest" even if he has losses.
> 
> no?


 Look at it this way:
Let's say Fedor *is* the greatest fighter in the world, which means no other fighter is greater than him, right? 

Well, how is it possible for a fighter who is not greater than him to beat him? It's not. The word is incompatible with the context.



> i mean, is greatest synonomous with perfect, or is it relative to the variences (sp?) of each application?
> 
> the greatest NASCAR racer could still haved crashed his car...


 But only if he went on to win the race. 

In other words, it is impossible for the greatest to be surpassed by something greater, period. Logically, it's even 'more impossible' for the greatest to be surpassed by something lesser, no? 



> by the way, it's so refreshing to have a debate with someone intellegent and well equipped! this is gunna be a great little tourny!


 'For sure.' -Joe Rogan:thumb02:


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Look at it this way:
> Let's say Fedor *is* the greatest fighter in the world, which means no other fighter is greater than him, right?
> 
> Well, how is it possible for a fighter who is not greater than him to beat him? It's not. The word is incompatible with the context.


It is a bad loss, If the worlds best NASCAR driver was racing and the cars engine blew and he was forced to leave the race...how does that effect him? it doesn't bad things can happen and your not human if you don't but skill means that it happens limited times, Fedor has only had it done once and avenged it later on.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> It is a loss but i should have been a win by disqualification by Fedor, it counts as a loss and he was out of the tournament but a bad decision by officials to say Fedor lost does not take anything away from his stature it just puts a bad mark on his record but it does not stop him from being great.
> 
> As said before Bas Rutten is considered one of the best ever and he has had losses, Fedor has won every match except one and it was a bad decision to award the fight to the other fighter but that tells you that he is a great fighter and it puts evidence behind it when you look at the fighters Fedor has beaten.


 Again, I've never said Fedor wasn't 'great' or that Rutten isn't 'one of the best ever.'


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Again, I've never said Fedor wasn't 'great' or that Rutten isn't 'one of the best ever.'


But you are saying Fedor isn't the best ever and given the terms, who is?


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> It is a bad loss, If the worlds best NASCAR driver was racing and the cars engine blew and he was forced to leave the race...how does that effect him? it doesn't bad things can happen and your not human if you don't but skill means that it happens limited times, Fedor has only had it done once and avenged it later on.


 Nascar is a team sport. The engine blew because that team is not the greatest.

Fedor is not the greatest fighter in the world because his weakness, cuts, limits him. It's no different than weak striking limiting Matt Hughes.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> But you are saying Fedor isn't the best ever and given the terms, who is?


 You didn't even use the term in question. 

Pretending you did, though:
As I said earlier, proving something 'isn't' does not require proving something else 'is.'


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

jasvll said:


> My statement requires that there be no absence of evidence.


I know I was agreeing with you. I was trying to add on to what you said.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Nascar is a team sport. The engine blew because that team is not the greatest.
> 
> Fedor is not the greatest fighter in the world because his weakness, cuts, limits him. It's no different than weak striking limiting Matt Hughes.


That team might not be the greatest but the driver is similiar to Fedor but Fedor still wins.

Who is the greatest fighter to you if Fedor is not?


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> You didn't even use the term in question.
> 
> Pretending you did, though:
> As I said earlier, proving something 'isn't' does not require proving something else 'is.'


The question is simple...

If Fedor is not then who is the greatest MMA fighter?

The famous Greek general Aleksander was called Aleksander the great because of what he had done but he still lost battles whether or not it was fair he still lost and was still called the great because he was great and that is similar to Fedor.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Nascar is a team sport. The engine blew because that team is not the greatest.
> 
> Fedor is not the greatest fighter in the world because his weakness, cuts, limits him. It's no different than weak striking limiting Matt Hughes.


Apples and Oranges


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> That team might not be the greatest but the driver is similiar to Fedor but Fedor still wins.


 If I had any idea what you meant by that, I'd respond with something more appropriate.



> Who is the greatest fighter to you if Fedor is not?


 Again, that's beyond the scope of the argument.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> The question is simple...


..and irrelevant.




> The famous Greek general Aleksander was called Aleksander the great because of what he had done but he still lost battles whether or not it was fair he still lost and was still called the great because he was great and that is similar to Fedor.


 You're confusing 'great' with 'greatest.'


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

jdun11 said:


> Apples and Oranges


 Both are fruits.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> If I had any idea what you meant by that, I'd respond with something more appropriate.
> 
> Again, that's beyond the scope of the argument.


It is not beyond the arguement, You are saying Fedor is not the greatest but you are not saying who is better so how is that a fair point when you have nothing to back it up?

The famous Greek general Aleksander was called Aleksander the great because of what he had done but he still lost battles whether or not it was fair he still lost and was still called the great because he was great and that is similar to Fedor.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

No fighter is flawless jasvll. But Fedor's flaw is the slightest flaw and that is he cuts easily. Whereas someone like Hughes has a major flaw (striking). Fedor's flaw will never cause him to look completely outclassed like Hughes did against GSP.


----------



## Punishment 101 (May 4, 2006)

jdun11 said:


> No fighter is flawless jasvll. But Fedor's flaw is the slightest flaw and that is he cuts easily. Whereas someone like Hughes has a major flaw (striking). Fedor's flaw will never cause him to look completely outclassed like Hughes.


Perfectly said. Jdun wins :thumb02:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> It is not beyond the arguement, You are saying Fedor is not the greatest but you are not saying who is better so how is that a fair point when you have nothing to back it up?


 If I say that Fedor can't fly, does that require that I find someone who can? No. If Fedor fails to live up to the requirements of the word, that doesn't mean I have to point to someone who can.



> The famous Greek general Aleksander was called Aleksander the great because of what he had done but he still lost battles whether or not it was fair he still lost and was still called the great because he was great and that is similar to Fedor.


 You already said that, and it's already been shown to have nothing to do with the topic.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

jdun11 said:


> No fighter is flawless jasvll. But Fedor's flaw is the slightest flaw and that is he cuts easily. Whereas someone like Hughes has a major flaw (striking). Fedor's flaw will never cause him to look completely outclassed like Hughes did against GSP.


 I never claimed it would. I claimed it made him not only beatable, but beatable by less skilled fighters. Are you suggesting that possessing the ability to lose to lesser fighters is a property of the greatest fighter in the world?


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Judokas said:


> It is not beyond the arguement, You are saying Fedor is not the greatest but you are not saying who is better so how is that a fair point when you have nothing to back it up?
> 
> The famous Greek general Aleksander was called Aleksander the great because of what he had done but he still lost battles whether or not it was fair he still lost and was still called the great because he was great and that is similar to Fedor.


ahah u sly dog, u stol my Aleksander the Great anology

*Edit* hahaha, look how I spelled Alexander!! Wow im an MMA addict, I need to get a life


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Punishment 101 said:


> Perfectly said. Jdun wins :thumb02:


 If we review the actual argument, you'll find that I won a long time ago. 

It was said that it was impossible to argue that Fedor was not the greatest fighter in the world. Whether or not I'm right about Fedor being the greatest, wouldn't you agree that I've proven that statement wrong?


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

jasvll said:


> I never claimed it would. I claimed it made him not only beatable, but beatable by less skilled fighters. Are you suggesting that possessing the ability to lose to lesser fighters is a property of the greatest fighter in the world?


Yes he could lose. Anyone could lose. And if Fedor loses, it is obviously going to be someone thought of as a lesser fighter because afterall Fedor IS the greatest fighter :thumbsup:


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> I never claimed it would. I claimed it made him not only beatable, but beatable by less skilled fighters. Are you suggesting that possessing the ability to lose to lesser fighters is a property of the greatest fighter in the world?


Everyone is beatable, Fedor has never been KOed while a great fighter Andrei Arlovski has but that does mean he can be beaten but he is not a great fighter because of that.



jasvll said:


> If I say that Fedor can't fly, does that require that I find someone who can? No. If Fedor fails to live up to the requirements of the word, that doesn't mean I have to point to someone who can.


That is a very different thing because it is obvious no human can fly but humans can fight and if many fighters fight then there has to be a greatest and many say it is Fedor but you are arguing against it but not putting anyone in the number 1 place which means you have nothing to back up your argument. 




jasvll said:


> You already said that, and it's already been shown to have nothing to do with the topic.


It is a comparison, surely you should have realized.


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

jasvll said:



> If I say that Fedor can't fly, does that require that I find someone who can? No. If Fedor fails to live up to the requirements of the word, that doesn't mean I have to point to someone who can.


but greatest is a comparison you can not say something is the greatest without first comparing it to something else and by comparison there is no one with greater accomplishments in mma than fedor being the greatest does not mean you are omnipotent


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

jasvll said:


> If we review the actual argument, you'll find that I won a long time ago.
> 
> It was said that it was impossible to argue that Fedor was not the greatest fighter in the world. Whether or not I'm right about Fedor being the greatest, wouldn't you agree that I've proven that statement wrong?


And its ALLLLLLL OVERRRRRRR!!! jasvll from the brink of defeat ends it all with a quick and devastating blow!!

Well done buddy, well done :thumbsup:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

jdun11 said:


> Yes he could lose. Anyone could lose.


 Which proves that an absolute term like 'greatest' has no meaning in this context. 



> And if Fedor loses, it is obviously going to be someone thought of as a lesser fighter because afterall Fedor IS the greatest fighter :thumbsup:


 Hopefully that was a joke. 'It is because it is' only works in the Bible.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Guys its over. We all said you cant have a debate over Fedor being the greatest fighter. Jasvll said that we coulde and guess what he was right. We have been arguing this for 6-7 pages. We should all kiss his ass now raise01:


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Which proves that an absolute term like 'greatest' has no meaning in this context.
> 
> Hopefully that was a joke. 'It is because it is' only works in the Bible.


Yes it means that Fedor would be the favorite against anyone in the world.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Well done jasvill.

For now i have a huge training session ahead of me with weights, cardio, conditioning and more so i will have to go now but i will be back on later.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

jdun11 said:


> Guys its over. We all said you cant have a debate over Fedor being the greatest fighter. Jasvll said that we coulde and guess what he was right. We have been arguing this for 6-7 pages. We should all kiss his ass now raise01:


 Thank you, Thank you.


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

im impressed....rep


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> Well done jasvill.
> 
> For now i have a huge training session ahead of me with weights, cardio, conditioning and more so i will have to go now but i will be back on later.


 Enjoy. :thumbsup:

I already did my workout for today, but I'm heading to Hastings. They have an awesome collection of MMA DVDs (even IVC ), and all this MMA talk has put me in the mood.


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Enjoy. :thumbsup:
> 
> I already did my workout for today, but I'm heading to Hastings. They have an awesome collection of MMA DVDs (even IVC ), and all this MMA talk has put me in the mood.


whats ivc?


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

Vale Tudo.

Wandy vs Van Arsdale was fun as hell.


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

damn i'd be screwed if we had to bust out old school mma knowledge


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

Ooh, ooh, I like discussing old MMA.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

They still have those Vale Tudo mathces going on down there too. My buddy in the Army is from Curitiba and he has faught in several of them. He used to train at Chute Box over 3 years ago. I forget his name. We all call him Brazil so Im not sure what his real name is. I will try and find out for you guys. But he told me that sparred with Ninja on a daily basis. I didn't believe him at first but I tried to trick hium and shit and it didnt work. I could tell he wasnt bullshitting.


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

i asked to join 3 times...


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

So pretty much what jasvll's saying is that pretty much nothing can be called "greatest" I think everyone knows what people mean when they say greatest its just equivilent to best. Ive never known anything with est on the end was insurpassable.

But take this for example. Someones the fattest man in the world can you not call him the fattest because people have potential to grow bigger?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Look at it this way:
> Let's say Fedor *is* the greatest fighter in the world, which means no other fighter is greater than him, right?
> 
> Well, how is it possible for a fighter who is not greater than him to beat him? It's not. The word is incompatible with the context.
> ...


so then no fighter can be the greatest? cause everyone is beatable!!!


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Nascar is a team sport. The engine blew because that team is not the greatest.
> 
> Fedor is not the greatest fighter in the world because his weakness, cuts, limits him. It's no different than weak striking limiting Matt Hughes.


what if it blew because a of a quirk in pysics? what if there was just a weak spot in it and it blew, no fault of the team, or the dirver?

and the same can be said for fighters. fighting is certainly a team sport in trainig. when a driver is on the course, it's just him. when a fighter is in the ring it's just him. both fighters and racers have teams to help them prepare!


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> If I say that Fedor can't fly, does that require that I find someone who can? No. If Fedor fails to live up to the requirements of the word, that doesn't mean I have to point to someone who can.
> 
> You already said that, and it's already been shown to have nothing to do with the topic.


no, because flying isn't a skill, it would be an attribute. figthing is a skill. and besides, the fact is that you're theory of greatest means that no fighter or any athlete can be the greatest since it is not impossibly to be beaten. except your boxer point, but even then, he just ended his career. he might have lost the very next fight.

and if you say, "it doesn't matter because he didn't", then you are saying that that fighter who is 10-0 is better than a fighter who is 15-1!


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

dutch sauce said:


> i asked to join 3 times...


im wicked sorry bro i just noticed that u asked to be in it...Ill oew for next time


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> If we review the actual argument, you'll find that I won a long time ago.
> 
> It was said that it was impossible to argue that Fedor was not the greatest fighter in the world. Whether or not I'm right about Fedor being the greatest, wouldn't you agree that I've proven that statement wrong?


not really, because "greatest" still has to be relative. you're saying that it can be argued that fedor isn't the greatest fighter because of his loss. and that loss means there is someone capable of being better than him, or that his loss sipmly implies a flaw. but it doesn't. fedor is the best because of his accomlishments, his ability, and his record. what about his avenging his loss, doesn't that cancel out the loss, which wasn't a loss anyway. the fact is that the ref's decision imposed that loss onto fedor's record, and because of that, he can't be the greatest?

i know "greatest" has a definite meaning, but the factors that go into deciding if he's the greatest must come into play.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Sorry, asskicker and pt, show's over.


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Sorry, asskicker and pt, show's over.


Lets not get cocky now


----------



## plazzman (Mar 29, 2007)

sorry, been away for a bit. When does this whole thing begin?
And do we get a quick run through before?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Sorry, asskicker and pt, show's over.


i guess...:confused05:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

asskicker said:


> Lets not get cocky now


 Just a joke there, asskicker (if that's not cocky name, I don't know what is )


----------



## Slamnbam88 (Oct 23, 2006)

can u pm topics...or at least edit them into the 1st post


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Just a joke there, asskicker (if that's not cocky name, I don't know what is )


I know I probably shouldve added a  to my post. I meant nothing by it. I was just jokin around


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

Question for who all knows the whats and the whens of the debates, where can us fellow forum users see the debates as they take place and all that good jazz? for this is something i would really like to watch unfold.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

also, was it cleared up about how they would be separated? like, each round and each pairing has their own thred for each topic? that's prolly best to keep it all clear and unjumbled. also, shouldn't other posters not be allowed to post in it? just keeping it the two people debating, at least until the round is over or something!


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

It would be nice if they could find a way to just have the 2 post in it but let everyone view the progress. I think it would get ruined very quickly if they let all of us post in your debate threads. It will be nice to see honest debating without post containing the maturity level of "your mom" insults.


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

im guessing by all these posts that it hasnt started yet......any word yet????????


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Hollywood6655 said:


> im guessing by all these posts that it hasnt started yet......any word yet????????


I think you had left by the time it was announced it should start today as I don't believe it got started last night, which was another option.


----------



## T.B. (Jul 4, 2006)

Eh Debate Brass...

I'm gonna be picking up more hours at work it looks like, so I'm gonna go ahead and tell you to replace me with who you see fit. Whomever you might have passed up...

Thank you sirs.


----------



## murrayjb (Oct 17, 2006)

I suppose i'll give it a shot if you have any spots left.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

The last spot is going to dutch sauce. He asked like a million times and me and BP missed it. The debate will start at 3:00 PM ET on Friday. It is taking longer because we want it to look real good. Trust me guys it will be worth te wait :thumbsup:

P.S. The seedings have changed and a couple matchups are different. Check it out to see where your at.


----------



## Slamnbam88 (Oct 23, 2006)

i have to be on my way to richmond at 530 on friday...and ill be gone til sat night...if i can make a preliminary statement friday and respond sat night.sun am...then im still down


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Slamnbam88 said:


> i have to be on my way to richmond at 530 on friday...and ill be gone til sat night...if i can make a preliminary statement friday and respond sat night.sun am...then im still down


thats fine, noone is going to be able to be on this site all the time. If one participant is taking long to respond we might have to drag out the debate an extra day.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

to jasvll, about your argument:

I said i would not be able to argue that "Fedor is not the greatest fighter". You said that it _is_ possible to do so because since Fedor has a loss on his record, and hense he cannot be the greatest fighter. But "greatest" and "perfect" are not synonyms. Perfection is a quality. Fedor isn't perfect, but he is the greatest (arguably) fighter; his record, along with the fact of his skill and in-ring prowess show that he is. 

Greatness has to be a relative term. There can be a "fattest" man, because if there are no other people fatter than him, he is. just like if there are no other fighters greater than fedor, he is (arguably). a loss on his record doesn't change that because the loss is not a precondition of perfection, as you claim "greatest" has to be. 

Things can be imperfect and still be the best. Beethoven's 9th symphony is considered by many to be the "greatest" piece of music ever written, yet it is full of what would be called "imperfections" or "mistakes" of classical musical theory. Just as some of the best soudning, and best to play, musical instruments are old, beat up, and far from shiny new. but it can still be the "greatest" instrument. the conditions for its greatness are relative to the area of comparrison. 

I couldn't argue that Fedor is not the greatest, because in the relative context of fighting, and in comparrison to all the other fighters, he is (arguably). you took the concept of "greatness" and applied it to a logical syllogism; but since greatness is subjective, as is "best" and "worst", there are not A + B therefore C answers to it. 

What makes Fedor great is what he does in the ring. besides, you took the concept of arguing why something is or isn't great, and made it a static positive or negative. he's great, and he can be argued as the greatest, despite the "imperfection" of his record. your boxer example who retired undefeated might be the best boxer ever, or he might not. is he the "greatest" because of his record, or because of his accomplishments. what if he never lost, but never won a belt? and you never commented--i'm pretty sure--on the fact that, in your logic, someone who is 10-0 is a better fighter than soemone who is 15-1, regardless of accomplishment, simply because he does not have a loss.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

ahahaha pt wont let it go


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> to jasvll, about your argument:
> 
> I said i would not be able to argue that "Fedor is not the greatest fighter". You said that it _is_ possible to do so because since Fedor has a loss on his record, and hense he cannot be the greatest fighter. But "greatest" and "perfect" are not synonyms. Perfection is a quality. Fedor isn't perfect, but he is the greatest (arguably) fighter; his record, along with the fact of his skill and in-ring prowess show that he is.
> 
> ...


 You could save a lot of time by just posting, 'I missed the point.'


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

pt447 said:


> to jasvll, about your argument:
> 
> I said i would not be able to argue that "Fedor is not the greatest fighter". You said that it _is_ possible to do so because since Fedor has a loss on his record, and hense he cannot be the greatest fighter. But "greatest" and "perfect" are not synonyms. Perfection is a quality. Fedor isn't perfect, but he is the greatest (arguably) fighter; his record, along with the fact of his skill and in-ring prowess show that he is.
> 
> ...


YES!! Get him pt!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

asskicker said:


> YES!! Get him pt!


 How does continuing to argue prove that the claim can't be argued?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> You could save a lot of time by just posting, 'I missed the point.'


i don't believe in hinging my arguments on less than two sentences.


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

jasvll said:


> How does continuing to argue prove that the claim can't be argued?


Its not the fact hes continuing to argue its the fact that hes right. I think it would be somewhat possible to argue he isnt the greatest. It would be a bad arguement but and arguement none the less. But if you admit he's the best then he is the greatest. Greatest=best


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> How does continuing to argue prove that the claim can't be argued?


is this like the 12th time or something where you're response is some clever statement and reversal of the same statement?

i have a feeling you're trying to inject way too much logic, and make things way to simplistic. not every argument comes down to logical syllogisms. the true test of an argument is how it holds up to fallacies. syllogisms can be logically correct but incorrect in the context of the argument. 

example:

A + B = C, B + C = D, so A = D.

but, cats purr, cats are mammals, all mammals purr.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

asskicker said:


> Its not the fact hes continuing to argue its the fact that hes right. I think it would be somewhat possible to argue he isnt the greatest. It would be a bad arguement but and arguement none the less. But if you admit he's the best then he is the greatest. Greatest=best


remember, i said i wouldn't be able to argue that fedor isn't the greatest fighter, and jasvll went on some psudo-logical rant about how the concept of greatness implies perfection... or something like that.

jasvll missed the entire point of my inquiry!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> i don't believe in hinging my arguments on less than two sentences.


 If none of them address the actual argument, what good are they?


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

asskicker said:


> Its not the fact hes continuing to argue its the fact that hes right.


 Being right or wrong is not relevant in a debate.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> remember, i said i wouldn't be able to argue that fedor isn't the greatest fighter, and jasvll went on some psudo-logical rant about how the concept of greatness implies perfection... or something like that.
> 
> jasvll missed the entire point of my inquiry!


 Do you need me to pretend that's true, or is it okay if only you, and perhaps 'asskicker' pretend it is?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

Negation, is this you?


----------



## Slamnbam88 (Oct 23, 2006)

shall we use ethos pathos or logos to keep this debate fire going

all hail aristotle


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Oops, didn't realize I triple posted. I'm going to hell, for sure.


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Being right or wrong is not relevant in a debate.


he is right, a "great debater" is someone who can succesfully argue an oppinion, that they don't agree with.


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Wow you guys are heating up man. Well save it for when we start man.


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

when is this starten?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

robb2140 said:


> he is right, a "great debater" is someone who can succesfully argue an oppinion, that they don't agree with.


that's true... but is that what this tourny is going to be about? and besides, that's why i never saw any value in the debate teams and such. what's the value in debating a false claim, especially if you don't believe it. that just means you'll have a great career in politics.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

brownpimp88 said:


> Wow you guys are heating up man. Well save it for when we start man.


the fire never dies down!!!


----------



## Slamnbam88 (Oct 23, 2006)

robb2140 said:


> he is right, a "great debater" is someone who can succesfully argue an oppinion, that they don't agree with.



dont you mean a masta 'bater...bwahaha.


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

pt447 said:


> that's true... but is that what this tourny is going to be about? and besides, that's why i never saw any value in the debate teams and such. what's the value in debating a false claim, especially if you don't believe it. that just means you'll have a great career in politics.


I know it's harder to sell something that you don't actually believe in, but that is kinda the point of debates. It's too easy if you are always debating a topic that you strongly believe in. 

bieng able to make a strong case for something that you know is BS is actually a useful skill.


----------



## plazzman (Mar 29, 2007)

Jeez when does this thing start, I just signed out the "Celestine Prophecies" and "The measure of Man", theyre due back soon, HURRY!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> that's true... but is that what this tourny is going to be about? and besides, that's why i never saw any value in the debate teams and such. what's the value in debating a false claim, especially if you don't believe it.


 It gives you the ability to recognize BS in all its forms.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Good luck to Wise and all other competitors and judges.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

robb2140 said:


> I know it's harder to sell something that you don't actually believe in, but that is kinda the point of debates. It's too easy if you are always debating a topic that you strongly believe in.
> 
> bieng able to make a strong case for something that you know is BS is actually a useful skill.


i know... i just find no value in it. when in life would you have to do your best to present an argument against something you believe? aside from being a defense attourny...


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> It gives you the ability to recognize BS in all its forms.


understanding logic, and logical fallacies does that... not debating for something you don't believe in...

careful observation and critical thinking skills help you recognize BS, not whether or not you can defend the position that the sun revolves around the moon!


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

ever worked in an office where sometimes the lesser of two evils is the better choice for the company and you?


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> understanding logic, and logical fallacies does that... not debating for something you don't believe in...


 Where do those skills come from? 




> careful observation and critical thinking skills help you recognize BS, not whether or not you can defend the position that the sun revolves around the moon!


 You seem to have trouble seeing things from any perspective other than your own. While one guy is presenting a carefully structured defense of a false position, what's the other guy doing?

Hint: He's learning.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> You seem to have trouble seeing things from any perspective other than your own. While one guy is presenting a carefully structured defense of a false position, what's the other guy doing?
> 
> Hint: He's learning.


that really didn't have anything to do with anything...


anyway... i have some plans tomarrow night, so i prolly won't get a chance to even look at the whole official thing until saturday... i'm kinda pissed about this, but i'll have to make due...


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Where do those skills come from?
> 
> You seem to have trouble seeing things from any perspective other than your own. While one guy is presenting a carefully structured defense of a false position, what's the other guy doing?
> 
> Hint: He's learning.


those things help you to argue, it's not the other way around.

and also, if you don't believe you're beliefs are right, what's the point of arguing. it just depends on if you back your beliefs up with evidence or more "belief". statements backed up can be taken as fact, while statements of belief must always be written of. 

if you can't prove something, or at least present an argument to back up what you say, there's no point!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> those things help you to argue, it's not the other way around.


 You've skpped the question. Where do those skills come from?



> and also, if you don't believe you're beliefs are right, what's the point of arguing. it just depends on if you back your beliefs up with evidence or more "belief". statements backed up can be taken as fact, while statements of belief must always be written of.


 Beliefs rely on faith, not fact, by definition.



> if you can't prove something, or at least present an argument to back up what you say, there's no point!


 Now you're agreeing with me?  You obviously don't have to think something is the case to present an argument that suggests that it is. You're making an arbitrary requirement of a personal investment in a side, which runs contrary to the very skills you say are requisites for critical thought. If you can only argue for things you 'believe' in, your judgment will always be clouded, and your ability to recognize when your 'beliefs' have caused you to side with something false (new evidence, error in accepted evidence) will be diminished.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> You've skpped the question. Where do those skills come from?


you're asking me where logic and reason come from? well, first off, they're not skills, they're naturally occuring states of mind and comprehension. we just have to fight to get through all the indoctrination and learn to think with reason. 

you use reason to form arguments, and you prove your arguments with logic. you're asking me the chicken/egg question.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> You've skpped the question. Where do those skills come from?
> 
> Beliefs rely on faith, not fact, by definition.
> 
> Now you're agreeing with me?  You obviously don't have to think something is the case to present an argument that suggests that it is. You're making an arbitrary requirement of a personal investment in a side, which runs contrary to the very skills you say are requisites for critical thought. If you can only argue for things you 'believe' in, your judgment will always be clouded and your ability to recognize when your 'beliefs' have caused you to side with a lie will be diminished.


yes beliefs come from faith... but if you don't back up your beliefs, then they don't have a chance of holding up. i believe science, but that's only because of the mountains of irrifutible evidence. 

in the second part... i see what you're saying. but you're basically saying that one can never argue for something they believe. you have to be able to back up what you believe. if i try and argue for something i don't believe, i'm not really being true. i argue for what i "believe" because of the reasons i believe it. i can't argue for something i don't believe, because if i find no evidence to support it, and i don't "believe" it, i can't make a good argument for it. 

i guess what i'm saying is that you can only really argue for what you believe. being able to argue for something you don't believe doesn't make any sense. it's illogical.


_You obviously don't have to think something is the case to present an argument that suggests that it is._

it sounds like you're saying you _can_ logically argue for something you don't believe. if i don't believe something, how am i supposed to find evidence to support it?

and this has nothing to do with seeing other sides of arguments. i do my best to only make statements i can back up, or find precedent for. those things make me "believe" what i'm trying to argue for. if i don't believe something, i can't find any evidence sufficient to support it!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> you're asking me where logic and reason come from? well, first off, they're not skills, they're naturally occuring states of mind and comprehension. we just have to fight to get through all the indoctrination and learn to think with reason.


 There's no refuge from reason in philosophy. If these 'states of mind' are 'naturally occurring,' where did the 'indoctrination' come from?



> you use reason to form arguments, and you prove your arguments with logic. you're asking me the chicken/egg question.


 No, I'm not. I'm asking you how is it possible to recognize 'BS' without knowledge of it? If our natural state is 'BS' proof (as you say, we already possess what's required to identify it) as you claim, how can we be indoctrinated in the first place?


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

pt447 said:


> i know... i just find no value in it. when in life would you have to do your best to present an argument against something you believe? aside from being a defense attourny...


I'm a stockbroker, which is not quite as slimy as a defense attorney, but I use those sort of skills on a daily basis.


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

IcemanCometh said:


> ever worked in an office where sometimes the lesser of two evils is the better choice for the company and you?


I know a thing or two about that


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

Ok Even though I like reading the banter going on between these two (I actually do) 

I was wondering if you guys were going to start this thing off anytime. This thread really interest me and I would like to see the debates unfold 

To Judges:
after a few of the debates unfold and this thing gets really underway you should give them topics that you know both there positions on and switch it so both have to debate for the other side of their beliefs


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> There's no refuge from reason in philosophy. If these 'states of mind' are 'naturally occurring,' where did the 'indoctrination' come from?
> 
> No, I'm not. I'm asking you how is it possible to recognize 'BS' without knowledge of it? If our natural state is 'BS' proof (as you say, we already possess what's required to identify it) as you claim, how can we be indoctrinated in the first place?



reason is natural. lots of animals have powers of reason to varying degrees. ever see an octopus open a jar to get food? the indoctrination i am talking about is most due to religion, but also society and how it shapes our thinking for most of our lives. we are taught that our parents know best. we are taught not to think too deeply about things, etc... at some point, people start to think deeper into things, and through that inquiry comes the use of logic. when you fully embrace logic--which is the basic tenet of science--you break free of indoctrination and become a free thinker.

good point on the second part. in fact, there are people doing research on the subject right now, such as sam harris, who is getting his doctorate in some sort of phsycics to understand why we tend towards beliefs that go against reason. but, in the short term, the whole point of indoctrination is to break us of the "habbit" of reason and inquiry. doesn't religion and religious schooling tell us repeatedly not to think certain ways, not to ask certian quesitons, and to accept "because" as the best answer? we force our natural wonder into submission by makeing our children believe traditional beliefs. many people never break free. many people do. we have to rediscover our inherent reason, and only then can we embrace logic.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

robb2140 said:


> I'm a stockbroker, which is not quite as slimy as a defense attorney, but I use those sort of skills on a daily basis.


you argue against your beliefs? please explain further, i'm interested in this.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

massage__dancer said:


> Ok Even though I like reading the banter going on between these two (I actually do)
> 
> I was wondering if you guys were going to start this thing off anytime. This thread really interest me and I would like to see the debates unfold
> 
> ...


they posted, some time ago, that it would start 3 PM on friday, or something like that!

as for you "to the judges" note. i'm curious. have they said it would be an official "debate" challenge in the sense of having to argue for or against something you might not believe? or will it be something different. i might have missed that specific. but i'm just wondering...


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> yes beliefs come from faith... but if you don't back up your beliefs, then they don't have a chance of holding up. i believe science, but that's only because of the mountains of irrifutible evidence.


 You don't believe science. You simply accept what you observe. Beliefs often coincide with observation, but they are not bound by it. 



> in the second part... i see what you're saying. but you're basically saying that one can never argue for something they believe. you have to be able to back up what you believe. if i try and argue for something i don't believe, i'm not really being true. i argue for what i "believe" because of the reasons i believe it. i can't argue for something i don't believe, because if i find no evidence to support it, and i don't "believe" it, i can't make a good argument for it.


 Luke: 'I don't believe it.'
Yoda: 'That is why you fail'




> i guess what i'm saying is that you can only really argue for what you believe. being able to argue for something you don't believe doesn't make any sense. it's illogical.


 And, as I've told you already, 'belief' and 'logic' are at opposite ends of the spectrum.





> it sounds like you're saying you _can_ logically argue for something you don't believe. if i don't believe something, how am i supposed to find evidence to support it?


 Let's pretend you're pro-life. You think abortion is wrong (not for religious reasons: killing a human is wrong|abortion kills a fetus|a fetus is a human| therefore abortion is wrong), but you want to present an argument that suggests that it isn't, so you build an argument around context. Is it wrong to abort a fetus born of ****? Is it wrong to save a mother's life at the expense of a child's? If capital murder is sanctioned by the state, why can't it sanction abortion? 

As I said earlier, if you can't divorce yourself from your personal stance, you weaken your ability to find the holes in the things you accept as truth and it's easier to end up relying on faith (belief) rather than reason. 

Not to mention, it diminishes your ability to understand why someone might have accepted a position opposite of yours. An inability to empathize is the source of countless conflicts.





> and this has nothing to do with seeing other sides of arguments. i do my best to only make statements i can back up, or find precedent for. those things make me "believe" what i'm trying to argue for. if i don't believe something, i can't find any evidence sufficient to support it!


 And you're not at all interested in understanding why someone else might 'believe' the opposite conclusion as fervently as you believe yours? You don't think that understanding what better prepare you to counter arguments against what you do 'believe?'


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

pt447 said:


> and this has nothing to do with seeing other sides of arguments. i do my best to only make statements i can back up, or find precedent for. those things make me "believe" what i'm trying to argue for. if i don't believe something, i can't find any evidence sufficient to support it!


That's a matter of your personal morals.

I can argue for something I don't believe in with conviction. the motavational force would generally be $$$$$ or to gain the upper hand in a situation, or for the purpose of debate.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> You don't believe science. You simply accept what you observe. Beliefs often coincide with observation, but they are not bound by it.
> 
> Luke: 'I don't believe it.'
> Yoda: 'That is why you fail'
> ...


that's simply not true. and empathy has nothing to do with being able to argue against something you believe. 

and i am interested why someone might believe something i don't. you're making blanket claims. i am always interested to know why people believe what they do. but i will always let them know if their beliefs go against established fact and precedent. 

you took a giant leap from the discussion and somehow came about the conclusion that i am incapable of empathy because i refuse to accept "beliefs" over proof?

and again, you assume i have no interest in other people's reasons for contrary belief. i don't know how you got that from anything i've said. in fact, i require knowledge of what you believe, in order to better build my argument. but that has no thing to do with the "ability" to say what i dont' believe. 

i guess i'm saying that i "could" argue any point i was charged with, i just wouldn't "believe" it neccessarily. so, aside from a "debate" challenge, i see no value in it.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

robb2140 said:


> That's a matter of your personal morals.
> 
> I can argue for something I don't believe in with conviction. the motavational force would generally be $$$$$ or to gain the upper hand in a situation, or for the purpose of debate.


i understand this. but for me, i just could never argue against what i believe, for any reason. maybe this is the root of what i'm saying. i refuse to compromise my beliefs for any reason. aside for like, saving a loved ones life... "sure, i believe in god, just don't kill my daughter", or something like that. 

it has yet to be proven to me that being able to argue against what i believe is a virtue, other than for monetary or other material gain. i.e., biting the bullet and saying what needs to be said...


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> reason is natural. lots of animals have powers of reason to varying degrees. ever see an octopus open a jar to get food? the indoctrination i am talking about is most due to religion, but also society and how it shapes our thinking for most of our lives. we are taught that our parents know best. we are taught not to think too deeply about things, etc... at some point, people start to think deeper into things, and through that inquiry comes the use of logic. when you fully embrace logic--which is the basic tenet of science--you break free of indoctrination and become a free thinker.


 That's an answer to a question I didn't ask. I'm asking you, if 'indoctrination-free' is our natural state, how did our parents become indocrinated? How did their parents? How did their grandparents? Etc. I'm not asking for a clarification of the indoctrinating forces.




> good point on the second part. in fact, there are people doing research on the subject right now, such as sam harris, who is getting his doctorate in some sort of phsycics to understand why we tend towards beliefs that go against reason. but, in the short term, the whole point of indoctrination is to break us of the "habbit" of reason and inquiry. doesn't religion and religious schooling tell us repeatedly not to think certain ways, not to ask certian quesitons, and to accept "because" as the best answer? we force our natural wonder into submission by makeing our children believe traditional beliefs. many people never break free. many people do. we have to rediscover our inherent reason, and only then can we embrace logic.


 That's a wonderful Plato's Cave/Alice in Wonderland/The Matrix/1984/Logan's Run/Star Wars/Lohengrin way of thinking, but it doesn't get around the most basic question: 

If all these indoctrinating forces exist today, they had to come into existence some time in the past. If unindoctrinated is indeed the natural state of all mankind, where did the unnatural force come from?

As you said, research is being done that hopes to answer that question, but until science can answer that question, the only way to accept that way of thinking is to believe it, and belief is the opposite of reason.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> That's an answer to a question I didn't ask. I'm asking you, if 'indoctrination-free' is our natural state, how did our parents become indocrinated? How did their parents? How did their grandparents? Etc. I'm not asking for a clarification of the indoctrinating forces.
> 
> 
> That's a wonderful Plato's Cave/Alice in Wonderland/The Matrix/1984/Logan's Run/Star Wars/Lohengrin way of thinking, but it doesn't get around the most basic question:
> ...



_That's an answer to a question I didn't ask. I'm asking you, if 'indoctrination-free' is our natural state, how did our parents become indocrinated? How did their parents? How did their grandparents? Etc. I'm not asking for a clarification of the indoctrinating forces.
_

good question. indoctrination slowly began as people found the need to control other people. that, and as we began to wonder about nature and life, we came up with "answers", or what passed as awnsers before true scientific inquiry. but eventually, those religious beliefs because a way to controll people. and the best way to control people is to tell them what to think; often under the threat of force, pain, death, or eternal damnation. indoctrination developed as society developed. we are now, and have been for a while, at a poitn where we can break free of our traditional beliefs and forge new understandings of reality. the problem is that traditional indoctrination is so engrained in our societies that it is hard to break free. 

essentially, if you never tell someone what to think--if you you had a person in a vaccum sort of thing--they couldn't be indoctrinated. indoctrination is the impossition of belief without the possibility of discovering truth for oneself. i.e., religion. religion was science before science, and it shaped our society. things happens slow. we are evolving mentally to understand more about our world through science, and it is hard to accept for the majority of people who take comfort in simply "knowing" the answers because they were told them.

and i fully agree that belief is the opposite of reason. i say that all the time. but "belief" as in the belief in science, isn't simply faith/belief. it is "belief" backed with proof and repeatable testibility. simply believeing because you were told to doesn't hold up. God only exists because we accept that he does. people refuse to believe in evolution because it doesn't fit what they "believe". science takes belief out of the equation because it an be seen again and again, tested, and expanded on!


and on that note... time for a little xbox LIVE and then sleep! 

like i said before, i might not be on again till saturday. so we'll continue this then, and i'll jump into the debate tourny as soon as i'm able!!!!


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

pt447 said:


> you argue against your beliefs? please explain further, i'm interested in this.


THIS POST WAS DELETED BY ROBB2140


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> that's simply not true. and empathy has nothing to do with being able to argue against something you believe.


 Saying something isn't true is not the equivalent of proving it to be false.



> and i am interested why someone might believe something i don't. you're making blanket claims. i am always interested to know why people believe what they do. but i will always let them know if their beliefs go against established fact and precedent.


 What if what you believe goes against established precedent, and fact and they're simply doing you the favor of pointing that out to you?



> you took a giant leap from the discussion and somehow came about the conclusion that i am incapable of empathy because i refuse to accept "beliefs" over proof?


 That's simply not true, even though you believe it to be.

What I actually said is that a personal investment in something being true limits your ability to recognize whether that something actually is true. 

I also said that that limited state in turn diminishes your ability to empathize.

I then said that an inability to empathize is the source of countless conflicts.

At no point did I accuse you of an inability to empathize, regardless of your belief that I did. 

See how belief and reason can conflict if you're not careful?





> and again, you assume i have no interest in other people's reasons for contrary belief.


 I asked two questions. I made no assumptions. 


> i don't know how you got that from anything i've said. in fact, irequire knowledge of what you believe, in order to better build my argument.but that has no thing to do with the "ability" to say what i dont' believe.


 Sure it does. The ability to construct an argument contrary to what you've accepted to be true (not a belief) proves that you possess a thorough understanding of the entire picture, and aren't being led astray by personal bias.



> i guess i'm saying that i "could" argue any point i was charged with, i just wouldn't "believe" it neccessarily.


 Now you're getting it. 



> so, aside from a "debate" challenge, i see no value in it.


 A better way to phrase that would be, 'I choose not to see any value in it.'


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

In simple terms, i tell people what they want to hear inorder to make a sale, even if I don't believe in it.

ex. A car salesman, these guys will tell you that the car is perfect, meanwhile it is a piece of shit and they know it.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

well, i guess we agree to dissagree because i just don't "believe" what you're saying. lol...


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

robb2140 said:


> In simple terms, i tell people what they want to hear inorder to make a sale, even if I don't believe in it.
> 
> ex. A car salesman, these guys will tell you that the car is perfect, meanwhile it is a piece of shit and they know it.


fine, so it's possible, i just don't see how it has any value other than in making money. being able to argue against your beliefs, or what you know is true, doesn't make you more capable of empathizing with others. that just makes no sense. i was more arguing, in retrospect, that it is worthless to argue against your beliefs, than whether or not it is possible. but the problem is, how are you to prove, for example that Fedor isn't the greatest fighter, when all evidence points to the fact that he is? are we to get back into a debate whether or not his loss disqualifies him? 

that was the central point to my whole stand against "arguing against belief--or in other cases fact. 

empathy comes from human compassion. conflict arrises when one side believes they are so right that other's lives are worth taking for that beliefs. empathy is the ability to do what's right no matter belief. 

would you let someone die in front of you that you know just killed someone? or would you trust in a higher justice system to find him guilty and provide adequet(sp?) punishment? 

that's empathy.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> good question. indoctrination slowly began as people found the need to control other people.


 Why would someone in an unindoctrinated state acquire a need to control anyone else (I have my own ideas about that, but you first)?

(I left out the rest because I've been playing devil's advocate for awhile. I'm familiar with the fear <--> control relationship)



> essentially, if you never tell someone what to think--if you you had a person in a vaccum sort of thing--they couldn't be indoctrinated. indoctrination is the impossition of belief without the possibility of discovering truth for oneself. i.e., religion. religion was science before science, and it shaped our society. things happens slow. we are evolving mentally to understand more about our world through science, and it is hard to accept for the majority of people who take comfort in simply "knowing" the answers because they were told them.


 Your unindoctrinated state theory requires that science come before religion. If you've already answered this question above, you don't need to answer it again here, but why would someone in an unindoctrinated state acquire a need to control anyone else?



> and i fully agree that belief is the opposite of reason. i say that all the time. but "belief" as in the belief in science, isn't simply faith/belief. it is "belief" backed with proof and repeatable testibility.


 That's an abuse of the word, though. It's the equivalent of the slang of using 'bad' when you mean 'good,' with a more precarious obfuscation. 


> simply believeing because you were told to doesn't hold up. God only exists because we accept that he does. people refuse to believe in evolution because it doesn't fit what they "believe". science takes belief out of the equation because it an be seen again and again, tested, and expanded on!


 You say that as if you think I haven't been telling you this for the past dozen posts. 




> and on that note... time for a little xbox LIVE and then sleep!


 Enjoy


> like i said before, i might not be on again till saturday. so we'll continue this then, and i'll jump into the debate tourny as soon as i'm able!!!!


 :thumbsup:


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

pt447 said:


> fine, so it's possible, i just don't see how it has any value other than in making money. being able to argue against your beliefs, or what you know is true, doesn't make you more capable of empathizing with others. that just makes no sense.
> 
> empathy comes from human compassion. conflict arrises when one side believes they are so right that other's lives are worth taking for that beliefs. empathy is the ability to do what's right no matter belief.
> 
> ...


what does empathy and compassion have to do with misrepresenting something?


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

pt447 said:


> fine, so it's possible, i just don't see how it has any value other than in making money. being able to argue against your beliefs, or what you know is true, doesn't make you more capable of empathizing with others. that just makes no sense. i was more arguing, in retrospect, that it is worthless to argue against your beliefs, than whether or not it is possible. but the problem is, how are you to prove, for example that Fedor isn't the greatest fighter, when all evidence points to the *fact* that he is? are we to get back into a debate whether or not his loss disqualifies him?
> 
> that was the central point to my whole stand against "arguing against belief--or in other cases fact.
> 
> ...




that's a dangerous word. "Fedor is the greatest fighter" is an oppinion and not a fact.

How do you know that there is a fighter that you have never heard of, that is greater than Fedor. Could be in the Jungles of Africa or in the Amazon rainforest.

Chances are unlikely, but it is possible.


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

that is just an opionon that some of us believe


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Debate starts 3:00 PM ET on Friday


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jdun11 said:


> Debate starts 3:00 PM ET on Friday


In 3 hours or a full day? i have no idea what the time difference is.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> In 3 hours or a full day? i have no idea what the time difference is.


 You do realize that there's a world of information at your fingertips, right?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Why would someone in an unindoctrinated state acquire a need to control anyone else (I have my own ideas about that, but you first)?
> 
> (I left out the rest because I've been playing devil's advocate for awhile. I'm familiar with the fear <--> control relationship)
> 
> ...


what science has to reveal arleady exists before we find it. and as for someone wanting to indoctrinate... its for control... why does anything else have to start that? the aquiring of need to control is out of neccessity. why would you ask me why someone would choose to control people??? pepole want control for selfish reasons. indoctrination comes after the attempt to retain control.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

robb2140 said:


> that's a dangerous word. "Fedor is the greatest fighter" is an oppinion and not a fact.
> 
> How do you know that there is a fighter that you have never heard of, that is greater than Fedor. Could be in the Jungles of Africa or in the Amazon rainforest.
> 
> Chances are unlikely, but it is possible.


you can't say something like that. that's impossible to know, and irrelevent. the statement "Fedor is the greatest fighter" is made out of the know fighters. that's just obvious. 

how do you know someone is the fattest... maybe there's a fatter guy in the jungle too?!


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> You do realize that there's a world of information at your fingertips, right?


I can't look that far.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Ok i know when it starts although i might be a bit late because it is so early but not to late.


----------



## Robb2140 (Oct 21, 2006)

pt447 said:


> you can't say something like that. that's impossible to know, and irrelevent. the statement "Fedor is the greatest fighter" is made out of the know fighters. that's just obvious.
> 
> how do you know someone is the fattest... maybe there's a fatter guy in the jungle too?!


but it is not impossible. extremely unlikely, but still a .0000000001% chance. So you do not know for sure.

You could also apply the "styles make fights" argument to that as well. Although that would be tough to prove, it is arguable.

There could be other intelligent life in the solar system, but do you know for fact?


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> what science has to reveal arleady exists before we find it.


 Who suggested otherwise?


> and as for someone wanting to indoctrinate... its for control...


 Yes, we already talked abou that.


> why does anything else have to start that? the aquiring of need to control is out of neccessity.


 What necessity? 
Everyone was in their natural state, according to you. They were unindoctrinated. Why would they develop a need to leave the natural state for the unnatural? There is no cause.

Also, you describe the control as 'necessary.' Wouldn't this make the systems of control themselves the natural state of things?


> why would you ask me why someone would choose to control people??? pepole want control for selfish reasons.


 I didn't ask you why someone would choose to control someone. I asked you why 'unindoctrinated' people would *need* to control other 'unindoctrinated' people. They would all be in agreement about what was right and wrong. They would all look at the world and see the same thing.



> indoctrination comes after the attempt to retain control.


 You're refusing to address the question: How and why does a person in his natural state leave that natural state without an outside force acting upon them? Your scenario requires a first cause, a prime mover. If everyone was originally unindoctrinated, who and why was the first indoctrinator? And no, 'necessity' is not a valid answer because it would mean that 'unindoctrinated' is a decidedly unnatural state that necessitates change.

I mean, I like this little mix of Greek philosophy and Buddhism you've got going on here, but like any system of control, it's got some holes in it.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> I can't look that far.


 It's always frightening when people choose ignorance over knowledge.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> It's always frightening when people choose ignorance over knowledge.


Its even worse when they say that but do it themselves.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

*The Argument Sketch*

As I sat and read through the pages of "stuff" for lack of a better term at the moment I was reminded of this sketch and not having seen it in a while figured for laughs I would post it, hope you like. Cannot wait till 3:00PM EST today and woe to ever gets these two.
Source:
Argument Sketch



> The Argument Sketch
> From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"
> Originally transcribed by Dan Kay ([email protected])
> Fixed up and Added "Complaint" and "Being Hit On The Head lessons" Aug/ 87
> ...


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

robb2140 said:


> but it is not impossible. extremely unlikely, but still a .0000000001% chance. So you do not know for sure.
> 
> You could also apply the "styles make fights" argument to that as well. Although that would be tough to prove, it is arguable.
> 
> There could be other intelligent life in the solar system, but do you know for fact?


yes yes yes, but in such a discussion, you have to assume that you are speaking about, "out of what is known". otherwise, you could never know anything. we have to make a metaphysical "cut-off" or nothing could ever be proposed with any certainty!


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Who suggested otherwise?
> Yes, we already talked abou that. What necessity?
> Everyone was in their natural state, according to you. They were unindoctrinated. Why would they develop a need to leave the natural state for the unnatural? There is no cause.
> 
> ...


you're funny. you ask me to asnwer questions, then i do, and you're like, "yeah, but duh, but why?" lol...


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> It's always frightening when people choose ignorance over knowledge.


that's true! if you're too lazy to find the answers, then you're accepting ignorance... :confused05:


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

ICEMAN........that was an awesome clip.....repped


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> you're funny. you ask me to asnwer questions, then i do, and you're like, "yeah, but duh, but why?" lol...


 You either answer a different question or give a nonanswer as an answer. For example, I asked you where the need for control came from, and you 'answered' by saying 'from necessity.' In other words, control was needed because it was needed. That's a nonanswer, which is why it was rejected.

The correct answer (or rather, the one that fits the observable evidence), which I was hoping you'd find on your own, is that critical thinking and reasoning beyond the rudimentary are *products* of human interaction and are not our natural states. Critical thinking and reasoning skills beyond basic survival are completely unnecessary in the absence of a complex social construct and *do not exist in that absence*. If the foundation for social interaction isn't laid in early childhood, it becomes almost impossible to *develop* these skills, as the many feral children discovered over the past 100 years have shown. In other words, critical thinking and reason are a *product* of indoctrination into an advanced society, not a *casualty* of it. 

That being said, the development of these skills will be limited to some degree by the rigidity of the society doing the indoctrinating, but indoctrination can only limit the *potential* of these skills, it doesn't remove something that is already there.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

If Pt and Jasvil make it to the finals I think the question should be: In a fight who wins Fedor or Jesus? Pick a guy and go with it. 

Quick recap:

Is Fedor the greatest?
Why we debate
How good is logic in an arguement
Now we are up to why we control each other

Did I miss anything?

This is another in the line of jokes trying to break up the thread that is going and going and going.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> We have covered why Fedor cannot be considered great.


 No we haven't.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Sorry I should have said:
Is Fedor the greatest? And why or why not.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> Sorry I should have said:
> Is Fedor the greatest?


 :thumb02:


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

jasvll said:


> It's always frightening when people choose ignorance over knowledge.


Your just a smart ass who uses big complex terms that arent needed half the time and thinks hes right about everything. Its rather annoying.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

asskicker said:


> Your just a smart ass who uses big complex terms that arent needed half the time and thinks hes right about everything. Its rather annoying.


You just figured that out?:laugh:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

asskicker said:


> Your just a smart ass who uses big complex terms that arent needed half the time


 Good thing I'm around for that other half, though, right? 



> and thinks hes right about everything.


 Not everything.



> Its rather annoying.


 I'm not going to get :bye02: by the 'asskicker' am I? 

And may I ask, what are you 'the second coming' of?



IcemanCometh said:


> You just figured that out?:laugh:


 It takes some longer than others. For example, Simon Pheonix's threads are always filled to the top.


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

IcemanCometh said:


> You just figured that out?:laugh:


Not at all. I just now said it is all.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Its getttin hot in hurrr


----------



## Punishment 101 (May 4, 2006)

Jdun is each matchup going to have its own individual thread ? 


Also will the threads be in this forum or the mmaforum lounge ? thx bud


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Punishment 101 said:


> Jdun is each matchup going to have its own individual thread ?
> 
> 
> Also will the threads be in this forum or the mmaforum lounge ? thx bud


yes they will and they are going to be posted very shortly in this section


----------



## ozz525 (Oct 5, 2006)

Lets make a NCAA Bracket style thing where people pick the whole torney. Winner get 20,000 points.
What do u guys think?


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

*Me and Asian Sensation got a good questions, I'm just waiting for him to choose which side.*


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

asskicker said:


> Your just a smart ass who uses big complex terms that arent needed half the time and thinks hes right about everything. Its rather annoying.


he's just as bad as negation. trying to create circular logic to win an argument. and worse... when i do answer his questions, he just says, "well, that's not an answer". lol


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Alright guys, let's try to keep it friendly. Settle it if you guys ever face each other.


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

pt447 said:


> he's just as bad as negation. trying to create circular logic to win an argument. and worse... when i do answer his questions, he just says, "well, that's not an answer". lol


i really hope you two get to face eachother later haha


----------



## e-thug (Jan 18, 2007)

Well I thought Id comment on what I have seen so far, Judokas Vs Wise is gonna get heated up hear pretty quick, but Im really lookin forward to Damone Vs Icemancometh.

Both have presented excellent opening statements and cant wait for them to pick eachother apart.


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

sry if it been said already..... to many post to look thogh

when does the arguments start??


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

liveson777 said:


> sry if it been said already..... to many post to look thogh
> 
> when does the arguments start??


Approx. an hour and a half ago.


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

Judokas said:


> Approx. an hour and a half ago.


oppps


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

umm no one agruing here... man i dont feel like waitn around im ready to battle


----------



## gwabblesore (May 2, 2007)

Hey can I be a judge on this shit guys? I start wanting to **** people up or just get high when I argue on here but I dont have any friends at all on this forum so I could be a pretty objective judge. :dunno: 

lemme know :thumbsup:


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Sorry dude, we already have three judges. Feel free to follow the debate, and at the end we will have polls where the users can vote for who they think won.


----------



## gwabblesore (May 2, 2007)

Ah alright, so what's the criteria for the judging?


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Opening post. Remember the user poll has not affect and is just for the users to share who they thought won.


----------



## KO Power (Apr 5, 2007)

I just hope this doesnt turn out to be a english/logic/grammar debate which it kinda looks like thats whats going to happen. When does it start?????????????


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

It has already started. Check the stickied threads in this forum.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

KO Power said:


> I just hope this doesnt turn out to be a english/logic/grammar debate which it kinda looks like thats whats going to happen. When does it start?????????????


 You were hoping for an illogical Spanish language debate that featured poor grammar?


----------



## gwabblesore (May 2, 2007)

brownpimp88 said:


> Opening post. Remember the user poll has not affect and is just for the users to share who they thought won.


Of course, I'll let the judges know where they fucked up :thumb02:


----------



## gwabblesore (May 2, 2007)

KO Power said:


> I just hope this doesnt turn out to be a english/logic/grammar debate which it kinda looks like thats whats going to happen. When does it start?????????????



Repped, but it will.


----------



## KO Power (Apr 5, 2007)

jasvll said:


> You were hoping for an illogical Spanish language debate that featured poor grammar?


I was waiting for something like that from you...lol.


----------



## SnakePit (Mar 4, 2007)

I wanted in. I could out debate any of these dudes. :thumb02:


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

alot of these debates are going really slowly


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Asian Sensation said:


> alot of these debates are going really slowly


Yeah, Wise hasn't even posted another come back yet.


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

well........I posted my opening statment the other day........I havent heard anything yet.........I have seen P-101 on a few times since then but I dont know why he hasnt responded...........when does the 1st round end???????? anyone know?????


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

Hollywood6655 said:


> well........I posted my opening statment the other day........I havent heard anything yet.........I have seen P-101 on a few times since then but I dont know why he hasnt responded...........when does the 1st round end???????? anyone know?????


I think it is about roughly 1 day away but i may be wrong.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Hollywood6655 said:


> when does the 1st round end???????? anyone know?????


 The rules say 4 days from when the opening statement is made.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> The rules say 4 days from when the opening statement is made.


So i was right.


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

Asian Sensation said:


> alot of these debates are going really slowly


At least yours has started. Liveson has been on a few times and has made like 10 posts since I told him to go first.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Judokas said:


> So i was right.


 That depends entirely on when the opening statement was made on a particular debate thread. Different threads had different start times.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

jasvll said:


> That depends entirely on when the opening statement was made on a particular debate thread. Different threads had different start times.


if someone has been on a number of times since the thread was opened and the question posed, and if the mods PM'd them to inform them of their turn/start, then there has to be a time limit for conceding the round. otherwise are we supposed to delay the next round for 6 months till they post something?

not attacking you, just used your post as a response point!



i think some of the competators weren't ready for the level of debate. maybe they're just quietly waiting for them to get disqualified!


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

jasvll said:


> That depends entirely on when the opening statement was made on a particular debate thread. Different threads had different start times.


I think it started when the thread was posted not when the debate actually started.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

pt447 said:


> if someone has been on a number of times since the thread was opened and the question posed, and if the mods PM'd them to inform them of their turn/start, then there has to be a time limit for conceding the round. otherwise are we supposed to delay the next round for 6 months till they post something?


 I imagine the judging will be based on what's been presented within the 4 days allotted. If you fail to present your case in that time, you're probably not going to do so well.

It seems like closing statements will have to be prompted by the judges, though.



judokas said:


> I think it started when the thread was posted not when the debate actually started.


 If that were the case, the rules would say that it was four days from when the thread was created, not four days from when the opening statements were made.


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

I got a 1st round KO....plazzman forfeited.


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

WouldLuv2FightU said:


> I got a 1st round KO....plazzman forfeited.


I have come to think Wise is going to post at the last second so i can't argue because i have no time left but i don't think that should be allowed if he does that because he hasn't debated up until that last few minutes.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

In case anyone is interested liveson77 forfeited as well....can anyone tell me when I should post my closing argument cuz I am at four days today.


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

You will be prompeted of when to post your closing argument. It is actually four days after the opening statements, as I predicted we'd all be starting at different times. We've already got two forfits, and one debater hasn't even posted his Opening yet, so there might be a small break before the next round....and I've decided that in the next round, there will be no DQ wins. If someone is DQ'ed, they will be replaced, and the replacement will continue in the debate.


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

hmmmmmm........this is interesting.........it took me a while to read some of the debatesl.........some are just long for no reason..........but lots of good debates........some of these guys put alot of thought into these and it shows..........I am just going out on a limb here.......but looking at the seedings it seems as though there might be some 1st round upsets........there are a few guys that have some excellent points.........should be interesting to see how the rest unfolds and to see who moves on...........GL to all


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

I noticed where pimp offered for another person take asskicker on in his debate any chance of the other two guys getting the same treatment?


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

^If anyone would like to be a replacement, I'd do it.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

I'm sort of amazed by the lack of activity displayed by some. Like, they want to take part in this debate contest, but they don't post anything and/or just quit.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Damone said:


> I'm sort of amazed by the lack of activity displayed by some. Like, they want to take part in this debate contest, but they don't post anything and/or just quit.


Somebody said it earlier I think, I don't think they were expecting the level of debating that some of us are bringing, for instance I love WLUV's OP it was great, made great points.


----------



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Damone said:


> I'm sort of amazed by the lack of activity displayed by some. Like, they want to take part in this debate contest, but they don't post anything and/or just quit.


I think some people sort of underestimated the seriousness/competitiveness when registering. I hope the next round really picks up.


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

Damone said:


> I'm sort of amazed by the lack of activity displayed by some. Like, they want to take part in this debate contest, but they don't post anything and/or just quit.


I agree......... I was excited to start.........gives me something to do when I have extra time..........I am truely dissappointed.......some of the guys that didint play I am suprised at.........u never know though.........something may have come up with some of these guys and they truely cant participate........


----------



## Hollywood6655 (Jan 7, 2007)

brownpimp88 said:


> I think some people sort of underestimated the seriousness/competitiveness when registering. I hope the next round really picks up.


again I agree............next round should be good.......


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Yeah, I'm actually doing work at work. Is that normal?


----------



## ozz525 (Oct 5, 2006)

If Asskicker accepts I have my arguement ready :thumb02:


----------



## SnakePit (Mar 4, 2007)

I'd toss my name in the hat. 

I'm ready to give anyone who needs a fill in a good fight. 

Edit: How many of these did people quit?


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

SnakePit said:


> I'd toss my name in the hat.
> 
> I'm ready to give anyone who needs a fill in a good fight.
> 
> Edit: How many of these did people quit?


I want to say there were three people that dropped out, or didn't post after someone else wrote an opening argument.


----------



## SnakePit (Mar 4, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> I want to say there were three people that dropped out, or didn't post after someone else wrote an opening argument.


Maybe they should slash the matches were no one posted, advance the couple who posted but were quit on, make a couple more & fill the couple holes in.

As I said, I'm ready to go if someone is needed. :thumb02:


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

Hollywood6655 said:


> I agree......... I was excited to start.........gives me something to do when I have extra time..........I am truely dissappointed.......some of the guys that didint play I am suprised at.........u never know though.........something may have come up with some of these guys and they truely cant participate........


Yea plazzman PMed me and said he is gonna be busy doing other stuff for the next few days so he knew he wouldn't be able to keep up with the debate fairly.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

SnakePit said:


> Maybe they should slash the matches were no one posted, advance the couple who posted but were quit on, make a couple more & fill the couple holes in.
> 
> As I said, I'm ready to go if someone is needed. :thumb02:


My advice PM Jdun, Bpimp and Onganju plead your case as your under the 500 post rule.


----------



## SnakePit (Mar 4, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> My advice PM Jdun, Bpimp and Onganju plead your case as your under the 500 post rule.


I can make some posts pretty quick. :thumbsup: 

I didn't see that rule. but will do


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

SnakePit said:


> I can make some posts pretty quick. :thumbsup:
> 
> I didn't see that rule. but will do


Dude, don't go post whoring


----------



## SnakePit (Mar 4, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> Dude, don't go post whoring


I'm not. I was just jokin' around.


----------



## asskicker (Aug 27, 2006)

It shouldnt be hard to find 5 topics throughout the WHOLE forum that you can post in.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

asskicker said:


> It shouldnt be hard to find 5 topics throughout the WHOLE forum that you can post in.


He can just keep posting in here and its a lock, LOL.


----------



## SnakePit (Mar 4, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> He can just keep posting in here and its a lock, LOL.


Omg lyk p0st whorin' fTwz pluzzzzz wunnzzz:thumb02:


----------



## gwabblesore (May 2, 2007)

What the **** happened to this shit?


----------



## CopperShark (May 13, 2006)

Now Now Now.. I Know... No one wants to step to big bad Copper. But if you need someone, I'll play. haha


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

So are we going to see winners, Or were some of the contestants not the only people that dropped out of this thing.


----------



## Duffman (Mar 30, 2007)

Good Luck To All...ill Be Watching


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

ya first rounds been ova for a while watsup.


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

*How is this coming along? Can we get an update, there are some guys that dropped so we should know more or less who is going to the next round. :dunno: *


----------

