Fight Club Pub.

Originally posted by Heike

@Lucid: Ha ha ha my friend, good try, but I'm not putting any more cards on the table here. You'll hear all about it during the debate.

Bah! I even employed the same conversation hypnosis techniques Obama uses! What gives??

Ashley has not instilled any fear in me., she has merely been cleverly maneuvered into making me a new avatar!

A fearsome dragon getting decorated with Christmas lights would entail the clever maneuvering of someone else's mischief

free range .. free range? ... ah, you've been reading the FCP. Good strategy but it won't help you that much.

Nay, I pulled that out of my magical Santa bag of endless knowledge.
... but I think I will go back and see what you are referring to lol.

There are times when I really wish I WERE a dragon. I could eat people who annoy me and be doing so many good things .. reducing overpopulation, improving the gene pool, making the world a little better place ..

You just opened yourself up to a whole slew of future moral debates

I will u2u Semperfortis and tell him we are ready to debate and point out the parameters. It is up to you to u2u him also and tell him that you are ready.

Okay, understood.
Did you already send it perchance?
I was wondering what premise we agreed on? Or if we were going to bestow the responsibility to the Olympians above instead?

Also, what kind of time frame should I be expecting? I am taking time right now to read in the Debate Forum to get a feel for the ebb and flow of torrent that is ATS Debate... That said, I can realistically start any time. With the exception of a couple hours each day (i'm a freelance web developer) and a wedding on the 15th, I have no other time restraints

people who learn a 2nd language before age 5 will have a higher IQ. It creates a whole "section" of pathways and connections that other people won't even have - sort of like adding another circuit board to a computer

*brings his EMP bomb to the debate arena.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

I don't know what you're talking about, our scientol, I mean debate forum recruiters tell everyone they have to tend bar and lick ashtrays till their first debate is finished.

You must have misheard.

Perhaps they choose a different tact when you show up in a French maid costume?...



[edit on 3-12-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Believe it or not I still haven't gone back to finish taking stock of my debate with Mem, but knowing me if I don't go ahead and explain what happened soon I'll never get around to it.

At the opening, I thought I had Memoryshock on lockdown. I didn't notice too much rust at first- it took me longer than it ever has before, but I felt like I was doing about as well as I ever have in terms of quality. I even pulled a couple of punches (didn't point out my opponent's misstatement of the US population for instance) because I didn't want to come off mean.

I started seeing my own ring rust at the second post. I felt like Mem had let me off REALLY easy by not disputing that the chief purpose of government is to minimize the harm people do to one another. Nationalist or Socialist arguments regarding infrastructure or collective defense could have made things a lot harder on me there.

So I was able to squeeze most of what I wanted to say into my second post, but I also found out that I couldn't deliver the quantity of evidence I'd promised with sufficient commentary while doing 2 points per post, especially if there was any appreciable quantity of rebuttal to offer.

So right off the bat, I'd made a huge mistake by not leaving myself enough room to improvise and rebut when I set the agenda in the opening. I didn't remember just how agonizing it can be to make all your points and come in under the character limit.
But as of my second post, I still thought I had Mem.

Mem's 2nd post bothered me a little bit because it was much more like the Memoryshock I'm used to, and the Memoryshock that I'm used to is an opponent you spend a lot of time giving rebuttals to. I was particularly concerned when he misquoted me on the "drug-motivated crimes don't count" part. That told me I had a lot of dancing coming up trying to defend virtually anything I said.

That's when I pulled my little "Casey at the bat" routine with the minimal response. There were a few motives behind that move.

First and foremost, that move was going to liberate me from my outline. Mem wasn't just playing defense against the logical argument I was trying to build- in fact he let several points slide all together), so I wanted to be free to finish that argument in a very perfunctory way since it would stand unchallenged, and then get to hammering on Memoryshock's argument.

Second, I wanted to start working the clock. The plan was to make him burn his extension in order to scrutinize his next post, then I'd reply to it within an hour of him posting it with a "knockout punch", which hopefully he wouldn't have time to defend against very well. (This point was a big part of my decision to surrender).

Also, I was making a point of trying to bully him on the basis of reputation- I figured it couldn't hurt to create an impression that I was controlling the tempo and direction of the debate.

I never COMPLETELY had an idea of how I was going to turn Mem's argument around on him. I entertained conceeding several different points to him, including his mis-statement of my definition of "serious narcotics crimes" (the exclusion of drug-motivated crimes) and incorporating them into my own argument. One thing I've learned about myself from past experience though is that there is ALWAYS a way for me to steal somebody's thunder. I wasn't all that worried about promising to do something without figuring out how I would do it. I always seem to manage it.

But despite having two posts to completely define the debate, Mem did a really good job of not locking himself into positions that I might want to attack.
When I started to compose the reply that I never posted, the opening sentence was, "I have to admit, my opponent has thrown me for a loop- he saw that I intended to beat him with logic, so he has brilliantly avoided saying anything that can be logically interpreted."

So I was trying to hammer together the knockout punch ASAP, and I can't even find Mem committing to a really solid definition of serious narcotics crime that I can conceede and use against him; I'm having to go through his whole argument with a fine tooth comb and extrapolate what parameters he is working within, and then I've got to prove to the readers that Mem really meant those things before I can prove that those things actually support my side.

I was still working on it when and watching the clock count down to the deadline when I decided to surrender.

reply to post by The Vagabond


It takes a lot of character to actually concede that someone has won. Impressive.

Congratulations MemoryShock: This is your first win against TheVagabond, right? Good job.

Thanks Sky, though I have to admit I didn't really start thinking that I had a chance until after my third post (prior to the concession).

I thought the topic was ill worded (now worries, Semper) and that there was really nothing I could do but cite the implicit victimization of modern society. I intentionally ignored the government statements by The Vagabond as I am well aware that politics is his strength...and I didn't need it.

I will say however that my decision was made in agony when I used the extension. It occurred to me that The Vagabond wanted me to use it, although I certainly wouldn't have expected a rebuttal an hour after I posted. As well, I saw that the Socratic Questions were a set up...

That said, I took a gambit the entire way as I was all over the place (like I do) with legal and illicit drugs and trying to establish that the drug controversy is a symptom of more prolific social inequalty. Huge uphill battle that character count wouldn't allow.

I was never sure how I was going to respond (I think The Vagabond and I are similar when we look for the rebuttal after making claims... ) and I never felt comfortable. My goal was to gradually define the debate topic and get The Vagabond away from government/politics. I was even anticipating him to help define "serious narcotics crime" (the drug motivated crime I thought would be a very contentious aspect of the debate and as well I dove head first into using Pot as a reference point when it is technically not even a narcotic; semantics for sure but something I wanted to use as a character count waster for him while I figured out how to tie knots).

Thanks for the 'chalk talk' Vagabond...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I intentionally ignored the government statements by The Vagabond as I am well aware that politics is his strength...and I didn't need it.

Excellent strategy. Did you really have to say that where everyone else could see it?

This is for the benefit of the newest members of the debate forum.

Please appreciate that The Vagabond and MemoryShock are two of our most experienced debaters. www.abovetopsecret.com...
As such they are aware of debate dynamics that most of us can't always see. Very much like two master chess players, they can determine with relative certainty the moves of their opponent several posts in advance. Including the awareness to know when they have committed themselves down an insurmountable strategic and/or intellectual path.

The reason I say this is that this is usually not the way we approach our debates. For most of us there is always opportunity for recovery and to turn any debate around. I just wanted to point that out because I like a lot of you, look up to The Vagabond, both as a member and as a Super Mod. But I would like to make sure that we don't go down a path where we start conceding debates every time we think it's not going well.



[edit on 12/3/2008 by schrodingers dog]

To be honest, I think you guys are concentrating on the 'forward game' too much. In my (small) experience, at least half of a debate response is a 'living thing' that is entirely dependent on the last post, the feel of the moment, and the 'flow' of the debate to that point. Of course, that's just rhetorical fluff without a rational foundation argument - but I was really enjoying reading the rhetorical intricacies of that debate, regardless of who was 'winning'...

Oh, and as soon as I read it, I assumed that MemoryShock's misstating of population figures was a devious trick to tempt argument into a distracting area of qualitative nit-picking. I would have let it pass, too.


Edit to mention: ^^^ Yeah. What S-Dog said.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Ian McLean]

I know what I want for Christmas!

Our Beloved Debate Champion Ian vs. The Vagabond!

Pleeease????

*makes big doe eyes*

It would be fascinating to see the two completely different approaches, as well as super-instructional for us noobs.

edit: to take out the part about me resting my case... I've decided I want to keep my whining, wheedling and begging options open



[edit on 3-12-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


You think Ian's gonna debate anyone before the next tournament?

Be glad he hasn't invoked his "droits de seigneur"

reply to post by schrodingers dog





*composes self*

Pleeeeeeease?????

Wow. Thanks Vagabond for your candor in discussing what went on, and thanks Mr. Shock for giving your side of the story.

What Ian and SDog said

You both gave us a lot to chew on in your assessments

I'm rather sad, because I was enjoying the debate so much that I'm disappointed it ended early. But this chalk talk almost makes up for that.

Now can you chalk talk the chalk talk?
(j/k, sorta)

reply to post by schrodingers dog


If he debates in the Holiday Skirmishes, that wouldn't jeopardize his title, would it?

*adds another pair of batting eyelids to the mix*

*pretends to not know what droit de seigneur is*

[edit on 12/3/08 by americandingbat]

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


If Vagabond is willing, that Will Happen, eventually. I believe MemoryShock and I scheduled a rematch which should take precedence, though - although the date was left kinda vague: "sometime at the start of next year", I believe.

Right now, I just hoping to get work-life squared away sufficiently to have a semi-relaxing holiday. A skirmish would be fun, but I worry about not having the time to commit to it.

Both MemoryShock and The Vagabond are intimidating opponents! ... Well, except for MemoryShock, who is a "sweetie".

reply to post by Ian McLean


I'm willing to bet MemShock would consider giving up his place in line for such a historic and instructional occassion. Right, Mem?

So that would be one hurdle out of the way, and if we can't have it for Christmas, can we have it for MLK Day?


Pleeeeease???????

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
I never considered whether it was appropriate to friend Mods, as my very first friend, on my first day was... MEMORYSHOCK

TWISI, to this day, your profile opening post is one of my favorite ATS posts.... I believe you posted it from an 'absolute newbie' state of zen - the poise it exhibits makes me smile whenever I think about it.


Edit: to fix tags.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Ian McLean]

More often than not, conceeding a debate is not the way to go. Between being a perfectionist and knowing that I was my opponent was one of the best in the forum by all measures (he is now the top ranked, winningest, most experienced, fighter in the forum) I really didn't want to win that one anymore- I would have felt as if I had "sneaked one past" the judges if I'd somehow pulled out a win.

In point of fact, depending on the experience level of the judge, I might have been able to sneak through that one with the old standby that I discovered during our experiment with star-count judging. Essentially, I believe that the percieved relative importance of a consistent "big picture" argument is directly proportional to the skill and experience of the reader. Therefore a less experienced debater is more likely to find in favor of someone who makes dramatic rebuttals despite deep flaws in their argument.

During the star-count experiment, I realized that most readers had short attention spans and reacted much better to quote and rebuttal than to sustained development of a case over the entirety of the debate. In fact against Byrd I intentionally abandoned the big picture and aimed for maximum rebuttals when I saw I was down in the star count, and I pulled out a tie that way.

So even in this case there really was an opportunity to win. The opportunity in this case just didn't seem all that honorable or for that matter, all that promising. I definitely would prefer not to make a trend of it though.

Give mem the first shot at Ian. I don't want to go up against the champion coming off a loss. (Realize that up until now, I hadn't lost since my first debate, and that included matches against Semperfortis, Byrd, and Memoryshock)

Anyone who wants a crack at me for the skirmish though is welcome to try and "call it".

I don't know if you'll be up against "swashbucking pirate" vagabond or "fencer" vagabond though (one of my matches was once described as a pirate versus a fencer, and I honestly wasn't sure which one I was being compared to) so be ready to adjust for that "random factor".

Originally posted by Ian McLean

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
I never considered whether it was appropriate to friend Mods, as my very first friend, on my first day was... MEMORYSHOCK

TWISI, to this day, your profile opening post is one of my favorite ATS posts.... I believe you posted it from an 'absolute newbie' state of zen - the poise it exhibits makes me smile whenever I think about it.

Watch out or I'm gonna call you "sweet" and then you'll be sorry.

I haven't changed, that's how I can be an autodidact and, to quote Lunacy, "kick it with the smarties". I'm not to afraid to make an ass out of myself when trying to learn what I don't know -- exhibit a) my debates.
wah-wah-wah.....

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Did you already send it perchance?
I was wondering what premise we agreed on?

Or if we were going to bestow the responsibility to the Olympians above instead?

I set the parameters at the health and moral issues concerning vegetarianism, with you pro and I con, and left it up to Semper (and/or Shock and/or other Mods) to actually write the topic statement. I'm pretty sure they have read our discussion of my previous suggestions and can work off of those you agreed with, or they can improvise.

Also, what kind of time frame should I be expecting? ... a wedding on the 15th, I have no other time restraints

Up to you. You can specify a start date and time when you u2u Semper (or just say we're ready now and it can start anytime at your convenience). I have always appreciated my opponents' willingness to work around any real life events of mine, and I certainly intend to extend the same courtesy to you. If we are still going on the 15th I will be happy to agree to a 24 hour suspension without penalties, and that wouldn't be using your automatic extension. In fact, I may need a similar suspension for the 6th as I will be out running all that day long from early morning to late night.

In reading your posts and interactions on the board, Lucid, I have always found you to be a gentleman who treats others with courtesy and politeness. Such is not necessarily my nature (just ask SchroDog ), but I respect that and will do my best to treat you with the same courtesy and politeness you extend to myself and others, outside of the actual debate. (But IN the debate, I'll rip you to shreds if I get the chance, so don't be surprised.)