Fight Club Pub.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

"Crap, I cant remember her name"

A special lesson to all:

This is what mail is for. There will usually be a pile by the door. Another good possibility is magazines – there's almost always one in the bathroom, and it's easy to explain why one would be snooping around in there in that kind of situation.

I'm not sure if that will work as well for men, though. I know there are no magazines in my bathroom, but maybe that's just me

"This isnt my house"

If this realization doesn't happen, then you're pretty much on your own about how to figure out someone's name without revealing that you have no memory of the night before.



Welcome Supercertari! and Yay for Tuning Spork and constantwonder on coming back to active status in this tournament!

About bartending duties – I always thought that they lasted until two things had happened:

1) a judgement had been posted on the first debate, and
2) a replacement had arrived.

Which is to say, if there are any bartenders about, I'd like some coffee please



@Ian and orange-light: Macs do not do the crazy MSDOS line-return thing. We have always treated it as a single character. Orange, if you've been using Macs as long as I think you have, you probably remember that it used to be really hard to read emails or textfiles sent from some Windows/MSDOS-using friends – a lot of that had to do with the fact that their systems code "returns" differently from how we do.



Back to the "resources" rules:

I guess that one thing I'm confused about is that I tend to link a source for facts that I use in my argument. So, for example, I used wikipedia to back up my summaries of the status of legal cases against Michael Vick and Gov. whosnameIcan'tspell so that the judges could check it out and make sure I wasn't making it up.

But to learn about the cases, I went to actual articles linked to from the wiki pages, and did a Google search to try and make sure there was nothing new that didn't show up there.

Now, if I actually followed either sports or politics, I probably would have been able to summarize the cases without doing any research, and might even have assumed them to be "common knowledge" not requiring sourcing. But then a judge who wasn't convinced by my summation would be put in the position of either relying on my opponent to challenge me, or doing independent research – at which point they would in a sense become an active participant in the debate.

So I guess it boils down to: while I certainly always give a link for a direct quote, and count that towards my references, and also always give a link if I'm citing an opinion (for example, that so-and-so thinks the subjectivity of a jury to be a good thing), I also give a link and count it as a resource if I'm using a fact that I'm not sure my audience will know.

Which leads to a lot of resources cited (although not even a fraction of all the resources I will have looked at to get an understanding of the topic) anytime I'm making a case instead of just providing rebuttal

Just threw up my opening statement. (Vomit imagery not intended.)

I'm optomistic but, facing Vag, this could get hairy. Wish me luck. I'm a-gonna need it.

Originally posted by americandingbat
So I guess it boils down to: while I certainly always give a link for a direct quote, and count that towards my references, and also always give a link if I'm citing an opinion (for example, that so-and-so thinks the subjectivity of a jury to be a good thing), I also give a link and count it as a resource if I'm using a fact that I'm not sure my audience will know.

A great strategy and I can see where you would get into the negotiation of the source links...

I always try and use rhetoric rather than links...though I do like my links. Also, I have found on several occasions that using my opponents links work far better than if I were to search for my own...not everyone is as thorough with their research as they want to be and finding a contradiction of their own making can not only be efficient but satisfying...

Also, it is worth it to note that some sources can be spread out through the course of the debate...if one finds that there is not enough space in a particular post...but then I am aware of the 'it took me longer to truncate my post than actually writing it' phenomena...

And I wanted to give personal props to Tuning Spork for what would have certainly become my new signature if I were into the humourous signature trend...

So a water moccasin told me that Mount St. Helens would erupt if I didn't fold with three kings. These things happen.

Originally posted by MemoryShock

I always try and use rhetoric rather than links...though I do like my links. Also, I have found on several occasions that using my opponents links work far better than if I were to search for my own...not everyone is as thorough with their research as they want to be and finding a contradiction of their own making can not only be efficient but satisfying...

This was a tactic extensively deployed if I remember correctly by both my opponent and I in the boob debate

Unfortunately I often find such evidence on a separate page of a website, which makes it a new source I guess.

Maybe after the tournament I'll propose a debate topic: the resource citation guidelines in the ATS Debate Forum need a radical overhaul

reply to post by americandingbat


Hmm, interesting point: whenever I 'reintroduce' one of my opponent's sources, I always count it against my 5 reference limit, and assign it a number.

So, all sources introduced in previous replies are open for 'ex' quoting, without counting against the per-post reference limit?

Originally posted by americandingbat
Maybe after the tournament I'll propose a debate topic: the resource citation guidelines in the ATS Debate Forum need a radical overhaul

Yeah...perhaps we can take a look at the verbiage at the very least...you guys have done a great job finding potential loopholes and explodermarizing my brain with some of those questions (or at one point the fast pace... ).

And good response to Isacc by the way....

Good job trying to get him to return to the Debate Forum...

reply to post by MemoryShock


Providing I win this round of the tournament, can you please fix the next round so I fight against scientology?

I need to remind myself that I hate it

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Sounds like someone is working on a new negative engram!

*unhooks his e-meter*

Originally posted by MemoryShock
And good response to Isacc by the way....

Good job trying to get him to return to the Debate Forum...

That's right, I forgot that I had seen the name on the roster of Fighters.

Oh well. Maybe it'll provoke him into returning. Or maybe it'll just get other people to drop by

morning pub

Originally posted by americandingbat

@Ian and orange-light: Macs do not do the crazy MSDOS line-return thing. We have always treated it as a single character. Orange, if you've been using Macs as long as I think you have, you probably remember that it used to be really hard to read emails or textfiles sent from some Windows/MSDOS-using friends – a lot of that had to do with the fact that their systems code "returns" differently from how we do.

i remember dingbat quiet well

i am using mac since 1991
so a pretty long time

but we were talking about word, which is created by the guys who also created DOS - and word acts like a diva, which it shouldnt and i don.t trust it really

as i told ian, i just use it because of the spell- and grammar-check


i just calculated that the word counts are about 97% of the ATS counts
but a word count of 9500 characters is safe anyway


bartender
i need a big glas of water, luke warm, and some pain killers




welcome tuning spork and welcome constantwonder

A special thanks to americandingbat, for the FCP logo image featured in my latest puzzle:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Isn't it only fair that it should be used to befuddle and frustrate?

Originally posted by orange-light

bartender
i need a big glas of water, luke warm, and some pain killers

I think our bartenders have all gone home

Here's some water though



And the coffee I requested a while back



Headache?

reply to post by americandingbat


congrats to your cipher win


no my tennis ellbow is kiling me
thanks dingbat



@ian
that cup looks hot


so cheers every one





[edit on 19-2-2009 by orange-light]

Good gracious I never realized debators had there own little pub here, its like a riddle, wrapped in an enigma doused in whisky.

I've leapt in and posted my opening statement and see my worthy opponent has already responded with theirs. This is time consuming and thus very enjoyable - beats playing yahoo blackjack!

I'm uncertain as to my bartending responsibilities, if I am somehow failing in my responsibilities just set up 12 ritual washing water jars in the corner and I shall tend to them later.

I'm unsure if its polite to discuss an ongoing debate but I would appreciate some feedback on my first foray into this format of debating, am I doing it right?

Originally posted by Supercertari
Good gracious I never realized debators had there own little pub here, its like a riddle, wrapped in an enigma doused in whisky.

"Doused" may be putting it mildly. I'd suggest "soused"

Except that a few of us don't drink at all, or anymore.

I've leapt in and posted my opening statement and see my worthy opponent has already responded with theirs. This is time consuming and thus very enjoyable - beats playing yahoo blackjack!

It can be habit-forming, too. Much like yahoo blackjack.

I'm uncertain as to my bartending responsibilities, if I am somehow failing in my responsibilities just set up 12 ritual washing water jars in the corner and I shall tend to them later.

Here's an apron and a rag; you don't have to wear the french maid's outfit unless you want to (or would look particularly attractive in it). Photobucket accounts are recommended for image storage, Google Image is usually good for locating the desired drinks, no one is really clear on how long your duties last, but at least until the end of the first debate and perhaps forever.

And I need more coffee.

I'm unsure if its polite to discuss an ongoing debate but I would appreciate some feedback on my first foray into this format of debating, am I doing it right?

It's discouraged to talk much about ongoing debates, although the idea of comment threads comes up for debate in the Pub now and then

But I will certainly go look and let you know if you're doing it wrong





Welcome to the Pub, and the Tournament, you will be a force to be reckoned with!

Speaking of which, I was supposed to debate Lucid Lunacy about gnosticism and early Christianity following a discussion that you were involved in, but he has disappeared and I have been unable to find anyone else who wants to fight about religion in here

I know we were on the same side of that argument, but maybe after the tournament you'd be interested in working with me to find something related that we could take on?

[edit on 2/19/09 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat





Here's your coffee, ADB. I'm waiting around until my new debate opponent shows up, so I'll continue bartending duty.

reply to post by skeptic1


OOh, and cinnamon rolls too

My opponent has taken his 24 hour extension, so I'm at loose ends and bouncing around the forums trying to see how much trouble I can get myself into.

reply to post by americandingbat


Trouble is pretty easy to find around here, but I am ready to get back to my debate. I've actually been studying.

Morning everyone.

I'm half here this morning from a good old fashioned sleepless night.

I'll come around I'm sure.....

reply to post by nyk537


Good morning nyk

I'm not a parent myself, but I hear it gets much less painful after about twenty years