Constitution of Sci Debating

i totally agree with these.
but i have to mention,if we are to follow these we need to agree that this is,and i highlight the FICTION, Science Fiction. mostly even when in perfect conditions to do it,writers will ignore part of physics because otherwise they can't accomplish the episode/movie/novel/book/etc. therefore in those cases,we can't really argue what should happen if real physics is applied,because the writers intentions were,consciously or not,to make that scene no matter what the laws of physics say.
for example someone is stuck on a ship close to a black hole.hes gonna die in minutes otherwise,but the writers don't want him dead,so they ignore physics in order to allow him more time,in which he can be saved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Usually a writer will find a way to make it plausible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Usually. But let's not forget that alot of what we see in Sci-Fi defies physics and no explenation is given.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Correct, I'm not entirely sure what George1 said, but if his example is to be the basis for it, we'll need to take it on a base by base case. For example, Spock's Brain is something we should just push to the side and pretend that it was Kirk's idea of a joke to mess with Starfleet.

 

He was basically saying that we can't debate with the thought of implying real physics, because the author obviously didn't have physics in mind.

Spock's Brain? I'm afraid I missed whatever episode you're refering to.

 

It would have to be a case by case thing given how often it can vary.

 

Ok.

 

Sardonic mentioned time-travel. And yes, only if it has been used in the franchise should it apply to the argument. Any what-if's with SW,for instance, as if time-travel was used (whic it never has been used), should be forbidden. Where as with ST it has always been used, and is relavent to any idea that has been affected by time-travel. Parallel timelines, should be accepted since it is within the ST universe, and does not affect the Prime universe.
I don't know....what do you think?

 

Agreed.

So you're saying, a parallel universe is correct as long as it doesn't contradict what is seen in the main universe?

 

ST doesn't work with alternate timelines as a rule. There are possible timelines based on what one does, but as a rule of thumb, Trek has one main timeline, often refered to as Prime.

There are alternate universes however. These include Mirror Universe and the one created by Spock Prime and the Narada.

 

Any other issues?

 

Are we going to follow Sardonic's agenda?

 

Oh, I agree it should be the OPer's choice on setting and the like. I was mainly focused on the SW vs. ST thread.

Maybe we should have a recommended guide for OPers. Example guideline for an OP:

1. Resolution (e.g., "Who would win in a conflict between A and B?")

2. Time and Setting (e.g., Federation in the Dominion War era)

3. Conditions and Criteria (i.e., admissible canon, how to determine the win or whether to leave criteria for winning up to the debate, and exclusions or additions not normally in the setting presented)

I think a clear OP can go a long way to bringing order to a versus thread.

 

Also, I think that simply having a stickied thread of fallacies would work better than an external link. This way its kept closer to the operations of the forum and an easier referral point.

 

Yeah, it gets pretty chaotic in there.

Agreed. If OP's were a little more definitive then maybe the problems wouldn't have occured/been as often.

 

yeah I see where you might be going with that. The new film for instance condradicts a lot of stuff. In all the series' though they don't really elaborate onthe alternate timelines beyond the episodes that deal with them. Well, for the most part.
Oh! I know if we are to discuss something specific, we should make sure that, if it references a parallel reality, that the argument being prove/disproven should remain in that parallel reality. If there is not enough info within that reality, the the issue is officially dead. For example, a new technique of tweeking some tech on a [ST] ship that has never been used in the Prime. If not enough info exists to support a vs. argument, while using that tweek, than the issue is dead. But if the discussion pertains to a characters choice, than there is obviously a lot of possibilities with which to contend. It may turn out to be a philosophical argument, etc etc...

 

Great minds think alike.

I see. So if there isn't enough evidence to support it, it's invalid. Right?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

aaaah! stop it! LOL I can't think too much at this hour! lol
ummm....well, .....treat in like criminal investigation: case isn't closed until evidence is presented to 'conclude' the issue. So, case open until further notice. Now if it's about something dumb like what would happen if you enable a light saber while using it as a dildo, then we'll just amuse ourselves with someomic relief at the expence of the person who mentioned it lol....I don't know. Umm, if it's a serious issue that has to do with science-FICTION (Star Trek, or something that uses even more real world science like Stargate) and the theory can be arugued toward a reasonble 'conclusion', then fine.
If it's science-FANTASY (Star Wars, Doctor Who, Dune) then arguments about science would be pretty shallow and become dead very quickly. With science-fantasy it would only be reasonble to stay with stuff that can occur in our reality. Like the vocal abilities of the Bene Gesserit, or sword fighting techniques in Star Wars and how they would fare (with real weapons) against other hand-to-hand fighters in other franchises, like Klingons or Jem Hadar for instance. etc.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyways...

Ahh, ok. That seems logical.

*pictures in head* :roflmao:

Star Wars uses alot of real stuff (ok, the force is an exception

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), maybe they don't talk alot of it like Trek, but it's in there.

But let's not turn what should be our finest hour into a mud-slinging fest.

I see where you're going. We have to use real science as much as possible with stuff leaning more towards fantasy.

 

The OP should also be written in a way that doesn't cause an unreasonable advantage or disadvantage to one side of the debate. An example is how we've occasionally see other debates forbid ST from warpdrives/R&D, SW's Force-users/droids or DrW from time traveling while the opposing party is relatively untouched. It severly limits the playing field from the get go without a way for the limited party to defend itself reasonably.