Star Wars vs Star Trek

see below

now you claim its only a tv show??

this is the only thing youve said in this post to show him different.

talk about poor debating skills..see above..
so far, IMO being not as technically argumentative as you guys are, and if i were the referee in a formal debate, i would give the points to TW..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Squirrel, read back the last 500 or so pages and see the kind of bullshit that guy posts on a regular basis... and I'm talking about some crazy shit, like "oh, Star Wars ships are made using Neutronium in their hulls, so Star Trek Ships can't hurt them"... problem is, in Star Wars, Han can pick up a fist sized chunk of Neutronium (laying on a moon mind you) with his bare hands. In Star Trek, Neutronium is the shit that comes from a neutron star... not the same thing, yet to TW Scott here, it doesn't matter...

*shrugs*

We all got tired of dealing with him, so we generally just don't take him seriously anymore

I mean, shit, for the photon torpedo explosion thing... if we went by the rules of "explosions must look real and have power judged on their looks"... most sci-fi's would be boned...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in a formal debate it is not crucial to be accurate..

alot of your arguments are based on character attacks and insults..with little that adresses the actual subject matter..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, if you wish to get formal:

Look at Politicians - tell me, when was the last time you saw a politician "debate" without using character attacks, insults, and blatant lies?

Anyway, no, just no. TW Scott has had his chance, and chose to debate based on blatant falsehoods and misdirection instead of facts and logic, time and again. Thus, nobody has any respect for him anymore.

 

your thinking of their campaign ads..

nobody=you..

 

Mate, unless you've read the last few hundred pages, or been here for them (as I was), I doubt you're in any position to attempt to play the big bad decision maker here... seriously, you're just sounding like so much hot air right now*shrugs*

Go back, read the thread, and educate yourself. Then come back when you're done.

 

first of all, little debating has been done in here by those making logical arguments
The debating has been done mainly by those who repeat the same shit over and over like a six year old with a tantrum.
Those, here, who have made logical arguments, have used deductive arguments, and mostly validity arguments. Some (many?) have used inductive arguments.
If we were only debating here, we'd just be babbling nonsense and continuously thrwoing out elliptical arguments. But that's not what some of us, like IlithiDragon especially, have done here.

 

Well out of the options in the poll, Stargate, just because I like Stargate.

But one of my favorite cross-over scenarios is Star Trek's Borg vs Starcraft's Zerg. Neither of those two would win, but everybody else in both universes are effectively screwed. One wouldn't assimilate the other, they'd merge.

 

The Caeliar would come out of hiding, pimp-slap both the Zerg and the Borg (and the Tyranids for good measure) back into their respective places, and then have a milkshake just because they can.

 

Can't really argue with that. :shrug:

 

-Most of your arguments lack proper logic
-Your sources for Star Wars evidence is frequently lacking. (Especially from the novels)
-Like Ricery the "physics" you employ are 2 dimensional ignoring some effects while emphasizing others and never explaining why you favor ignoring those effects
-You have been proven dishonest
-You have rarely conceded your errors.

I concur Kittamaru does profane much against his opponet. I won't make excuses for it. That is not proper debating nor how it's done. But points would have to be given on a strict rule basis. it could not be subjective:

Such as:
Supporting evidence: +2 points for every source of support.
Identifying and proving a logical fallacy + 3
Logical syllogisms: 5 points
Successful Counter Arguments: 8 points
A winning argument + 10 (defined by the 3 strike rule. If an opponent gives a negative argument, which is anything that causes a negative score such as a logical fallacy or failure to show evidence or inaccurate evidence, that person forfeits the argument, counting as a win for the opposition.

-Winning an argument can also result from a successful counter argument.
-Winning an argument can also result from the greater number of points for the 3 rounds.

Negative points would result in anything that successfully discredits an argument. Such as...

- Failure to show evidence, inaccurate evidence -2
-Logical Fallacy -3
- Personal attacks & vulgarities -5

 

*shrugs* I would be more than willing to be direct and proper if the other side were to show any initiative or desire to do so. Otherwise, why should I bother taking the time to go in depth and be polite when they (like TW Scott) can't even take the time to stop repeating and reusing old, disproved argument?

 

to lead by example.

 

When an argument is actually disproven by you, Kittamaru, I will discard it. I must be pointed out however that you have not provided proof of your disproof. And no "Pssh that is stupid." is not a proof. Either display canon facts or scientifically and mathematically backed equations as proof. Anything less is just you spouting off.

 

Oh, I tried that about, 300 pages ago. I gave up after all I got in return was the sci-fi equivalent of "your momma so fat" and "you so dumb"... :shrug:

 

Don't make me dig through the last thousand pages to pull out each and every time you've been proven wrong by myself or someone else... cause I swear to GOD if I have to do that, I'll make it my life's goal to find you in the world and smack you upside the head for being THAT bloody stubborn.

 

Go right ahead Kittamaru, if you can. Remember canon facts and scientific proofs, nothing less cuts it.

Prove that the maximum firepower of a Acclamator's Heavy Turbolaser is 200gigaton equivalent.

Prove that Han's hand blaster was blowing human torso sized chunks out of an obviously concrete wall.

Prove that Death Star cannot possible destroy planets, despite direct visula evidence.

Prove that Phasers have Autoaiming features when on numerous occasions ELITE starfleet officers have repeatedly missed slow moving targets in narow hallways at close range.

Prove that Photon Torpedoes must be multi megaton weaponry, when it would take the Entire copliment of the Enterprise D to blwo apart the holow asteropid that the Pegasus was trapped in. And rember from video that asteroid was ~30 km in diameter.

Prove that the Federation has more sentient citizen than Old Republic.

Please prove any of this if you can. For your sake at least.

Oh and physcially threaten me again, if you like prison.

 

Scott you wouldn't survive one debate in a formal forum.

 

*giggles giddily*

If you think a smack upside the head constitutes a physical threat, then I feel nothing less than utter sorrow for you and your family (or future family should you ever have one).

Anyhow, as Saquist already said - you would not survive even one real debate in any kind of formal setting, and I do reckon that would include a courtroom if you felt so inclined

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Assault is assault and threats to "track you down" are not taken lightly by DA's anymore. I am just warning you that there are consequences to your actions. (Also point in fact I would not need to debate anything in court, that's the Prosecutor's job)


I do notice however none of you have even made the slightest attempt to back your claims.