#11 The Intelligent Cogitation: For the Master Debaters

[NOCTVRNVS]

Casper V 5.6

I have a topic I would like to discuss with any willing gaians.

"The topic is if the new improvments to gaia are helping just the newbies or everyone. My belief is that the most of the improvments are only helping the newer gaians while the older gaians are getting stuck with inflation and other hardships that never occured before some of these updates."

I would like to here others oppions on this subject and see if anyone will join my cause.

So you're saying Gaia is becoming communist? lol  

[Gimonavid]

NOCTVRNVS

Casper V 5.6

I have a topic I would like to discuss with any willing gaians.

"The topic is if the new improvments to gaia are helping just the newbies or everyone. My belief is that the most of the improvments are only helping the newer gaians while the older gaians are getting stuck with inflation and other hardships that never occured before some of these updates."

I would like to here others oppions on this subject and see if anyone will join my cause.

So you're saying Gaia is becoming communist? lol

You're just completely ate up with stupid, aren't you.  

[Aki~ Ninja ~]

Thats true but it is kinda fair for new gaians to get new cloths at first and stuff, for me even im grateful i got that stuff and bit of gold when i was new. It was sooo hard to earn money then but now that the older gaians including me have been doing stuff like games and crap it isn't as hard to get what we want and gold, plus we know much more. I mean when you look at most of the members on this sight the older gaians have all of the good avi's with the cloths and the money and the new gaians just have the newbie cloths. So it is fair for the nebies to get that stuff and get a little start at this sight so at least they feel a little special athough they don't have the "great" stuff. Anyways the hardships we get challenge us more because its geting easy for us .

-Aki  

[luckdragoness]

I would just like to point out that, yes, the newbies do get these advantages...however, older Gaians get the same advantages, plus they have everything they've acquired up to this point. I see no problem in upgrading and making these changes, as long as the same opportunities are given to everyone. I'm just saying, older Gaians are given the same amount of gold as newbies, etc...  

[a.shadow.from.the.dark]

Aside from the current point at hand,


I have one single question, as stupid as it may sound, for future reference.

This is a question to Der Freischuetz. (Input from others may be considered)

Some people, although seemingly knowledgeable, do not respond to standard logics, and in a forum like this, they are only more noticeable.

I was wondering, if lesser, and to those who are intelligent, "crackpot theorems" would be allowed as proof of a point. Here are some examples.
(Skip to bottom for summary)

Alchemy:
I've seen people who completely deny the ability for scientists to turn lead into gold through chemical reactions, yet accept the theory on the base of quantum physics, which I myself find difficult to believe...

Creation of life after terraforming of Earth:
I've come across one person in particular, who as an atheist like myself, did not believe that creation of life was possible. This means no offense to anybody who believes in any religions, but I tried to explain that life is created by chemical reactions resulting in pulses of electrical energy. And yet the theory of an "Almighty Being" creating life had finished the argument in my favor.


In a summary, are theories such as incomplete theorems(alchemy, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, ect.) and religious examples(1 Almighty Being, ## of various Gods/gods, ect.) allowed for backing an argument?  

[Rengier]

here is how i prove my intellegence...by not wasting it on the idiocies of gaia inflation and such who cares if the value has gone down gaia admins are fitting us with more gold to match the rising inflation thats all im saying  

[Der Freischuetz]

a.shadow.from.the.dark

Aside from the current point at hand,


I have one single question, as stupid as it may sound, for future reference.

This is a question to Der Freischuetz. (Input from others may be considered)

Some people, although seemingly knowledgeable, do not respond to standard logics, and in a forum like this, they are only more noticeable.

I was wondering, if lesser, and to those who are intelligent, "crackpot theorems" would be allowed as proof of a point. Here are some examples.
(Skip to bottom for summary)

Alchemy:
I've seen people who completely deny the ability for scientists to turn lead into gold through chemical reactions, yet accept the theory on the base of quantum physics, which I myself find difficult to believe...

Creation of life after terraforming of Earth:
I've come across one person in particular, who as an atheist like myself, did not believe that creation of life was possible. This means no offense to anybody who believes in any religions, but I tried to explain that life is created by chemical reactions resulting in pulses of electrical energy. And yet the theory of an "Almighty Being" creating life had finished the argument in my favor.


In a summary, are theories such as incomplete theorems(alchemy, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, ect.) and religious examples(1 Almighty Being, ## of various Gods/gods, ect.) allowed for backing an argument?

OF course they are. Besides, if it isn't a good argument to begin with, that should make it easier for you to pick it apart. wink  

[Lady_Chaosti]

I agree that Inflation can hurt some of the older Gaians, but you also have the same opportunity that we newer ones have to milk the daily chance for gold or tradable loot.  

[yungxak]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  

[Adrilaxas]

I might post here, but don't expect anything committal here. I'm going through a rough spot in my debate experiences, so I might not debate at all anywhere until a certain point when I have enough experience (or when, if, I happily retire and pursue it fully). Just so anyone would like to know.

a.shadow.from.the.dark

I have one single question, as stupid as it may sound, for future reference.

This is a question to Der Freischuetz. (Input from others may be considered)

Some people, although seemingly knowledgeable, do not respond to standard logics, and in a forum like this, they are only more noticeable.

I was wondering, if lesser, and to those who are intelligent, "crackpot theorems" would be allowed as proof of a point. Here are some examples.
(Skip to bottom for summary)

Alchemy:
I've seen people who completely deny the ability for scientists to turn lead into gold through chemical reactions, yet accept the theory on the base of quantum physics, which I myself find difficult to believe...

Creation of life after terraforming of Earth:
I've come across one person in particular, who as an atheist like myself, did not believe that creation of life was possible. This means no offense to anybody who believes in any religions, but I tried to explain that life is created by chemical reactions resulting in pulses of electrical energy. And yet the theory of an "Almighty Being" creating life had finished the argument in my favor.


In a summary, are theories such as incomplete theorems(alchemy, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, ect.) and religious examples(1 Almighty Being, ## of various Gods/gods, ect.) allowed for backing an argument?

Even evolution is an incomplete theorem. There are still many intricate side paths that it has to run before it becomes accepted as scientific law.
But I think there has to be a sort of user consideration of religious examples being used. If you believe it truthfully, then you can, and should, use religious theories, with a good ordered presentation of logic and reasoning.
However, I've had people argue with me no matter how good I thought I presented myself. So in the end, I'll make it better, even if they can't stop arguing. The best point a debater can reach is when he/she has come to a point where he can easily counter any argument. But does this really need to be said?
I don't know whether I've reached this point, or if I even will. Even if I do, it wouldn't satisfy me like I thought it would. It's related to the Law of the Whitewashing Multitude presented by Mark Twain. xd

Der Freischuetz

OF course they are. Besides, if it isn't a good argument to begin with, that should make it easier for you to pick it apart. wink

Too true, but it makes me wonder: if people can pick each other's arguments apart so easily, and this becomes more common, I can't help but wonder whether or not there is anything called Truth when such an attitude of not giving up is established.  

[demon child me]

I've posted here a few times. I prefer intelligent discussion to text speak.  

[7raindrops]

Thank you.  

[Dr Boffo]

grounderous

I might post here, but don't expect anything committal here. I'm going through a rough spot in my debate experiences, so I might not debate at all anywhere until a certain point when I have enough experience (or when, if, I happily retire and pursue it fully). Just so anyone would like to know.

a.shadow.from.the.dark

I have one single question, as stupid as it may sound, for future reference.

This is a question to Der Freischuetz. (Input from others may be considered)

Some people, although seemingly knowledgeable, do not respond to standard logics, and in a forum like this, they are only more noticeable.

I was wondering, if lesser, and to those who are intelligent, "crackpot theorems" would be allowed as proof of a point. Here are some examples.
(Skip to bottom for summary)

Alchemy:
I've seen people who completely deny the ability for scientists to turn lead into gold through chemical reactions, yet accept the theory on the base of quantum physics, which I myself find difficult to believe...

Creation of life after terraforming of Earth:
I've come across one person in particular, who as an atheist like myself, did not believe that creation of life was possible. This means no offense to anybody who believes in any religions, but I tried to explain that life is created by chemical reactions resulting in pulses of electrical energy. And yet the theory of an "Almighty Being" creating life had finished the argument in my favor.


In a summary, are theories such as incomplete theorems(alchemy, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, ect.) and religious examples(1 Almighty Being, ## of various Gods/gods, ect.) allowed for backing an argument?

Even evolution is an incomplete theorem. There are still many intricate side paths that it has to run before it becomes accepted as scientific law.
But I think there has to be a sort of user consideration of religious examples being used. If you believe it truthfully, then you can, and should, use religious theories, with a good ordered presentation of logic and reasoning.
However, I've had people argue with me no matter how good I thought I presented myself. So in the end, I'll make it better, even if they can't stop arguing. The best point a debater can reach is when he/she has come to a point where he can easily counter any argument. But does this really need to be said?
I don't know whether I've reached this point, or if I even will. Even if I do, it wouldn't satisfy me like I thought it would. It's related to the Law of the Whitewashing Multitude presented by Mark Twain. xd

Der Freischuetz

OF course they are. Besides, if it isn't a good argument to begin with, that should make it easier for you to pick it apart. wink

Too true, but it makes me wonder: if people can pick each other's arguments apart so easily, and this becomes more common, I can't help but wonder whether or not there is anything called Truth when such an attitude of not giving up is established.

Seriously, if you are debating or even conducting a formal argument, trying to make a point by citing anything other than known 'laws' makes your argument facetious. It's the equivalent of "Because I said so" or "God made it so". Get real. wink  

[wildblackfire]

bubblez stare