Inquartata vs. Fatfencer

[rcmatthews]

So, who won the argument?

[KD5MDK]

Water Cooler for the Win.

[downunder]

what if they both lost?

[D'Art]

Where's the option for "Who cares?"

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by downunder

what if they both lost?

Then clearly the poll would be flawed.

-B

[noodle]

the world may never know

[Inquartata]

Which of course it is. They all are.

Besides, who said the argument is over yet? In the words of Cyrano, "Je me bats! Je me bats! Je me bats!"

[fatfencer]

Debates are better in person than via thread.

Then a panel of judges can write down the args(called a flow sheet)

and based on them come to some conclusion.

What passes for debate here is a boiled down version of Lincoln Douglas with a good deal of armchair latin phrasing thrown in. its very difficult to follow all the branches on the threads and stay coherent.

There were 3 key issues:

1)whether it is honorable/of integrity to acknowledge touches and if so does that mean it is less or not honorable/of less integrity to not acknowledge. If the standard for 'less' means more general, more common, and withholding the truth as it happens then yes I believe it is. There are times when a ref blows a call and both fencers know it. That fencer, should they wish to maintain a higher standard of integrity, win bouts based on touches EARNED not given, acknowledge.

2) Inq's fencing expertise vs my own: Not really relevant to the thread except I felt that one of the underlying themes of this thread was that 'competitors given so much time effort, money spent, etc. do not have the luxury to acknowledge. That sport fencing is too serious and that serious competitors would never acknowledge. I have seen world cup fencers acknowledge prior to a ref making a decision. torino games I think and elsewhere in fencing footage.

I brought this up because I believe that to spend that level of committment towards this sport of ours would make it impossible, for me at least, to hold to that line of thinking. I wouldn't sully myself with a touch i didn't earn.

As for his rep he's a fine guy and a good friend actually. In terms of saber I think he's actually mistaken about a great deal, namely ROW and how it is established. My coach, Florin Paunescu teaches the 'world cup fencer' at our club and he's one of the 2 that Inq acknowledges can beat him easily. That chlean WC fencer loves Florin's method and uses it on the strip against Inq. How idiosyncratic could the method be?

3)Finally there's this discussion on RAA, what it is and how it can or should be used.

It is a rhetorical technique: its usage does not prima facie guarantee that its place in a proof of any kind won't lead to a fallacy. In fact often it does because it is so poorly used.

For RAA to be successfully used in proofs requires that it doesn't contain any of the various ad hominem, populam, strawman, or any other other fallacy, thusly negating the RAA. Often, it plays to acquiring pathos or rapport, thus violating at least ad populam.

AS a rhetorical(debate) technique for it to be successful it may contain a great deal of fallacy; if well hidden a common lay judge, like on this forum for ex. could be easily swayed.

Professional debate judges/coaches/former debaters usually have higher standards than to use RAA. When it is used it is done so primarily in Lincoln Douglas(tv-style) debates. In that case for RAA's to work as well as Inq would have liked his to, the underlying comparisons would have to have some better relation. Though an underlying ad hominem existed the "Senator, you're NO JAck Kennedy" line was a great RAA. Fallacious to be sure, but a great one.

If he would have thought os something he thought ot be equally absurd in fencing as he thinks acknowledging touches is and used THAT for his RAA he would have been better off.

Otherwise its just and absurdity that Inq claims has a non-causal link of similarity. These links are tenuous at best.

That's a lot to say, but all said, it is all I have decided to say on the matter.

FF

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

That's a lot to say, but all said, it is all I have decided to say on the matter.

Didn't you already say you weren't going to post any more on this?

Gah! what a liar.

[academe]

Settle it:

Arizona Division Upcoming Events -
Sun Feb 25th 12:00 PM Open Mixed Saber

Special Cage Match event: Inq and FF, debate to follow...

Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!

[scrapinpeg]

Interesting. Trial by Combat (technically, "wager by battel") wasn't abolished in English law until after the United States had adopted England's common law. No court has yet had to rule on its legality, in all these years, so in the USA trial by combat is still technically a lawful dispute resolution at common law.

Man, if I ever get sued, I'm totally asking for a writ of whateveritis, epees to X points. Just need a judge who knows how to ref.

[rcmatthews]

See, if you convince your audience, all the debate rules in the world amount to nothing. Thus the purpose of this thread.

Nice vote for yourself

[OROD]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

So, who won the argument?

And what argument would that be? Shouldnt there be a link for those of us that dont have a clue what this is all about?

.

[erooMynohtnA]

I'm going to have to say no victor but a clear rhetorical edge to Inq.

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

See, if you convince your audience, all the debate rules in the world amount to nothing. Thus the purpose of this thread.

Nice vote for yourself

Ahh thanks for pointing out the difference between rhetoric and logic. Not one and the same is it.

FF

PS: DUH!!! WHy would I vote for Inq, Love the guy personally but in this regard I think he is developing Down's or something!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)

[rcmatthews]

Originally Posted by OROD

And what argument would that be? Shouldnt there be a link for those of us that dont have a clue what this is all about?

.

ask and ye shall recieve

Some Interesting Ethics Questions

[latenight]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

PS: DUH!!! WHy would I vote for Inq, Love the guy personally but in this regard I think he is developing Down's or something!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)

You don't develop Trisomy-21 (Downs), you are born with it. I don't find using the condition in jest very honorable, but maybe that's just me.....

[RebelFencer]

Mongoloid he was a mongoloid....happier than you and me...

[rcmatthews]

Originally Posted by latenight

You don't develop Trisomy-21 (Downs), you are born with it. I don't find using the condition in jest very honorable, but maybe that's just me.....

Certainly more dishonorable than not acknowledging a touch

[Interrupter]

Is he really fat like clarified butter: and does Inquart actually do the inquartata on the piste. I vote that both have points and that they are slowly making their way to their craniums. On the other hand, I would have to watch the two fence.