Men of Honour 2013?

javv5

javv5

javv5

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
450
Location
'Low
5uB if anyone. Castiel never, for trying too hard and citing too many quotes from Google in his debates. You can see his life will not be complete without having "Don" under his title. Not that I am stating the obvious in any way whatsoever, it's jmho ;)
 

'Harry

'Harry

'Harry

Permabanned
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Posts
2,243
Location
France
5UB is great at his job (from what I've seen), but being an admin he can't win.

You lot at OcUK HQ should give 5UB a pay rise though...dude needs to eat more ;)
 

Nix

Nix

Nix

Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2005
Posts
19,841
ImMrChris definitely (not on the bandwagon here, I genuinely thought this myself a few months ago)
Nitefly
Raymond Lin
 

Nitefly

Nitefly

Nitefly

Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,492
Aha, it seems that I have been somewhat misinterpreted. Here's what I should have written (underline added to mirror italic emphasis):

Because if you have to google something to fill a hole in your knowledge to reassure yourself of your position in order to defend yourself, you have pretty much conceded that you didn't really know what you were talking about in the first place.
Click to expand...

In other words, if you have been arguing something at great length and start researching new avenues with the purpose of defending your position (as distinct from simply learning about a subject area), a giant red flag should start waving in your head.

I assume that the comments quoted here will largely fall away as a result, but further discussion below!

Burnsy2023 said:
But the skill isn't in knowing beforehand, it's about being able to educate yourself quickly about a subject.
Click to expand...

If this was actual competitive 'public debate', as in, ~5 minutes per person with two teams, one team for and one team against the set motion, then I'd agree. But it's not, because nobody on here has to argue a position and everyone is free to make up their own minds. In reality, forum members decide their position and subsequently bring in 'new evidence' to justify their position or attack another's. The winner is essentially the person who can be bothered to argue for the longest.

semi-pro waster said:
So to check something out from another source is almost an admission of a lack of knowledge in your view?

I'd have to disagree but maybe that's just because I quite often look up things I think I already know to check them before I post. Maybe it's a lack of confidence but I think it's almost somewhat remiss not to check facts that are easily verifiable before going too far down a path. However I'd suggest there is a difference between just checking facts and using a search to find a position to adopt - there's not necessarily anything wrong with the latter but it's worth being honest about it if that is what you're doing. Also as Burnsy says it's a skill in itself to be able to research and come to conclusions quickly and correctly - your studies of the law will have taught you that it's not simply all about knowing, often it's about knowing where and how to look it up.
Click to expand...
See clarification above.

Theophany said:
Not necessarily. Googling to fact check yourself is good practice that I wish more people did (and is a reason I avoid any form of serious debate in GD). More to the point, if you take that viewpoint to its logical conclusion, what is the point in educating yourself at all?
Click to expand...
See clarification above.

Castiel said:
Quite, forming an initial opinion on an interesting subject and then researching that opinion to ensure it is both validated and robust or if not then adjusting your opinion as your knowledge broadens in order to effectively debate with others and educate yourself in the process is something more people should do, rather than rely solely upon the stated opinions of others or articles in the daily press without truly understanding or having an informed opinion of your own. Nitefly should know this better than most considering his own studies in Law and the use of various source materials and tools in many of his own debates on this forum, particularly regarding evolution.
Click to expand...
You see, that's all well and good, but I think what people actually do is form an initial opinion on an interesting subject, get into a debate about it and then research that opinion to ensure it is validated and robust, coming up with new arguments in the process. This is 'wiki-warrioring'. If you don't have an in-depth knowledge of something, then you shouldn't be taking such a strong view on it in the first place.

Castiel said:
I find it incredulous that on such a technical forum that using research and exterior sources and the various tools available to broaden, inform and support your own position and broaden your own knowledge is so frowned upon in some quarters.
Click to expand...
You just hit the nail on the head for me here (I'm not going to be hard on you personally for it, it's just the way you wrote this demonstrates my point perfectly).

You should never research to support your own position. You should research, learn, and only then decide if this information supports your existing hypothesis.

As a side note, from my own studies, I know how woefully incorrect and misleading websites such as wikipedia are, so using these websites as a reference point when arguing at great length does make me raise my wiki-warrior detecting eye-brow. Depending on the context, I may be more inclined to believe someone if they used no reference at all.

I hope that clears things up :)
 
Last edited:

Kenai

Kenai

Kenai

Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,862
The wiki warrior thing becomes doubly funny when said person reels a load of clever and knowledgeable sounding things off in the middle of a debate as if they knew this stuff all along but the contents reads remarkably similarly to the summary sections on the relevant wiki page, along with all the cited facts and figures being lifted straight from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom