Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |  [ show all ]
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25921321 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Edit:  By the way, if Enlil was really interested in who's right, he'd WELCOME a discussion on the other topics that we haven't covered yet.  If it's about winning, he'd want to avoid those.


The search for the truth is the very reason why I won't do it your way.  There are many ways to seek the truth, and the adversarial system is but one.  We've chosen to use an adversarial system with a neutral judge deciding. 

The problem here is that a neutral judge becomes less and less neutral the more times we bring a particular claim before the same judge.  Further, rearguing the same story creates a cumulative effect of evidence across multiple "trials" which favors whichever party has the burden of proof.  Similarly, redos allow the party with the burden of proof to hone the rhetorical devices used which always works against the one defending against that burden.

There is a reason that prosecutors have an outrageously high conviction rate in retrials after a hung jury.

We can discuss as many false statements as you think are in that story.  I'm just not going to do that as an adversarial process.

I'm really okay with you winning here.  It doesn't matter that much to me.  I just don't want to dilute this process to the point where truth takes a backseat to tenacity.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25922032 -

ballsalsa said:
I think someone needs to be the bigger man here and acquiesce for the sake of the game.  I don't care which one of you it is.


I think someone needs to be the judge here for the sake of the game.  Asking Enlil and I to figure this out ourselves puts us right back to where we were before we tried this new format.  We both agreed to honor your decisions, and if either of us doesn't, then we're free to concede the game to the other person.

There are currently three decisions that we disagree on that require the judge's input to get us back on track.

  1.  Whether it was fair to bring up the rule that we only get one argument per episode AFTER one argument had already been brought up.
      a.  Enlil knew I was only going to make one argument when he asked "Are you finished in the other thread with your first round? I don't want to assume".  He should have explained why he asked me that, after I only brought up one point out of so many.
      b.  I am fine with this rule, I only think it should have been explained/agreed on first.
  2.  Whether other topics from the story on Venezuela are the "same story" or a "redo" of the original point on whether the US was at fault for Venezuela's crisis
      a.  To me, there are still many COMPLETELY different topics that haven't even been brought up at all before your first decision was made.
      b.  Even if you agree with Enlil on point #1 above, I still believe there are completely separate arguments.  I even said "I can certainly agree that once a lie is found in a story, we can rule that story fake and not use it for any other lies."
  3.  Whether to put all alleged lies into one giant post, or keep them separate.
      a.  I believe doing them one at a time works far better in an online discussion format.
      b.  If we do one at a time, I agree NOT to bring up any other points already ruled on, but I'll do whatever you want as judge.

Time to show some balls, bals and make some tough decisions.  :smirk:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25922101 -

Look,  the options are pretty clear here.  Enlil isn't willing to continue if we keep debating that episode.  We can either debate a different one or we can not debate anything.  to answer your questions,
1)It wasn't entirely fair, which I have acknowledged.  I don't think it's a bad rule though.
2)I would be fine with it either way, but Enlil isn't and I can't judge a debate with only one participant.  I made a ruling and I think we should move forward from there in the most productive way possible which, in my view, is to continue a debate with 2 participants. 
3)the format allows for 2 epic length posts, currently.  I'm very willing to see that revised.  Perhaps this period of open discussion would be a good opportunity to get feedback from the spectators as well as the 2 of you and set some clear and fair rules so nobody feels blindsided next time

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25922109 -

I don't think we're limited to one post each time, either.  We said we each get two turns.  Falcon and I agreed to a final argument with no new evidence for the petitioner.  I don't think there's any limit to how many posts one can use for his turn, though.

Frankly, I was blindsided when Falcon tried to bring up another part of the same story.  He says I made up a new rule, but to me, it looks like he did.  He picked a story from the source and chose to debate it.  After that story was found not guilty of being fake news, that was the end of it for that story as far as I was concerned.  If anyone was trying to pull a fast one, it was Falcon.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25922145 -

I can see both points. 
are we chopping this baby in half or what?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 3
    #25922164 -

I'm all for the following rules:

Petitioner picks a story.  It can be an article or video segment...whichever applies.

Petitioner goes first.  Takes as many posts as necessary to establish that the story is fake news.

Respondent rebuts

Petitioner goes again. 

Respondent rebuts

No more evidence is introduced.

Petitioner gets final word using only evidence already introduced within the above four turns.

Judge decides as to the entire story.  That decision is final.  If the story is fake news, the respondent picks a story and becomes petitioner for next round.  If it is not fake news, petitioner either concedes a final loss or chooses another story.

Stories must be from last five years EXCEPT falcon is allowed to go beyond that in this next round if he chooses to.

All other rules stay the same.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25922167 -

I'm not against that.

What say you Fal?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25922308 -

ballsalsa said:
Look,  the options are pretty clear here.  Enlil isn't willing to continue if we keep debating that episode.  We can either debate a different one or we can not debate anything.


Are you saying you're ruling for Enlil because he's the bigger cry baby?  Or perhaps I'm just not understanding what you just said?

ballsalsa said:
1)It wasn't entirely fair, which I have acknowledged.  I don't think it's a bad rule though.


And I said I'm perfectly fine with that rule as well.  But I'm not sure what that means for the first video?  Does that mean I can't touch it because it would upset Enlil (understandably given the vast amount of damaging content therein that hasn't even been discussed yet)?

I TOTALLY AGREE with Enlil that we should NOT be allowed to bring up the same topic twice.  That's almost common sense from a fairness perspective.  But I wanted to bring up NEW topics that are COMPLETELY SEPARATE than the first.  I would think that seems fair to anyone but a lawyer.

ballsalsa said:
2)I would be fine with it either way, but Enlil isn't and I can't judge a debate with only one participant.  I made a ruling and I think we should move forward from there in the most productive way possible which, in my view, is to continue a debate with 2 participants.


So your ruling is that different topics from the same video should count as the same topic?  Or is it that you want to emulate a court, even though none of us but Enlil are lawyers?

ballsalsa said:
3)the format allows for 2 epic length posts, currently.  I'm very willing to see that revised.  Perhaps this period of open discussion would be a good opportunity to get feedback from the spectators as well as the 2 of you and set some clear and fair rules so nobody feels blindsided next time


People who make their posts too long won't have them read.  I know this because people rarely respond to super long posts.  I'll do it however you and Enlil want though.


Far more important than any of the above, the purpose of this game is to determine whether RT has been more honest during the last 5 years than John Oliver.  So far, no one has posted any dishonest RT news from the last five years, but we have a John Oliver post full of questionable information of which we only reviewed 30 seconds from.  Enlil wants to censor the other 19 minutes, I want people to know about it.

So here is what I propose.  I'll present the remaining evidence from the John Oliver Venezueala post for the forum to read and make up their own mind.  If Enlil wants to defend it, fine.  If not, fine.  For purposes of the game, your ruling goes in Enlil's favor.

Does that sound fair???

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #25922449 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Are you saying you're ruling for Enlil because he's the bigger cry baby? 



If you can't handle doing this without name calling, maybe it's best that we just leave this where it is.

It was all one story, the topic of which was the Venezuelan crisis.  There were multiple stories in that episode, but the 19 minute video was a single story about Venezuela.  It's no different than me attacking a single article on RT.com.  You're being disingenuous here, and now you're resorting to name-calling.




--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25922723 -

I dont think there is much danger of folks thinking that LWT is a serious news program.  I tried to make it as clear as possible that i dont consider it as such, and that Enlil won based on a technicality.  That said, i'm more concerned with the process and format than the outcome of our first try at it.  I'm not dead set on being the final authority either.  It might be cool to have a rotation of jurists, or nominate a tribunal.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25922776 -

I had my reasons for choosing that source.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25923032 -

Enlil said:
ballsalsa said:
I dont think there is much danger of folks thinking that LWT is a serious news program.  I tried to make it as clear as possible that i dont consider it as such


I had my reasons for choosing that source.


Exactly - Enlil chose that as his source.  Now we're trying to determine whether LWT is more reliable than RT or not.

ballsalsa said:
i'm more concerned with the process and format than the outcome of our first try at it.  I'm not dead set on being the final authority either.  It might be cool to have a rotation of jurists, or nominate a tribunal.


Since we selected you to be the judge for this first trial, I believe it's absolutely imperative that you are the final authority.  This discussion won't go anywhere if you don't make tough decisions to keep this moving.  :shrug:

Please don't worry about hurting my feelings.  Whatever you decide I'll go with (and not hold it against you), even if I express my disagreement.  :smirk:  The important thing is that you make decisions.  :mushroom2: :thumbup:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25923043 -

Enlil said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
ballsalsa said:
Look,  the options are pretty clear here.  Enlil isn't willing to continue if we keep debating that episode.  We can either debate a different one or we can not debate anything.


Are you saying you're ruling for Enlil because he's the bigger cry baby?


If you can't handle doing this without name calling, maybe it's best that we just leave this where it is.


Sorry about that.  What's the word I should have used for your threatening to quit if you don't get your way?

Enlil said:
It was all one story, the topic of which was the Venezuelan crisis.


I think it was multiple stories, as I don't see what the elections in Venezuela have to do with the US creating a Venezuelan crisis.

Look, John Oliver does one half hour episode per week.  RT does news videos and news stories every single day of the week, plus a bunch of specials like "Redacted Tonight".  You have about 100 times more content to choose from to find fake news in.  I can't believe how much of a (insert the word you selected above) you're being about this.

Enlil said:
There were multiple stories in that episode, but the 19 minute video was a single story about Venezuela.  It's no different than me attacking a single article on RT.com.  You're being disingenuous here, and now you're resorting to name-calling.


I agreed not to discuss anything more about the US being responsible for the crisis.  I don't see what their elections have to do with the US being responsible for their crisis though.  To me, you're the one being disingenuous here.

Bals - why don't you rule who is being more disingenuous, and regardless we'll move on.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25923328 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Sorry about that.  What's the word I should have used for your threatening to quit if you don't get your way?




Principled integrity.

The reason I chose that source was because they have so little content. They're less likely to have fake news for that reason alone.

What's with the sour grapes? You lost on that story fair and square. Move on to another story.

You've already agreed that we will approach this one "story" at a time. 
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Let's play a game.  Tell me a news source that you trust more than rt.com, and I'll find a fake news story from them.  Then you do the same for rt.com.  We go back and forth until someone can't find a fake news story, and loses.  Ready?



I think all we really need,  ballsalsa, is a decision whether the following constitutes more than one story.




If it's one, falcon's whole argument is moot.  If it's more than one,  we need you to decide where each story begins and ends.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25923566 -

Enlil said:
What's with the sour grapes? You lost on that story fair and square. Move on to another story.


I don't know how many times I've agree with you on this already.  It was ruled it's not the US's fault for creating Venezuela's crisis.  Done.

Enlil said:
I think all we really need,  ballsalsa, is a decision whether the following constitutes more than one story.

If it's one, falcon's whole argument is moot.  If it's more than one,  we need you to decide where each story begins and ends.


Exactly.  You and I clearly disagree.  This is why we have a judge.  Balls?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25923974 -

I think we should treat each piece/video/article as one story.  I also think maybe we should have another round with the roles reversed.  New story from RT within the last 5 years.  Then both participants will have gotten their feet wet in each position.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25923991 -

Ok then, I guess I got burned for not knowing the rule before I made my post.  But I'll accept your decision as you're the judge.

But you're also saying that Enlil now needs to present a fake RT story from the last 5 years, correct?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25924009 -

That would be my preference, yes.
Like I said before, I see these opening salvos as more of feeling out of the process than anything.
In a way, yes, you got burned because we were making the shit up as we went, but my hope is that we can avoid that going forward.

Edit: Maybe Enlil could edit the rules we have so far into the OP so we don't have to go searching for them

Edited by ballsalsa (04/08/19 10:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25924038 -

So, I'm to present a second story before he presents a fake story?  How is he ever going to catch up?

I don't have a problem doing it, but I don't see how it's going to work unless we're saying that the story we've already agreed was fake news doesn't count.

I'm game, though, if that's the decision.



--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25924061 -

That's the spirit!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* American Propaganda
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 atomikfunksoldier 7,776 117 04/30/03 10:53 AM
by Rono
* US Propoganda
( 1 2 3 all )		 oO_wombat_Oo 1,689 51 04/10/03 10:53 AM
by Xlea321
* Propoganda... MokshaMan 1,253 13 11/02/01 06:33 PM
by ElPrimo
* anne coulter is on oreilly tonight
( 1 2 all )		 KingOftheThing 1,878 29 05/30/04 03:04 AM
by EchoVortex
* Feds Spend $1,000,000,000 on Anti-Drug Propaganda Ravus 1,029 6 02/02/05 05:59 PM
by Catalysis
* nutbag propoganda shakta 368 3 09/10/03 03:05 PM
by Edame
* How GIs in Iraq are Used to Spread Bush Propaganda Zahid 574 0 10/17/03 12:13 AM
by Zahid
* Israel v Palestine: who is right?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phalanxx 4,182 50 06/10/03 03:36 PM
by Phalanxx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,821 topic views. 0 members, 797 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.04 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 18 queries.