www.ditl.org

Irrelavent. Its not enough to see it. you have to be able to remember to the point where you can at the very least provide some evidence to your points. If you cant, then dont argue.

Reliant121 wrote:Irrelavent. Its not enough to see it. you have to be able to remember to the point where you can at the very least provide some evidence to your points. If you cant, then dont argue.

What's pathetic about this whole affair is that you can go look these episodes up on Trekcore, Memory Alpha, Wikipedia and Youtube for free.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Blackstar the Chakat wrote: I said I saw this episode! Am I saying this wrong? Am I not being clear enough?

You may have seen it but it's pretty clear that you don't put any effort into understanding it or any TNG.

Understand what? Dumb Ferengi guy salvages the Stargazer, which shouldn't have been combat capable, then takes over Picard's mind and goes for an overly elaborate form of revenge and loses his own ship to a mutiny. That's the gist of it right?

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:
Understand what? Dumb Ferengi guy salvages the Stargazer, which shouldn't have been combat capable, then takes over Picard's mind and goes for an overly elaborate form of revenge and loses his own ship to a mutiny. That's the gist of it right?

Congrats. Your problem is that you don't look any deeper than the surface of the show, leading to foolish assumptions about an outdated ship not being of use to an enemy for example.

Gist is not enough. you need the DETAIL to argue about it.

Blackstar, just how long has it been since you saw this episode? It's become quite clear that you have only the most basic knowledge about its events.

Rochey wrote:Blackstar, just how long has it been since you saw this episode? It's become quite clear that you have only the most basic knowledge about its events.

Oh, about two years or so. It wasn't that good of an episode.

The problem isn't one of detail, it's one of understanding and admitting one's limitations. Ex.: I make a point including a reference to an armed service SOP or something similar; Kendall or Monroe (who were both professional soldiers) or Seafort (who is a professional military historian) correct what I say.

My options are:
A (incorrect) - argue with them about a subject of which they obviously have greater knowledge than I; or make tangential, straw arguments to completely avoid/ignore the point which I can't answer or contend.
B (correct) - acknowledge the fact that I may have been incorrect. If I feel pretty damned sure about my position, I can even ask for the derivation of the conflicting position... if I am still shown to be wrong, then so be it. I move on, secure in the knowledge that having made a mistake doesn't affect my value as a person.

Do we all see the difference?

You know what I think? I think you all take this stuff, waaaaaaaay too seriously. Try to relax and have a little fun with this. I almost never win an arguement, yet sometimes I think I have more fun then anyone else here.

It's not a question of winning or losing; I think we all enjoy a good debate. But a "good" debate is not what occurs when one party is trying to talk rationally but the other ignores points, contradicts himself, or waves away counters to his own points with claims of irrelevancy. That sort of thing is what prevents these debates from being fun.

plus i dont debate for fun. i debate to be factual. my fun is in the more...casual threads.

Reliant121 wrote:plus i dont debate for fun. i debate to be factual.

It's possible to do both. To continue from Mikey's point a proper debate, where both sides approach it honestly and openly, can be very fulfilling. You can learn an awful lot of stuff from someone who knows what they're talking about, and even if you've got plenty of background knowledge of the subject the very fact that there are multiple people involved means that there will be different opinions and ways of looking at the subject. This means that far more ground can be covered by the group, and far more possible scenarios analysed, than any one individual could possibly achieve. This is something I find immensely rewarding.

The premise is, however, dependant on honest, rational debating by all parties.

People sound upset and I wasn't even around to cause it...

Ahh yes Crush. Tempers were indeed flaring. Even some light name calling as I recall.