Most common attacks

[SPOOFE]

Well, you did fashion it as a propaganda site. When you conveniently leave out the negative, what do you expect?

You've just betrayed the fact that you don't know how to debate in the foggiest. Under normal debating parameters, one doesn't NEED to present both sides of the story.... only the issues that support their stance. The OTHER side (namely: You) needs to provide the counter-evidence, and then Wong can counter the counter-evidence, etc.

That's how a debate goes. Is it biased? Yeah. But Wong's argument is "Just because I'm biased, that doesn't mean I'm wrong."

[Master of Ossus]

Look, DarkStar, ALL of the evidence is pointing in one direction. The Empire is vastly more powerful than the Federation. You act as if not finding arguments for ST is an example of bias, but sometimes there ARE no bits of evidence pointing in one direction. Science ruled out spontaneous creation of living organisms hundreds of years ago. There was NO evidence indicating that spontaneous creation of complex living organisms was a valid theory. ALL of the evidence indicated that flies did not grow out of meat unless other flies landed on the meat and laid their eggs. That was not an example of bias. If one side of an argument is presented and the other is not, there are a couple of possibilities. One is that the side doing the presenting is purposely preventing you from learning what is actually going on. The other possibility is that there is NOTHING supporting the other side. In this case, the latter is far more true than the former. This is not an example of bias, it is an example of someone who has examined the evidence and has drawn conclusions based on that evidence.

[Crown]

Most of the attacks, if not all, are just generated by ego. Trekkies seem to think if they can somehow point out a mistake, be it spelling or just reference, they have somehow made their 'bones' and in the eyes of other rabbids they become an authority figure... Big deal! They are just nit-picking morons!

[Darth Wong]

Darkstar merely subscribes to the common belief that equality of opportunity = equality of outcome. In socio-economic terms, this is communism as opposed to meritocracy. In a debate, it means that anyone who doesn't find merit in his opponent's position must be cheating and treating the two sides unfairly.

I once had a huge raging argument with a guy who insisted that it is impossible to apply force without consuming energy (you'll never guess who it is; he's a big name in online SW fandom). He got angry at me for correcting his laughably bad physics and E-mailed me to whine that I refused to make even the slightest concession (why should I? I'm right and he's wrong!), therefore I'm an unreasonable debater and I obviously don't know how to debate properly (read: I should treat debating like political negotiation).

Sadly, this kind of thinking is very common, hence the popularity of things like "intelligent design" creationism. It paints itself as the "reasonable" middle ground between young-Earth creationism and evolution theory, so all "reasonable" people should presumably adopt it.

[DarkStar]

Guys, I find it very amusing that you're actually making my argument for me. Wong whined about people saying he was biased, and now Spoofe and friends are saying "Well, OF COURSE!"

Way to go.

Darkstar merely subscribes to the common belief that equality of opportunity = equality of outcome. In socio-economic terms, this is communism as opposed to meritocracy. In a debate, it means that anyone who doesn't find merit in his opponent's position must be cheating and treating the two sides unfairly.

No, idiot. I'm not suggesting that you are biased because you don't find merit in opposing positions. I'm saying your site shows bias because you don't even bother acknowledging evidence that shows anything less than maximum figures for Star Wars, even if it comes from your own canon and non-canon. Meanwhile, you'll happily try to slide all sorts of anti-Trek bullshit under people's radars, like you did with the argument that Trek transporters couldn't beam through heavy metals.

I once had a huge raging argument with a guy who insisted that it is impossible to apply force without consuming energy (you'll never guess who it is; he's a big name in online SW fandom). He got angry at me for correcting his laughably bad physics and E-mailed me to whine that I refused to make even the slightest concession (why should I? I'm right and he's wrong!), therefore I'm an unreasonable debater and I obviously don't know how to debate properly (read: I should treat debating like political negotiation).

If he was incorrect, you did just the right thing. Facts are facts, and there can be no compromise. The problem with your site that people keep pointing out to you is that you are failing to account for facts detrimental to your position on Star Wars (i.e. anything that weakens Wars), and ignoring any facts which are detrimental to your position on Star Trek (i.e. anything that strengthens Trek).

You're the one who made your bed. Quit bitching when you have to lay there.

[Darth Wong]

Darkstar, perhaps you should simply put "Darth Wong hides information detrimental to Star Wars" in your sig, since you repeat it in every post and mindlessly ignore dozens of challenges from dozens of different people to produce anything more than nitpicks to support your claim.

Every one of your posts says basically the same thing anyway. You hold the dubious distinction of being the only person to support John Clark's method of attacking my credibility.

[SPOOFE]

Wong whined about people saying he was biased, and now Spoofe and friends are saying "Well, OF COURSE!"

Wrong-O, chucklehead. Learn how to read. Mike mentioned how accusations of bias were attempts to show how his work was flawed. I pointed out to you that, yes, he is biased - as are we all - but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of objective analysis.

[SPOOFE]

Pressed reply too quickly.

I'm saying your site shows bias because you don't even bother acknowledging evidence that shows anything less than maximum figures for Star Wars, even if it comes from your own canon and non-canon.

That ain't a demonstration of bias, Junior. He demonstrates his bias when he points out that idiots like you are, indeed, idiots ('course, there's nothing wrong with being biased against idiots). His site is geared towards pointing out the strengths of the Empire, and he uses objective scientific analysis to reach his conclusions.

Refraining from bringing up points cogent to your opponent's side of the debate is not "bias". That's proper debating format. Take a debate class, for fuck's sake, wouldja?

[DarkStar]

Darkstar, perhaps you should simply put "Darth Wong hides information detrimental to Star Wars" in your sig, since you repeat it in every post and mindlessly ignore dozens of challenges from dozens of different people to produce anything more than nitpicks to support your claim.

Why do you lie? I've ignored no challenges, and have provided a few of the many possible examples. The only thing I ignore is your insistence that everything I say is a nitpick.

[DarkStar]

Wong whined about people saying he was biased, and now Spoofe and friends are saying "Well, OF COURSE!"

Wrong-O, chucklehead. Learn how to read. Mike mentioned how accusations of bias were attempts to show how his work was flawed. I pointed out to you that, yes, he is biased - as are we all - but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of objective analysis.

Perhaps, but as you yourself claimed, he only has to present the evidence to support his view. That is all he does.

Spoofe: "That's how a debate goes. Is it biased? Yeah. But Wong's argument is "Just because I'm biased, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.""

[DarkStar]

Pressed reply too quickly.

I'm saying your site shows bias because you don't even bother acknowledging evidence that shows anything less than maximum figures for Star Wars, even if it comes from your own canon and non-canon.

That ain't a demonstration of bias, Junior. He demonstrates his bias when he points out that idiots like you are, indeed, idiots ('course, there's nothing wrong with being biased against idiots). His site is geared towards pointing out the strengths of the Empire, and he uses objective scientific analysis to reach his conclusions.

Refraining from bringing up points cogent to your opponent's side of the debate is not "bias". That's proper debating format. Take a debate class, for fuck's sake, wouldja?

Objective scientific analysis doesn't involve conveniently leaving out points just because they don't fit within your desire to make something one thing (i.e. more powerful) or another.

[Darth Wong]

Objective scientific analysis doesn't involve conveniently leaving out points just because they don't fit within your desire to make something one thing (i.e. more powerful) or another.

Unless those points are either erroneous or trivial, which is true of all of your so-called "points".

[Master of Ossus]

The world does not revolve around compromise, DarkStar. In the "stupidest thing you've ever heard" forum, should I have compromised with my teacher and said that SOME of the second Oxygen atom should have formed water? I was right, and my teacher was wrong. There is no reason to even recognize the other's POV at that point. We do not have to recognize each one of your moronic points, in fact it would be folly for us to do so. We do not have to compromise with you and say that some of your points are valid and some of them are not. ALL of the points of yours that I have read have been incorrect. No compromise is necessary or even advisable.

[Vapthorne]

Objective scientific analysis doesn't involve conveniently leaving out points just because they don't fit within your desire to make something one thing (i.e. more powerful) or another.

Bringing up points that hurts one own argument is not the job of a debater, that is something his/her opponent needs to provide. Granted they do in an intelligect fashion, ie, provide proper evidence and come to logical conclusions, etc. If they can't they have no argument. That's not bais, that's the name of the game.

[Master of Ossus]

Objective scientific analysis involves considering all evidence and then drawing conclusions based on that evidence. If, in one hundred experiments, only one of them deviates from the norm, you write that one up as an anomaly and move on. In SW vs. ST, the Federation MIGHT show firepower greater than SW in ONE example, taking the lower limit for SW and the upper limit for ST. If they do in one example, but in all other examples this is not true, then you write that one up as an anomaly. Granted, you pay attention to it, but you can disregard it IF all of the other evidence clearly indicates that it is an anomaly. That is what is going on, here.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, that's not what is going on here. The Federation, in this example, has not demonstrated Imperial level firepower or shield strength.

[SPOOFE]

Perhaps, but as you yourself claimed, he only has to present the evidence to support his view. That is all he does.

Indeed. Most evidence is subjective. He interprets the evidence in such a manner to try to reach the most inclusive conclusion (the one that encompasses the most evidence possible).

Just because YOUR interpretations do not jibe with his, that doesn't mean he's been "ignoring" them.

Objective scientific analysis doesn't involve conveniently leaving out points just because they don't fit within your desire to make something one thing (i.e. more powerful) or another.

But it does involve ignoring factors which do not affect the outcome of the rest of the combined evidence in the slightest.

All you've managed to do is show that your interpretations of the evidence available is contradictory to Wong's. Your method of subjective countering simply doesn't mesh.

[DarkStar]

Objective scientific analysis doesn't involve conveniently leaving out points just because they don't fit within your desire to make something one thing (i.e. more powerful) or another.

Unless those points are either erroneous or trivial, which is true of all of your so-called "points".

Interesting how every fact contrary to your position is "trivial".

[Master of Ossus]

DarkStar, look. We have clearly seen MULTIPLE times that SW ships have orders of magnitude more firepower than ST ships. We have seen that they are faster, more massive, and require more crewmembers. We have also seen repeatedly that the Empire's manufacturing capabilities are far in excess of those of SF. IF there is one example of when a SW ship appeared to have LESS firepower than a ST ship (I have never seen this), then we should write that bit up as an anomaly. We should take it into consideration, but since the vast majority of incidents show SW ships as being faster, stronger, and better protected than ST ships, we should either come up with some explanation for WHY it is the case in one instance but not in the majority of instances, or we should write it up but not use it when we are drawing our conclusions. I do not understand why you insist that we spend time to address every possible anomaly that you can come up with.

You have come up, now, with one example (collisions) in which you state that the difference between the two universes is not very large. We have examined your calculations, and we have found that there are some factors in your estimates that should be re-examined before conclusions based on your calculations are drawn. You have also showed several examples in which you claim that SW firepower is not nearly as great as we had been stating. Here, we have corroborated our numbers with other examples both from canon and official sources. You have ignored all of this and continued to attack the original calculations. You have decided that an incident Wong used to calculate X-Wing firepower was invalid and an anomaly, in spite of the fact that MULTIPLE other references both from the movies and from the books have demonstrated that X-Wings have similar firepower to our interpretation of that particular incident. You then insist that WE address other potential anomalies that you have discovered in Wong's work? Your reasoning is flawed, and your position is inconsistent. Please revise your work, re-examine the evidence, and come back with your revised conclusions.

[DarkStar]

Please revise your work, re-examine the evidence, and come back with your revised conclusions.

Until such time as you are able to show that there is a problem with the evidence, invalid or erroneous work, or that my conclusions are faulty, I see no need to change my reasoned arguments.

[Master of Ossus]

Look, DarkStar, you MUST admit that your volume for the Jem'Hadar ship is wrong. It is impossible for that ship to have that much volume. Even if you disagree with my scaling, Mike's asteroid density (ignoring the fact that the asteroids were almost certainly nickel-iron), and the relative velocities involved, you MUST admit that your volume for the Jem'Hadar ship was completely wrong. You have never even tried to defend that, indicating that you are conceeding the point, so go back and revise that.

[Lord_Vader]

DarkStar...upon reading your well reasoned points I am afraid that I find your lack of faith disturbing. Ossus has already mentioned several times the error of your ways. Yet instead of addressing those questions or whatever you instead focus on something else he said and then add that to your collection of arguments.

[Master of Ossus]

Thanks for the help, Lord Vader, but I'm not sure how effective it will be. One of DarkStar's most consistent tactics is to make an argument and then attack rebuttals by reiterating his original argument without modification. Still, we try to keep him honest as much as we can.

Welcome to Stardestroyer.net. DarkStar is a Village Idiot for that reason. The rest of us make points based on what other people tell us, but most Village Idiots either ignore other people's points or repeatedly post stupidly conceived ideas without any thought of what they are actually saying. Do not be fooled by their debating tactics or insults. Village Idiots are not easily swayed because they firmly believe what they are saying to everyone. Especially with DarkStar, you should avoid arguing with him as much as possible because he will eventually jam a thread with posts so long that most people just quit the debate and he claims victory by default.

[Lord_Vader]

Thank you Master of Ossus. I have been a big fan of this website...came here several years ago when I was just starting college actually. The forums are new. Thanks for the advice...I noticed someone named Darkling is now trying to debate the finer points of computers in the ST universe.

[Master of Ossus]

Thank you Master of Ossus. I have been a big fan of this website...came here several years ago when I was just starting college actually. The forums are new. Thanks for the advice...I noticed someone named Darkling is now trying to debate the finer points of computers in the ST universe.

Darkling's not an idiot, though. DarkStar is. I once confused the two of them, also, but they are VERY different people.